Parental Alienation Disorder

Basia Kowalik DDS suffered from Parental Alienation 12/28 by SyndicatedNews | Blog Talk Radio.

I am a daughter of immigrant parents from Poland. Both sides of my family came to the United States after the war as refugees from the Soviet gulags in Siberia. As an immigrant’s child, I strived hard to excel in school and was the first to achieve a doctorate in my family. In 1983, I married another immigrant from Havana Cuba. We shared a commonality not only in family history, but we also were students at the Marquette University of Dentistry were I received a degree in Dentistry. In addition, to having one of the top practices in the country, we published, lectured nationally and internationally in dentistry and business.

My marriage lasted 20 years. I had never truly understood it until it was over. I had been mentally and physically abused… dragged down 12 steps on my back, by my ankles. The word was control. I had married a narcissist and never knew it until he took the minds of my four beautiful children from me during the divorce. It was parental alienation at its worse and I found myself at the mercy of the legal system with no resolve in sight. My attorney, the guardian ad-litem, the court appointed psychologist and the judge all saw the horrific injustice and yet did nothing. Could they do anything? I collapsed from internal agony.

It was at that point that I had to make the most momentous decision of my life. Because I live in a 50-50% state, both parents have custodial rights unless one parent is totally unfit because of criminal record or such. I soon saw that because of his extraordinary behavior and need of total control, he would make it impossible to co-parent and my children’s lives would be havoc. We had joint custody, but I decided to give him physical custody of the children. I felt if I took away the battle, he would stop the war, but he didn’t.

Blinded, Bound, and Burdened: Parental Alienation and Two Theories– The Double Bind & Cognitive Dissonance by Monika

A double bind was first described by Gregory Bateson in the 1950s.  Bateson did not invent the double bind, but he was the first to describe the dilemma. What is a double bind and how is related to parental alienation? I will borrow the definition from Wikipedia. Obviously, I could refer readers to studies that high-light Bateson’s observations.  However, as many misinformed groups decide to dismiss Dr. Gardner’s empirical findings, it appears reality and reason is not always a concern.   

A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation (Wikipedia).

An alienated child is in a double bind.  As an example, a child arrives home smiling, eager to report about the great time spent with dad. Unfortunately, the mother never recovered from the divorce. She certainly does not want to hear about her former spouse. As the child starts discussing the good time at dads, the mother’s emotions begin to fester. She yells at the child. Next, she walks over  and holds  the child tightly. She glares into the child’s eyes, informing this just seconds ago happy child, that she does not want to hear about time with daddy. The child, startled, starts to cry. In turn, the mother acts concerned, at least for the moment. After that, she places  her arms around the child, giving an affectionate hug. All is well– at least for a moment.  The hug temporarily soothed the child. The mother realized the hug worked. Consequently, to gain back the unholy alignment she desperately craves, she  appears  teary eyed. As her eyes water up with tears, she looks at the child and says, it is okay to talk about time at dad’s house, but that it hurts mommy very much to hear about dad. Mother then smiles, and states, “hey lets go buy that $100 doll/ truck you have been wanting.”

Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them difficult to respond to or resist (Wikipedia).

A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in orders of messages, and these messages can be stated or implicit within the context of the situation, or conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed. (Wikipedia). One does not need an explanation—further complications will arise.  As a parent child relationship is ongoing, the child is committed and bound to live in perpetual emotional abuse. Because parental alienation does not include situations of physical abuse or neglect, the parent-child relationship will remain (with the favored parent).   

The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple contradictory situation, where the victim is trapped by two conflicting demands. While it’s true that the core of the double bind is two conflicting demands, the differences lie in how they are imposed on the victim, what the victim’s understanding of the situation is and finally, who (or what) imposes these demands upon the victim. Unlike the usual no-win situation, the victim has difficulty defining the exact nature of the paradoxical situation in which he or she is. The contradiction may be unexpressed in its immediate context and therefore is invisible to external observers, only becoming evident when a prior communication is considered. Typically, a demand is imposed upon the victim by someone who they respect (a parent, teacher or doctor), but the demand itself is inherently impossible to fulfill because some broader context forbids it. For example, when a person in a position of authority imposes two contradictory conditions but there is an unspoken rule that one must never question authority (Wikipedia).

