Abstract & Summary
This article considers better, more just and effective ways the expert
witness and the Judiciary can work together to resolve complex parental
alienation cases. These cases tend to result from the implacable hostility
between two parents and most especially the custodial parent. First discussed are the problems and
reactions of the alienated child, especially the severely alienated child.
The author seeks solutions to such problems and delineates three scenarios.
The third scenario considers rectifying such disputes by promoting a
co-operative relationship between the expert witness and the Judiciary.
Some time is spent considering the change of residence of a child who has
suffered severe alienation towards once loved parent.
Finding a Real Solution to Complex Contact
Disputes Due to Implacable Hostility Between Parents
Introduction
No-one doubts the obvious, that
implacable hostility between parents, following divorce and separation has
severe implications for the security of children. The edifice or foundation
of the family is in danger when two parents live in disharmony with one another.
The result is the suffering of at least one parent and the creation of
anxiety, fear and sometimes depression in children. Due to the increase in
divorce and separation of parents this outcome in on the increase.
Children, especially very young
children are totally dependent on a secure relationship with at least one,
but even better, both parents. Children do not welcome disharmony in the
form of parents in turmoil. Children do not welcome the hostility which
results between parents following an acrimonious separation. It makes them
feel vulnerable and insecure to see those upon whom they so much depend
being hostile or even violent towards each other.
Once the parents have separated,
whoever has custody, (usually the mother), may seek to alienate the
children from the now absent parent, who is usually the father. It can
however, be the other way around, and is increasingly so. As an expert
witness dealing with family issues, I am finding an increase over the years
of mothers being alienated from their children when fathers are given
custody or control over the children, especially when a new partner comes
on the scene.
Those involved in seeking to
find a remedy to both the implacable hostility leading to parental
alienation, are expert witnesses, the Court, Social Services, CAFCASS,
Guardians ad Litem and others. The Judiciary very much depends on others to
provide them with ideas and directions to follow in order to deal with the
problems that follow after alienation or “brain washing” of
children has occurred against another parent.
In what follows we will consider the problems
of parents engaged in implacable hostility
and how this affects that child. We will then consider dealing with
the problems of the severely alienated child and the three possible
reactions to this situation: i.e. to do nothing, following the apparent
wishes of the child/children, or examining in depth and explaining contact
disputes and rectifying these. Finally, we will consider the most severe
and therefore controversial solution to parental disputes i.e. changing the
child’s residence and living with the alienated parent. Let us
finally consider the problems of the severely alienated child and how this
affects the child’s attitude and behavior towards the absent parent
1. The problems of the severely alienated
child
The problems of the severely
alienated child originate from the influence or the alienating parent and
the fact that the alienated parent is now absent. This alienating parent
tends to seek and have custody or control of the child and this provides
the opportunity to inculcate certain attitudes and behaviours which is
inimical to the child seeking to have a good relationship with the now
absent parent. Hence, the child echoes the alienating parent’s sentiments,
prejudices and hostility. Such children show:
(i) implacable
hostility towards the now absent parent;
(ii) imitate the feelings and behaviour of the alienating
parent;
(iii) have an irrational animosity towards the absent parent;
(iv) consider the need
for court action involved to be a direct attack upon the alienating parent
whose side they have taken in the conflict between the parents;
(v) negative attitudes
and demeanour towards the absent parent;
(vi) no ambivalence or
guilt about the fact that one parent has been considered all “bad,
vicious, evil, unworthy” etc. They are as fanatical as the parent who
alienates them about this view point.
(vii) feel no sense of
conscience about the attitudes and behaviour they have adopted where once
they felt love and affection for that now absent parent;
(viii) much as the
alienating parent, show hostility and denigrate the absent parent without
considering reasons for such blind and obsessive hostility;
(ix) the same attitude
and behaviour towards the extended family of the alienated parent where in
the past there has been a close relationship between themselves and their
grandparents, uncles, aunts etc.;
(x) no sadness in the
fact that they have lost the alienated other parent, and the immediate
extended family of that parent have all been rejected.
