FAMILY LAW REFORM 

 

​

After decades of research, we stand alongside Dr. Ludwig Lowenstein and Dr. Craig Childress, and declare that Parental Alienation(PA) should be reclassified as "Attachment-based Parental Alienation", (Childress), and listed as "Child Abuse, confirmed" in the DSM-V and the Criminal Code of Canada.

​

"It is my professional judgement as a licensed clinical psychologist and as a child and family therapist that the interpersonal processes of a parental alienation dynamic represent a severe form of psychological child abuse commensurate with the most severe forms of child physical, sexual abuse and neglect. This dynamic manifests a severe form of emotional-psychological domestic violence perpetrated on both the targeted parent and the victimised child.  The legal and mental health response to a professionally established clinical diagnosis of a parental alienation dynamic should be commensurate with the legal and mental health response to child abuse and domestic violence. This response should be supported by the force of explicit legal statutes commensurate with those governing other forms of severe child abuse and domestic violence." Dr. C. Childress Psy. D.

​

The "Cluster B" personality disorders DSM-5 diagnosis of the "pathogenic parenting" that creates Attachment-based Parental Alienation can be found under Borderline Personality Disorder on pages 663-666; Narcissistic Personality Disorder on pages 669-672 of the DSM-5; and Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, on page 719 of the DSM-5.

​

The specific DSM-5 diagnosis of the pathology which is given to the child, is:

DSM-5 Diagnosis 309.4  Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct

V61.20 Parent-Child Relational Problem

V61.29 Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress

V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed

(The DSM-5 or DSM V is the Diagnostic Statistics Manual, Edition 5, which is the official diagnostic system for mental disorders in the US and Canada.  The ICD,  International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is used more widely in Europe and other parts of the world.)

 

Dr. Lowenstein is quite eloquent in describing the construct of Parental Alienation and the effect it has on a child:

 

"Firstly, the crime committed by an alienating parent must be recognized for what it is. It is the cruel, brainwashing of a vulnerable child against a loving parent. Often the child has in the past had a warm and loving relationship with the now absent parent. In time, however, the child's love for the absent parent turns to hate and indifference. This can only be due to the manipulative alienator who has successfully brainwashed the child. The result is, an angry child who wishes no, or little, contact with the now non custodial parent. If contact does occur, it is in the form of the child throwing out insults out of loyalty for the alienating parent. Which is in itself an injustice. This blights the child's life for years as the undeserved, now hated parent, remains as such. Frequently, in later life, especially if that parent has died, the alienated child having become an adult will feel considerable guilt over his/her actions (Gordon, 1998). In fact some children who remain dependent and enmeshed with the alienated parent into adulthood may be at risk for reenacting parental alienation with their own children."

 

The good doctor goes on to suggest that Parental Alienation driven by the alienating parent, "is obviously also a crime against a parent who wishes to be involved with his/her child and is prevented from doing so due to the hostility of one parent. Such hostility may well be counteracted by the Court using sanctions, threats and eventually punishment against the offending parent, including the removal of the child from the control of the abusive parent. It could simultaneously lead to a change of custody of the child to the unjustly alienated parent."

 

The exceptions, states Doc Lowenstein, are "where a parent has proven to be a bad parent towards the child and has been an abuser either physically or mentally or sexually. The child needs protection against this kind of parent and it is for the courts to decide what should happen if and when there is proof of such abuse and not just an accusation. "

 

Many custodial parents, as part of the alienation process, will state that abuse has happened when it has not. This is very damaging to the absent parent and also to the child to believe that he/she has been abused by one of his/her parents. This however, is often used by the vicious custodial parent as a ploy against the absent parent to prevent contact with that parent. Similarly, domestic violence or abuse, or potential abuse is also used in this way to obliterate a parent due to the implacable hostility during an acrimonious divorce and separation. This is often used as a potential weapon against the absent parent.

 

What are the problems in making such a decision as removing a child from the custodial parent?

There is little doubt that difficulties will arise in carrying out such a justified action. The child is likely to be opposed to leaving the orbit of the alienating parent. The child is likely to be unaware of how he/she has been manipulated (abused) by a parent who wants to hurt, if not obliterate, an innocent, loving other parent. This is never in the best interest of the child when it occurs.

The child is likely to object vehemently in being moved to the other parent who has frequently been demonised by the alienator.