Gregory Bateson and his colleagues defined the double bind as follows:

1. The situation involves two or more people, one of whom (for the purpose of the definition), is designated as the “victim”. The others are people who are considered the victim’s superiors: figures of authority (such as parents), whom the victim respects.
2. Repeated experience: the double bind is a recurrent theme in the experience of the victim, and as such, cannot be resolved as a single traumatic experience.
3. A “primary injunction” is imposed on the victim by the others in one of two forms:

• (a) “Do X, or I will punish you”;
• (b) “Do not do X, or I will punish you”.
• (or both a and b)



The punishment may include the withdrawing of love, the expression of hate and anger, or abandonment resulting from the authority figure’s expression of helplessness.

.

For a double bind to be effective, the victim must be unable to confront or resolve the conflict between the demand placed by the primary injunction and that of the secondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind differentiates itself from a simple contradiction to a more inexpressible internal conflict, where the victim really wants to meet the demands of the primary injunction, but fails each time through an inability to address the situation’s incompatibility with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus, victims may express feelings of extreme anxiety in such a situation, as they attempt to fulfill the demands of the primary injunction albeit with obvious contradictions in their actions. (Wikipedia)

Double binds can be extremely stressful and become destructive when one is trapped in a dilemma and punished for finding a way out. (Wikipedia). An alienated child does not have a way out. Sometimes claiming to love the other parent may cause the other parent to flee the country with the child. At minimum, the parent will become enraged and  engage in a full campaign of denigration.

The classic example given of a negative double bind is of a mother telling her child that she loves him or her, while at the same time turning away in disgust. (The words are socially acceptable; the body language is in conflict with it). The child doesn’t know how to respond to the conflict between the words and the body language and, because the child is dependent on the mother for basic needs, he or she is in a quandary. Small children have difficulty articulating contradictions verbally and can neither ignore them nor leave the relationship. (Wikipedia).

For some time, the word “theory” has been scrutinized. Many hurting parents have been told that their pain is nothing more than a theory. A theory does not equate made up junk science. On the contrary, it is a way to organize and verify information. In fact, given the double bind theory, another theory comes to mind. One wonders, if this situation is repeated, what possibilities the child may use to organize this information. Coming to mind is cognitive dissonance. Yes, another theory.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. I may be wrong, but hearing that it is okay and both not okay to discuss a good time at dads house, the child may feel conflicted. What is the child to do?  The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.

 In cases of parental alienation, the child may adopt a hateful attitude. The child is both internally motivated from the emotional roller coaster of the favored parent and externally motivated by fear of abandonment.  Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. The alienated child, may say something such as, “we no longer like daddy, he left us.” Most realize if this child were age six, the statement is borrowed (dad left mom, not the child).  It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. Parental alienation is also an extensively studied “theory”. Dr. Gardner identified eight manifestations that child may display. I included two of the many methods that may lead to parental alienation syndrome that are borrowed from the others theories. Please click here for peer-review studies.  

Caveat: Parental alienation is gender neutral. Both men and woman are alienated parents–the children suffer. Please pray for alienated children and their families.

Turkat (1993) echoes the current sentiments of custody evaluators, “There are few activities in which a mental health professional can engage that are more emotionally arousing, controversial, and potentially damaging than performing a custody evaluation.” He goes on to note, “psychologists are divided themselves about the importance and appropriateness of psychological testing in making a custody determination. The fact that there are thousands of tests available in the psychological literature only compounds the problem.”  One of the thousands of tests available is the Scale for Parent Evaluation of Custody (ASPECT).  After reading the review, I concur that professionals must incorporate multiple methods and have extensive experience.

The scale provides useful information however; custody should not be based exclusively from the ASPECT.  By definition, the ASPECT is, “A clinical tool designed to aid [italics added] mental health professionals in making child custody recommendations” (Buros Institute, 1992, p. 1).  The test publisher lists the price as $110.00 per kit.  The kit includes multiple parent questionnaires, answer forms, and a manual.  The time for test completion is not listed by the Buros Institute (1992, p. 1).  The Buros Institute notes that, three scales consist of (Observational, Social, and Cognitive-Emotional) yielding one score: Parental Custody Index (PCI).  The ASPECT requires, that each parent complete a questionnaire comprised of 57 open ended questions.  In addition, the ASPECT incorporates other psychological tests; tests that “are not included in the packet” (Buros Institute, 1992, p. 1).  Arditti’s review provides a noteworthy caveat:  “Unfortunately, clinicians who use the ASPECT are not likely to improve the quality and ethical propriety of their work.”

