Alienation Due to a Shared Psychotic Disorder (Folie a Deux)
Ludwig.F. Lowenstein Ph.D
Southern England Psychological Services
It is almost too simplistic to state that children fare best when
there are two loving and caring parents who guide these children
to live in accordance with what is best in society. When parents
separate or divorce, it is still possible to provide such care and
guidance despite certain difficulties. Here again the love and care
for children should be of primary importance for both parents. It
must be based on the acceptance that both parents have an important
role to play and that both parents welcome this dual relationship
vis a vis their children even though their own relationship has
It is unfortunate, however, that often due to the hostility between
the parents or just one of the parents, the positive goal of dual
parenting is often disrupted if not destroyed. This is almost always
due to one parent, usually the custodial parent, seeking to sideline
and even totally reject the non custodial parent being involved
with the child/children. This is undoubtedly due to the implacable
hostility which has developed leading to the break-up of the relationship.
The reason for such hostility varies. Often it is a need for revenge,
influence, and power especially when the rejected parent finds a
new partner. When this occurs, the alienator feels all the more
the need for power and control, and to dominate by keeping the child/children
exclusively to themselves by a relentless process of programming
(Clawar & Rivlin, 1991).
Intractable hostility between the former partners in a relationship
is the result which often leads to a close relationship developing
between a child/children with one rather than both parents. The
child has come to share the emotions of hatred for the non custodial
parent. This is known as “Folie a Deux”. This is due
to the fear or phobia (Lowenstein, 2006b) and programming by an
alienating parent and the child has a fear of losing the security
of the one remaining parent.
The inducer of the implacable hatred holds the key to the child’s
delusional beliefs of the absent parent. If this parent (with or
without counseling) learns to self reflect and stimulate the child
in his/her relationship with the other parent, then the child’s
delusional beliefs of the absent parent and their ‘evil and
wicked ways’ can be eliminated. Often this is not the case
and the custodial parent persists in promoting rejection of the
absent parent in the child. Only by breaking the relationship between
the inducer of such implacable hatred towards the absent parent
can the child’s delusional beliefs of the absent parent and
their ‘evil and wicked ways’ be eliminated. The difficulties
involved in breaking this exclusive pathological bond are only too
apparent. As an expert witness my work in the courtroom is to seek
a solution for a programmed child which is not to be undermined
by the custodial parent while the process of mediation occurs. This
will be discussed later when it is considered when a severe pathological
alienation process has occurred and how best to deal with it.
The Honourable Judge Gomery of Canada put it wisely:
“ 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”.
Would it were that more judges would share such a view in the
UK. It would prevent many injustices to children and alienated parents
who are sidelined (usually but not always fathers). Such parents
have limited contact with their children, if any contact at all.
Some have no direct contact. These parents suffer both humiliation
and sadness and more importantly the children also suffer both in
the short and long-term (Lowenstein, 2006a). One does not always
know from the child’s behaviour that there is anything amiss.
Their behaviour is anything but hostile towards the absent father
initially, but only later, after a period of considerable brainwashing
or programming does the hostility occur, and it eventually becomes
an implacable hostility, difficult to reverse.
Behaviour of children who have been alienated (brainwashed) are
- they express the same hostility as does the custodial parent,
hence the “folie a deux” analogy;
- they identify with and imitate the alienator;
- they do not wish to visit or spend time with the absent and
- the child’s views of rejecting the absent parent is virtually
identical with the programming of the custodial parent;
- the children suffer from the same delusions and the irrational
beliefs as the alienator in regard to the non resident parent
(this occurs because the children have totally identified with
the custodial parent);
- the children feel themselves to be powerful due to their alliance
with the controlling and powerful alienator;
- they are not frightened (albeit they claim to be) by the absent
parent or the court;
- the children have no valid reasons for rejecting the alienated
parent, but will often manufacture these reasons, or exaggerate
events for the purpose of rejecting alienated parents;
- they can see nothing positive or good about the absent parent
and even the absent parent’s family, indeed they claim not
to be able to remember anything of a positive nature in the form
of memories about the absent parent;
- they have difficulties in being able to distinguish between
what they are told about the absent parent and their own recollections
of that parent;
- they appear not to feel any sense of guilt about the way they
treat the absent parent if and when there is contact;
- they appear to be ‘normal’, yet appear also no
longer to have a mind of their own being totally obsessed with
the custodial parent and his/her implacable hostility towards
the absent parent and frequently his/her extended family.
These reactions are both pathological and unfair towards the targeted
parent and harmful to the perpetrator of such behaviour, that is,
the child. The result is a refusal of contact with the formerly
close and even loved parent (Rand, 1997). Now they feel dread, anxiety
and a virtual phobia when being requested to visit that parent (Lund,
1995, Lowenstein, 2006b). If forced to do so they will physically
resist, threaten to run away and actually do run away from the alienated
parent back to the alienator. The child totally shares the animosity
and paranoia with the programming parent. That parent will insist
that they have done nothing to cause the child to behave this way.
They will claim that they have encouraged contact, but it is the
child who rebels so vehemently against visiting the absent parent.
Sometimes this is influenced by different rearing approaches between
the two parents. The indulgent parent is usually the programmer,
and this is usually the mother. The programmed parent often seeks
to guide the child in a certain way and may appear to the child
to be more authoritarian and demanding. This is usually the absent
father. The child is being used to do what the programmer wants
and will resent the parent who directs and guides (this is usually
as already stated the father) Lund,(1995).
Sometimes it is the father who is over-indulgent while the child
is in his custody. The absent mother fares similarly if she attempts
to discipline or direct the child. The warring parents create a
climate where the child feels insecure. Instead of unity there is
the opposite. The child feels it has to make a choice and chooses
usually that parent who had custody to whom to give his/her loyalty.