The
Honourable Judge Gomery working in the Canadian courts, states this wisely
and succinctly:[i]
“Hatred
is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A
parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent, represents a grave
and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.
“
One cannot help
but agree with this Judge but unfortunately like many in the Judiciary,
they do not provide an answer or a solution to this problem which is
workable just and effective.
If such children are forced be
in the company of the alienated parent, they will rebel knowing what the
alienating parent expects them to do. They are in a “folie a
deux”
situation sharing everything with the alienating parent especially the
paranoid delusions of the brain washing alienator. The bond of love and
affection they once felt for the absent parent has been totally destroyed
in extreme cases of parental alienation. Changing this pattern is fraught
with difficulties but efforts will be made by the current author to seek a
solution to this tremendous problem in society today.
Those who would seek to change
such ingrained attitudes and behaviour, face tremendous obstacles.
Therapists seeking to change such fanatical beliefs of total hatred for one
parent, and fanatical loyalty to the other, will be viewed by the child as
an “enemy”. Their
efforts will be staunchly resisted. In the end, such efforts will not
prevail unless very particular approaches are taken which are not currently
being used. This is due to the reluctance of both the Judiciary and expert
witnesses to take drastic action where it is needed.
Dealing with the problems of the severely
alienated child
There are several courses of
options being followed today by expert witnesses and the courts in dealing
with contact disputes or obstacles. The first approach is one that is
unfortunately followed more often than not and that is to do nothing to
interfere with the course of events. This would seem to be the least
desirable course of action. The second is to consider, somewhat blindly,
the actions which favour what is the wish of the child and most especially
the older child. This constitutes ignoring what has come before which has
influenced the child’s expressed wishes. The third approach is one
favoured by the author of this paper, but unfortunately it is also the most
controversial.
Let us look more closely at each
of these alternative approaches.
1. To
do nothing
Many instances of parental
alienation do not come to the attention of expert witnesses or the courts.
Such parental alienation situations die “a natural death” with
one parent opting out or being pushed out of the lives of his/her children,
in many cases for ever. The example which follows illustrates this.
“Mr X and his wife parted
after considerable disharmony resulting in numerous arguments which were
unfortunately witnessed by three young children. After leaving the
matrimonial home, Mr X lived on his own and continued to provide
financially for his family which he felt was his responsibility to do.
Eventually he met someone else, obtained a divorce and remarried.
His former wife as always made
it difficult for him to be with his children, most especially to be with
his children on his own. If she countenanced contact for him to be with the
children it was on her terms and with her always being present. This led Mr
X to start a new family and to see less and less of his former wife and
children. It is difficult to know how the children experienced this. They
might have felt that they were being rejected by their now absent parent.
On the other hand they might have felt that it is in the best interest to
have peace in the home even if only with one parent present.
Here the children of the first
marriage saw less and less of their former devoted father. The children
themselves were, apparently outwardly at least, content with the infrequent
visits of their father. In some ways, they were happier not to be
witnessing the unpleasant scenes between the parents. Mr X’s former
wife appeared also to be happier on her own with the children and being in
total control of the home and the children. She considered her former
husband’s presence to be superfluous.
Mr X, while regretting the quasi
loss of the children he loved, had a good relationship with this new wife
and eventually focused his attention on his new family. Mr X did not
believe it sensible to fight what was likely to be a losing battle with his
ex wife with whom he found it difficult to reside and to relate to. He
neither had the money for a protracted court battle nor did he wish to put
his children through this. He also had a distinct lack of trust in the
justice of the court in helping him to gain contact with his
children.”
Dealing with the problems of the severely
alienated child
There are several courses of
options being followed today by expert witnesses and the courts in dealing
with contact disputes or obstacles. The first approach is one that is
unfortunately followed more often than not and that is to do nothing to
interfere with the course of events. This would seem to be the least
desirable course of action. The second is to consider, somewhat blindly,
the actions which favour what is the wish of the child and most especially
the older child. This constitutes ignoring what has come before which has
influenced the child’s expressed wishes. The third approach is one
favoured by the author of this paper, but unfortunately it is also the most
controversial.