 

It must be remembered that the child is a pawn in the ongoing animosity which the alienator expresses towards the absent parent. The child has been under the total control of the alienating parent. The child has therefore totally identified with the alienator. The alienated parent has little or no opportunity to prevent or counteract the influences of the alienator. Furthermore, the child having, it appears to the child, lost one parent, fears losing the other also. It is for this reason that the child will give a total loyalty to the alienating parent and the avoidance and unjustified demonising of the absent parent. It is this fact of which the court must be aware.

 

The only solution to this problem is to be aware of the fact that the child's views are based on the injustice committed by the alienator in totally sidelining or attempting to sideline the absent parent. The child has identified with the viewpoint of the alienator because there has not been any other influence from the now absent parent, or other powerful voice, which counteracts such influences. It must be remembered that the child has a right to have a good relationship with both parents and that each parent must do all they can to encourage this. The child cannot make decisions, or decisions that are just or right. The child may well claim that they do not wish any contact with the absent parent because the child's mind has been poisoned. The child believes he/she has only one good parent while the other parent is "bad" and therefore should be sidelined.

 

This is why the child, when meeting the absent parent does so reluctantly and makes angry and abusive comments about that unjustified victim, the absent parent. The child will therefore often refuse contact knowing this is the wish of the alienator. The child will have contact reluctantly, with the unfairly demonized parent. This is the doing of the alienator who will seek every possible way of preventing good contact of the child with the absent parent. When contact is due the alienating parent will provide the child with desirable pleasures during the contact time with the absent parent. What child can resist an outing in preference to meeting the absent father/mother?!

The Courts are likely to view the situation very differently from that of an expert on parental alienation. The Judicial judgment will be based frequently on what the child appears to want to happen, or what the child says! The Judiciary may consider that the views of the child need to be respected without looking necessarily beneath the reason for that child rejecting contact with the good parent.

The Judiciary will more frequently continue to assign the child to the alienating parent, rather than removing the child from the poor influences of that parent. The child is viewed as having the "right" to make such decisions when in fact the child's decision to reject the non alienating parent is based on abusive influences by a hostile alienator.

 

Only the [competent] expert witness (a psychiatrist or psychologist) can provide evidence to the Court just why the child wishes to avoid and even obliterate a good father or mother from his/her life.

The Judiciary needs to decide which parent is truly best in rearing that child:

1.  Is it the alienator who does not desist from the process of alienating or,

2.  is it the unjustly rejected non custodial parent who has done nothing to deserve such rejection?

 

• A fair and just Judiciary should prefer to never reward injustice. This is regardless of the difficulties in putting matters right.

• A fair and just Judiciary, regardless of the child's indoctrinated wishes, should grant justice to the alienated victimized parent who truly seeks to behave in ways that are in the best interest of the child now and in the future, by not practicing emotionally abusive behaviour. That parent will initially have great difficulties in dealing with the alienated child.

• Help must be provided via therapy to assist the child to recognise that he/she has suffered abuse by a parent that the child has "blindly" trusted. This in itself will be difficult because of the strong attachment of the child to the alienating parent.

• The child must accept that what he/she has been taught about the absent parent is totally untrue and unjust.

• The child needs to accept that he/she has been deceived at a time when he/she is extremely vulnerable to negative influences in regard to the absent parent.

• It is the parent that does not practice emotional abuse who should have the future care of the child and custody.

• It is this parent, rather than the alienator who is capable of acting in the best interest of the child by never alienating that child against anyone.

• Such a parent deserves justice.

• The alienator has committed a criminal offence via the emotional abuse to which the child has been subjected. After having been duly warned to stop such abusing, and having received treatment, the alienator may be reinstated as a worthy parent then the parent encourages the child to have good contact with the absent parent.

• If such treatment or threats fail the alienating parent should be treated as any common criminal offender and receive punishment for the crime they have committed in respect to the child and also in respect to the alienated parent. In such a case the abused alienated parent should automatically be given custody of the child.

References

Baker, A. J. (2005a). The long term effects of parental alienation on adult children: a qualitative research study. American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(4), 289-302.

Gordon, R. M. (1998). The Medea complex and the parental alienation syndrome: when mothers damage their daughters' ability to love a man.

In G. Fenchel (Ed.), The mother and daughter relationship: echoes through time (pp. 207-225). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc. 

Levy, D. L. (2006). The need for public awareness and policy makers to respond to PAS: a neglected form of child abuse.

​