There are many reasons for Arditti’s warning to clinicians.  First, Arditti’s review pointed out that, content validity is thoroughly discussed.  She notes that, the ASPECT manual lists that content validity was from theoretical and empirical literature pertaining to divorce experience of children.  However, as the review does not disclose particular literature that was reviewed; one is left to speculate how extensive and un-biased the literature review may have been.  According to Arditti (1992), predictive validity has not been established.  The ASPECT does provide predictive validity, but it is based “only on judges’ awards of custody” (p.1 ¶6 ).  Clearly, predictive validity has not been established.  As defined by Neukrug & Fawcett (2010), “predictive validity is the relationship between test scores and a future standard” (p. 48 ¶ 3).  Due to the rise of post-divorce conflict, it is unclear how ASPECT results could relate to future criterion. The ASPECT would require constant review to keep up with shifting parental attitudes regarding custody.  Not to mention factors such as re-marriage, re-location, psychopathology, and post divorce adjustment.

Other considerations were internal reliability with alpha coefficients listed as .50 to .76 and low alpha subscales.  Arditti (1992) noted that, one should exercise caution when interpreting subscale scores.  According to Arditti, “low alphas suggest that the subscales, which may have some practical value, are probably not theoretically valid”
(p. 1, ¶ 5).  Moreover, the review noted that, factor analyses were not conducted.  I found most surprising the reviewer’s comments regarding the scoring procedures.  “The scoring procedures obscure clinical realities by requiring clinicians to average scores on particular items across the children in a family.  Incidentally, how does one “average” two responses (if there are two children) in a yes-no format?” (Arditti, 1992, p. 1, ¶ 8). Lastly, according to Arditti, “Its major shortcomings are its lack of internal validity and cumbersome administration, given the battery of tests deemed necessary.”  Given that the ASPECT incorporates other objective measurements, such as the MMPI-2, it seems better suited to replace the ASPECT with another sound objective measurement.

My reaction was one of interest.  Considering that reliability and validity were weak; it seems utilizing a test with higher validity and reliability would be most valuable. In addition, Ackerman and Schoendorf claim that the ASPECT “simplifies comparisons between parents” (p. 1, ¶ 13).  I found this questionable; if both parent’s desire custody their answers may be fabricated.  After all, both parents desire custody of his or her child. I agree with the review; it may be simple, but lacks validity.  Unlike the MMPI-2, which contains validity scales, the ASPECT does not report to measure “spoiled scores.”  Nor does this test review claim, that the ASPECT can determine parents’ attempts to spin answers.  The ASPECT review also noted that, thorough assessment of factors (e.g., support by third parties, such as stepparents and teachers) are not included.

I realize that testing is time-consuming and expensive.   Yet, when it comes to custody decisions, one should consider the child.  Custody in the wrong hands will cost society more in the long run, due to depression, anxiety and poor social adjustment. Ackerman and Schoendorf explain “that direct assessment of third-party involvement is “needlessly time-consuming and intrusive” when the parent can be asked about his or her perceptions of the third party.” (p. 1, ¶ 20).  There is no doubt, one can inquire about the parent’s perception of a third party.  One can reason that, not all third parties will remain un-biased.  However, to dismiss third party involvement does not seem wise.  The third party should be neutral, but knowledgeable.  Worse yet, are inexperienced evaluators. Turkat (1993) is accurate “many individuals engaged in the business of providing custody recommendations probably have no business doing so” (¶ 4).  Unfortunately, some evaluators indeed are placed in this role.  They take an adolescent’s claim, that one parent “does not buy them good clothes” and as a consequence, refer out the “losing” parent to counseling.

According to Campbell (2005), “of the approximately one third of divorces, that do not evolve into effective co-parenting, a subset deteriorates into parental alienation. In these instances, one of the parents persistently alienates his or her children from the other parent.”  Given the frequency of parents that are not able to co-parent; careful scrutiny of objective measurements are required.  Considering that some parents display psychopathology, I was surprised that the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inverntory (MCMI) is not more widely used.