Let us look more closely at each
of these alternative approaches.
1. To
do nothing
Many instances of parental
alienation do not come to the attention of expert witnesses or the courts.
Such parental alienation situations die “a natural death” with
one parent opting out or being pushed out of the lives of his/her children,
in many cases for ever. The example which follows illustrates this.
“Mr X and his wife parted
after considerable disharmony resulting in numerous arguments which were
unfortunately witnessed by three young children. After leaving the
matrimonial home, Mr X lived on his own and continued to provide
financially for his family which he felt was his responsibility to do.
Eventually he met someone else, obtained a divorce and remarried.
His former wife as always made
it difficult for him to be with his children, most especially to be with
his children on his own. If she countenanced contact for him to be with the
children it was on her terms and with her always being present. This led Mr
X to start a new family and to see less and less of his former wife and
children. It is difficult to know how the children experienced this. They
might have felt that they were being rejected by their now absent parent.
On the other hand they might have felt that it is in the best interest to
have peace in the home even if only with one parent present.
Here the children of the first
marriage saw less and less of their former devoted father. The children
themselves were, apparently outwardly at least, content with the infrequent
visits of their father. In some ways, they were happier not to be
witnessing the unpleasant scenes between the parents. Mr X’s former
wife appeared also to be happier on her own with the children and being in
total control of the home and the children. She considered her former
husband’s presence to be superfluous.
Mr X, while regretting the quasi
loss of the children he loved, had a good relationship with this new wife
and eventually focused his attention on his new family. Mr X did not
believe it sensible to fight what was likely to be a losing battle with his
ex wife with whom he found it difficult to reside and to relate to. He
neither had the money for a protracted court battle nor did he wish to put
his children through this. He also had a distinct lack of trust in the
justice of the court in helping him to gain contact with his
children.”
2. Following
the apparent wishes of the children
In many cases that come before
the Courts of Law, it is the children who ultimately determine how much, if
any contact they have with a now absent parent. This is especially the case
for older children. Frequently expert witnesses adopt a similar stance:
“What can one do when the child states and behaves in a way which
indicates he/she does not want contact with the absent parent?” This
is despite the fact that before the break-up of the parents, the child had
a warm and loving relationship with the now absent parent.
The Court appear to see no need to
explore further why a child who was once so close to a parent in the past
now rejects that parent. The attitude of the Court is: “What can one
do when the child refuses contact with a parent?” This scenario is
illustrated by Butler-Sloss LJ , an alleged expert in cases of families in
turmoil, when she speaks about two children aged 11 and 13.[ii]
In Re S (Minors) )Access:
Religious Upbringing) [1992] 2 FLR 313
“
Nobody should dictate to children of this age, because one is dealing with
their emotions, their lives and they are not packages to be moved around.
They are people entitled to be treated with respect.”
This statement must be treated
as naïve, lacking in depth and fundamental understanding. It completely
neglects the fact that children are susceptible to powerful influences such
as the process of deliberate and vicious alienation. The “packages”
referred to in the quotation of Butler Sloss are indeed human beings with
emotions, but these emotions have often been “manipulated” by
one parent in order to eliminate the other parent from the child’s
life. This results in that often innocent, absent parent, with whom the
child has had a close relationship in the past, having none or poor contact. This appears
to be totally ignored by Butler Sloss and those who follow her views.
Hence the possible impact of
alienation has not been raised, instead of such important aspects being
investigated, the process and result of alienation has been ignored. The
child resisting contact with a now absent parent has been taken at face
value, instead of being thoroughly assessed, investigated and reported back
to the court.
The Children’s Act of 1989
again suggests that the views of children, especially older children, need
to be taken into consideration without adding to this after a full and
thorough in-depth investigation has taken place. What must be
investigated especially is why a child has an attitude such as not
wishing to have contact with a once close, loving and now absent parent,
and why the child expresses such hostility towards the now absent parent.
3. Explaining
contact disputes and rectifying these via expert witness and Judge working
together.
The third approach favoured by
the author, an expert witness who had been involved in many cases of
contact disputes, is an intensive investigation of why a child
refuses contact with a parent. Once cannot reiterated often enough that
many children caught up in the trauma of implacable hostility between
parents have more often than not enjoyed a close relationship with both
parents in the past.
If it can be established that
the child has been alienated or “brainwashed “ against the
absent parent, then the parent who does this is responsible for the
child’s decision to avoid or sabotage contact with the now absent
parent. In fact it is not at all the child’s true decision or
wish, but that of the resident alienating parent. It cannot be emphasised
too strongly, that the resident parent has a duty in respect to a
child having good contact with the now absent parent.
The parent will often claim to
have encouraged the child to have contact and states “but I
can’t force him/her”. Such excuses cannot be countenanced.
Having created the problem of antipathy in the child’s mind, the
alienator now steps back claiming that it is the child’s decision not
to make contact with the absent parent, and that it has nothing to do with
themselves. Having done the damage by destroying the image of a good parent
in the child’s mind, this alienating, deceitful parent now claims no
responsibility for the resulting emotionally abused child. Such deceit is
common but is so often overlooked by both experts and the Judiciary.
Such parents can be interpreted
by the child as saying one thing yet meaning another. The dialogue goes
something like this:
Parent: “I
think you should go and see your mother/father otherwise I will get into
trouble.”
Child: “But I don’t want to see
him/her….I have nothing good to say to him/her. I feel the same as
you do.”
Parent: “I can’t force you , but you should
go.”
Child: “If I don’t have to go, I won’t
go.”
Parent: “Then I will have problems with the
Court.”
Child: “If I go, I will only be angry and will
show this to him/her so he/she will never again force
me
to see him/her.”
The child then
verbally and sometimes physically attacks the once loved parent during
direct or supervised contact. The observer or supervisor after warning the
child from desisting from such insults towards the absent parent finally
curtails the contact. This scenario is reported after some delay back to
the Court. This is a very common scenario. It leads in most cases to no
further attempts of encouraging direct contact between the child and the
absent parent.
Not many members of the
Judiciary respond as they should respond after a report from an expert
witness psychologist/psychiatrist has been presented detailing the true
reason for the child’s poor behaviour during contact. This report
essentially states that the child’s inimical behaviour towards the
now absent parent is based on the influence of the alienating parent,
leading to the child having suffered from emotional abuse. Furthermore, it
is stated, that very frequently that such vilification of the absent parent
by the alienator is likely to continue and worsen and have poor short term
and long term repercussions on the child.
There is therefore no likelihood
that the matter will be resolved by good contact developing between the
child and the now vilified absent parent. Some experts will then recommend
family therapy, mediation or some form of therapy for the child and/or the
alienator. This ‘softly softly’ approach is rarely successful
but needs to be attempted. Judges on the whole prefer this approach as they
do not like being branded “heavy handed” or being accused of
causing further emotional harm or distress to the child, by taking more
drastic measures.
In all truth, the emotional harm
has already been done and will continue to be done unless the child is
removed from the continuing and pathological influences of the alienator.
The alienator will never desist from continuing to poison the child’s
mind against the absent parent. Therapy with the alienator may be tried but
is likely to be unsuccessful in the case where there is such severe
implacable hostility.
Warning such alienators about
sanctions that can be applied, i.e. fines, imprisonment, is sometimes
effective but also likely to add to the hostility the child feels towards
the alienated parent and the Courts. For this reason this approach of
threats to be successful the child needs to be coerced to not only have
contact but good contact with the absent parent. In order to achieve this,
the alienating parent will need to put much pressure on the child.