It is not in the child’s best interest for a parent to denigrate the other parent in front of his or her child.  It is also not in the child’s best interest to become enmeshed and blur boundaries of parent-child roles.  Yet, many evaluators overlook the damage, that emotional damage can do.  Our current system believes “if you are not bruised you are not broken.”  I conclude a combination of the MMPI-2 (focus on Axis I) and the MCMI (focus on Axis II) would provide a better snap-shot of the parent.  Obviously, the best picture would include a utilization of the MMPI-2, MCMI, extensively trained evaluators, and environmental assessments.  Last, but not least, evaluators should consider clients’ autobiographies and journals.  Many knowledgeable parents keep detailed events prior to any vitriolic divorce proceedings.  

Works Cited

Arditti, J. (1992). Test review of the Ackerman-Schoendorf scale for parent evaluation of custody.  In Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1995), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved from the Buros Institute’s Test Reviews Online website: http://www.unl.edu/buros.

Campbell, T. W. (2005). Why doesn’t parental alienation occur more frequently? The significance of role discrimination. American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(5), 365–377.

Neukrug, E., & Fawcett, C. (2010). Essentials of testing and assessment: a practical guide for counselors, social workers and psychologists. Brooks / Cole. Belmont, CA.

Turkat, D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert’s custody report. American Journal of Family Law 7, 175-179. Retrieved on May 3, 2010 from http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/turkat3.php.

A Tennessee bill that would evenly split child custody in contentious divorce cases is drawing national attention and dividing groups along gender lines.On one side is an alliance of women’s groups, some judges and the Tennessee Bar Association, who say the change would make divorces tougher to settle and give abusive ex-husbands leverage they shouldn’t have. Spending half of the time with each parent would also impose impractical schedules on kids, they say.

 On the other side are fathers’ rights groups who say kids get deprived of full relationships with both parents. Courts have too long ignored laws calling for custody decisions to be made in children’s best interests, they say, and judges are overly influenced by notions about the mother-child bond.

 The state’s House Children and Family Affairs’ Family Justice Subcommittee is scheduled to meet today to review divorce-related data it requested from the Tennessee Bar Association, as it works to determine whether to send the bill to a second committee that could send it to the full House.

 Other states, including Missouri, start from a presumption of an even custodial split unless there has been abuse, said Janet Richards, a law professor at the University of Memphis who specializes in child custody matters. Tennessee would be alone in requiring clear, convincing evidence that one parent is unfit before dividing custody unequally, she said.

 ”This law sets up a standard of proof that’s just short of the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt,” Richards said.

 Committee hearings on the bill have drawn standing-room-only crowds full of mothers wearing saucer-size lapel stickers that read “Vote no on HB 2916″ and fathers wearing everything from military fatigues to business suits.

Right now, parents divorcing in Tennessee — or unmarried parents trying to work out custody arrangements — are urged to work out a plan with a mediator. Under the pending bill, courts automatically would divide children’s time equally between moms and dads who are unable to agree unless one parent can prove the other utterly unfit.

The way Eric Kyle sees it, he hasn’t been able to properly father his children since his 2005 divorce.

Kyle, who lives in Davidson County, Tenn., wanted his son and daughter to split their time equally between him and his ex-wife, who lives in Williamson County, Tenn. But when Kyle sought an attorney willing to try to negotiate that kind of arrangement, one after another told him the same thing.

“You either have to dirty up your ex and do whatever you have to to get full custody, or you accept what I understand is a pretty standard 80-20 time split,” he said. “Of course, it’s dads that get the children 20% of the time, in most cases.”

Rep. Mike Bell, a Republican and the bill’s key sponsor, said he introduced the bills after constituents’ complaints and hopes it might encourage more parents to reconsider divorce.

“It’s a concern that children are being deprived of one parent or another in most cases in a custody battle,” said Bell, who has been married 25 years and has five children.

Opponents want to scare the public with claims about children being shuttled back and forth and attending multiple schools, said Mike McCormick, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

“I say — with the recognition that there is nothing like (this bill) in the country — all it would actually do is require parents to be on equal footing in courts of law,” McCormick said. The bill ignores the problems some families have, said Kathy Walsh, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Some parents divorce after years of the kind of controlling, domineering or even violent behavior by one party that doesn’t go away just because the relationship ends, Walsh said.