The attitude of the child will
not necessarily change towards the alienated parent. Being forced to make
contact, providing such contact is good, could result sometime in the child
not feeling so disloyal towards the custodial parent and engaging with the
absent parent. This is due to the child often being able to claim that
he/she is making good contact due to the Order of the Court rather than his/her own wishes!
During such contact sessions,
finally there can be a breakthrough, especially if contact is resumed on a
number of occasions. The child could eventually come to the conclusion that
the parent who has been vilified is after all not a bad person but rather a
good person with whom to engage.
Gradually through initially
supervised and observed contact, non supervised contact can follow leading
the resuming of a good relationship with that absent parent. This can only
happen in less severe cases of parental alienation. It has to be faced
however, that this approach could also fail mainly due to the continued
relentless influence of the alienator and the child feelings of being
disloyal to the custodial parent by enjoying good contact with the absent
parent. This leads us essentially in the direction of the ultimate and only
solution when nothing else is working effectively.
Changing
the child’s residence in living with the alienated parent
Ultimately, what must be
considered is the removal of the child/children from the emotionally
abusing home. This should only be done after warnings have been given to
the abuser and what will happen if the child fails to develop good contact
and resumes a warm relationship with the absent parent. The warning must be
unmistakably direct:
“You
must insist that the child has good regular contact with the absent parent.
This you can only achieve by reversing your previous ways in how you speak
about the alienated parent. You need to speak well of that parent in the
presence of the child. What you say must be sincere. You must explain to the child that you
were wrong to speak badly about the absent parent and that you regret doing
so. The child must accept that you have a true change of opinion and that
the previous opinion was wrong.
You must tell the child that although
you are no longer in love with the other parent; that this parent is a good
parent who should receive love and respect from you (the child).”
If this fails to achieve the
desired objective, the child must be removed from the home and placed in an
independent centre. This includes a foster home or some other placement
such as with a member of the extended family of the alienated parent. Here
the child can be treated, or “debriefed” in preparation for
regular visits to, and ultimately living with, the previously alienated
parent. At no time should the alienator have contact with the child during
this process of therapeutic intervention and debriefing.
Once the child accepts that he/she
has a good parent who has been unfairly dismissed and treated. It is likely
to be a long process to convince the child that the now absent, vilified
and alienated parent can speak well also of the other parent, and that both
parents can speak well of one another in the presence of the child. This
provides the child with the opportunity of re-establishing a relationship
with the absent parent while not losing a good relationship with the former
alienating parent who now desists from this alienation.
The goal for those involved in
the therapeutic rehabilitation is inculcating in both parents the view that
each parent is of value and that the child needs not to give all love,
affection and loyalty to one parent only, but to both. The child can be
loyal to both parents without affronting the other. It is this which is in
the best interest of the child in the short and long term. This should also
be gratifying to both parents. In time it may be possible for them to
establish a better relationship based on mutual responsibility towards
their child/children rather than conducting a vendetta against one another.
Let us receive a final word
from a Judge, Justice Hedley:[iii]
In Re E (A Child) [2011] EWHC3521 (Fam):
“It
is extremely important both for the courts and advisors, to spot at an
early stage those cases which have the hallmarks of difficulty, let alone
intractability about them…..it is extremely important that the
parties at a relatively early stage have the opportunity to give evidence,
not against each other, as happens in the fact finding hearings, but in
respect of the interests of the child which are all too easily lost in the
maelstrom of allegations.”
It is unfortunate that family
law cases so often appear to go on and on without any resolution in most
cases, especially those that involve severe parental alienation problems.
In order to have greater success in obtaining true justice and doing what
is in the best interest of the child it is vital that there be a close
partnership and co-operation between the assessing expert witnesses and the
Judiciary who make final decisions.
1. Stage 3 – A
severely alienated child of parental alienation syndrome.
http://www.paskids.com/pas/stage3.php
2. Clayton, H. (2012) Parental
alienation and intractable contact disputes: an update. Family Law Week. http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed98218
3. Clayton, H. (2012) Parental
alienation and intractable contact disputes: an update. Family Law Week.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed98218