She said the bill could prompt victims to stay with their abusers so they don’t have to leave their kids alone with the other parent.

Monica Gimbles said she doesn’t think the bill is realistic. She is in the process of finding an attorney to work out custody arrangements for her 5-year-old daughter with her onetime fiancé.

“This is the kind of idea that people come up with when they haven’t ever actually taken care of a child, a small child that needs a lot of care and takes a lot of time,” Gimbles said. “It just makes the child’s life topsy-turvy.”

 Please see Dr. Warshak, author of Divorce Poison

Breakthrough Parenting

Conscious Co-Parenting Institute (addresses Parental Alienation)

All About the Children

All About The Children is the premier web enabled divorce communications management tool for couples with children.

Children in the Middle (May be taken in privacy of your own home)  controlled outcome research outcomes

Parenting After Divorce

Up to Parents:  A free, confidential, and interactive website
for divorcing and divorced parents

When Parents Hurt

Our Family Wizard  

Our Family Wizard Page

The OurFamilyWizard website is an online custody calendar and information manager that allows you to easily schedule and track parenting time, share important family information and expenses as well as create clear communication.

Mr. Custody Coach

Whether you are just now beginning the journey through divorce, custody agreements, child support, and dealing with an ex-spouse who isn’t thrilled with you, or you’ve been dealing with these issues for years with no break, Mr Custody Coach and our team are here to help you get the most time with your children, stop the harassment, and move on with your life

http://www.childsharing.com/

Posted on December 3, 2008 by Sandra C. Fava

A NJ COURT DETERMINES THAT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION EXISTS

In a recent trial court opinion issued by the Superior Court in Hudson County, Judge Gallipoli recognized that parents in NJ may have a right to collect damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress when their relationships with their children are poisoned by former spouses or even grandparents who partake in alienating behaviors. 

In a November 21, 2008 trial court decision, the court recognized the right of one parent to sue another, as well as grandparents, for what is known as the intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In this particular case, the father sued the mother and maternal grandparents because they had alleged that the father sexually abused the children.  The suit alleges that the ex-wife and her parents began alienating the children from the father during the pre-divorce separation in 2006. The defendants allegedly told the children, court-appointed psychiatrists and law enforcement officials that the father was a sex addict and had molested the children in the past, the suit says.  It also says the children are afraid to sleep at their father’s home because they have been told they are in danger of being sexually abused.
The wife and her parents denied the allegations and argued in motions to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim that the Heart Balm Act had eliminated the cause of action of alienation of affection. They argued that the term “alienating the children” is what the complaint calls the alleged wrong.  Judge Gallipoli found that this claim was not a disguised claim for alienation of affections, which was banned in the state in 1935 by what is referred to as the Heart Balm Act.

This is the first time that a NJ Court has recognized the ability to bring such a claim.  A prior suit  was filed in the Morris County Superior Court but dismissed by Judge Rand on the grounds that the suit was nothing more than a disguised claim for alienation of affections.  Noting Judge Rand’s opinion in his own, Judge Gallipoli respectfully disagreed with Judge Rand’s interpretation of the decisional law in this state and found that a claim existed for these types of behaviors.  Since they are both trial court judges, Judge Rand’s opinion was not binding upon Judge Gallipoli.  Judge Gallipoli noted that the father would have to file an application in the family part seeking relief, however his claims against the maternal grandparents would proceed in the law division.

The real question remains as to how the Appellate Division and perhaps even the state Supreme Court will view claims such as these. 

EDITOR’S NOTE:  It seems contrary to notions of judicial economy, mandatory joiner and the entire controversy doctrine that the claims against the mother and her parents would be handled in separate venues. In addition, while there is precedent to bring tort actions related to a divorce in the family part, a party may have a right to a jury on these issues and the cases are often severed and sent back to the law division anyway. 

The bigger question is how a court should handle these claims in a post-judgment situation where there is not an ongoing matter and ultimate trial date pending.  While court’s can order plenary hearings post-judgment, it seems that when these issues arise post judgment, the better place for them may be in the law division. 

Also, the theory here that makes the claim viable is not that there has been an alienation of affections, but that a person’s intentional act has harmed another, where the only possible remedy for same may be money.   ERIC S. SOLOTOFF