In so doing the child feels inclined to reject the absent parent
because that parent has so little power compared with the parent
with whom the child resides more or less full time.
Therapists or mediators who seek to resolve parental alienation
or parental alienation syndrome may antagonise the child as well
as the custodial parent when efforts are made for encouraging the
child to have contact with the absent parent. If the therapist goes
along with the child’s wishes of rejecting the non custodial
parent, and many do, then the parental alienation becomes all the
stronger and more difficult to reverse. This means the therapist
has fallen into the trap of the alienator who will claim that it
is the child’s wishes not to have contact, or only minimal
contact with the alienated parent (folie a trios). The courts follow
suit by backing the therapist who considers the status quo best
for the child. This demonstrates quite clearly how the system of
parental alienation works.
Here it becomes imperative that the therapist has the basic principle
of “the child needs both parents” firmly in mind.
It is important that the therapist is not manipulated either by
the alienator, the child, or the current unequal and pathological
situation. The therapist must work in order to prevail in getting
the child and the alienator to see the value of contact with both
parents. As I have so often said, failure to do this, reduces the
likelihood of little or no subsequent contact with the absent and
alienated parent. “Absence does not make the heart grow fonder”.
Absence in fact creates a greater likelihood that the absence will
be permanent. Little contact results eventually in no contact.
This allows the alienator to continue his/her work of indoctrination,
virtually unchallenged having received the backing of the court.
It takes both a wise and courageous judge to seek to see beneath
those ‘shenanigans’. There are still too few psychologists
whose principle is “the child needs both parents” when
such obdurate opposition from the alienator and the child exists.
Cartwright (1993) indicates that “time is on the side of
the alienator”. The alienator practices various ploys to prevent
good contact between the child and the absent parent. Such delaying
tactics are unscrupulous and unfair, but they are effective. In
time and after numerous efforts to gain good contact through the
courts, the alienated parent sometimes gives up. The odds are stacked
against him/her ever having real positive contact with her child
and this gives the alienator the pathological chance to continue
the alienation process. One may well ask: “Is this real justice?”
It is not only ‘folie a deux’ or the folie a trois that
has won the day but ‘folie carré’, to coin a
new phrase with the third person in this case being the encased
therapist and the fourth party being the court of law. Eventually
all favourable recollections the child has had about the relationship
with the absent parent disappear. This is again a reflection of
how the alienator feels about the former partner as they both enact
their ‘folie a deux’ pathological delusions.
One is often asked what effect this has on the child now and in
later life. This has been discussed more fully by Lowenstein (2006a).
To summarise, the child grows up relentlessly reenacting what it
has experienced in its own life. Not only does the hostility perpetuate
itself towards the targeted parent but it perpetuates itself in
the life of the child as he/she becomes an adult. The child as an
adult has difficulties very often in relationships with a partner
and reenacts what has been learned by perpetuating the cycle of
the paranoid delusions and hostility resulting in PAS.
Sometimes a child as an adult or mature adolescent will consider
what has occurred and how he/she has been used by the alienator.
This sometimes results in a change of thinking, due to therapy or
in conversation with intimate friends. Then follows an active seeking
for the lost parent. Unfortunately there is no research as to the
frequency of this happening. The conjecture is that it is relatively
rare. As Cartwright (1993) states:
“The child’s good memories of the alienated parent
are systematically destroyed and the child misses out on the day
to day interaction, learning, support and love, which, in an intact
family, usually flows between the child and both parents as well
as grandparents and other relatives on both sides.”
In many cases what occurs is that the now lost parent may no longer
be available and the grandparents have undoubtedly died. Additionally
the more mature child does sometimes turn against the alienator
in the realization of what has been done. Mothers are twice as likely
to be responsible for parental alienation than fathers, as they
tend to be on the whole, the custodial parent.
Any expert assessing and/or treating such problems must be scrupulously
fair and independent. The overwhelming important principle, as already
stated must be that all things being equal both parents whenever
possible should have an equal access to care and have influence
on a child/children. The exception is that when it can be shown
that either parent is an abuser (sexually, physically, and emotionally)
or in other ways is a danger to the child. Mothers appear to make
the greatest number of complaints of sexual abuse (67%) (Gardner,
1987). These allegations more often than not are invalid, about
50% of the time. Fathers are accusers of sexual abuse also in 22%
The pattern of gaining control over children varies by gender.
Men tend to abduct physically 60-70% of the time when such abductions
occur. Whilst women use a kind of social of psychological abduction
( Clawar & Rivlin, 1991). Whoever has control, (custody) of
the child can use the child against a former partner since they
see the child as an extension of themselves. In these cases they
do not view the child either as independent of themselves or also
belonging to the alienated parent. They hence view the alienated
parent as in no way of being of value, or having any rights over
the child despite being the natural parent (Wallerstein & Blakeslee,
1994). There is in addition a denial of rights for the absent parent.
There is however, the desire nevertheless to make that absent parent
responsible towards the maintenance of the child, in financial terms.
This causes much acrimony as the non custodial parent (usually the
father) will complain as to why he must contribute financially without
having a role to play in the child’s upbringing or even regular
good contact with that child. These issues however are strictly
separated by law. Rightly so the Courts are strict on parents who
do not take up their responsibility to pay for the rearing of the
child. Likely so the Courts should be as equally as strict to parents
who do not take up their responsibility to make this rearing of
the child a matter in which both parents partake.
Turkat (1995) calls this disorder “malicious parent syndrome”
as the parent is usually but not always the mother, who engages
with the ‘folie a deux’ child a relentless and multi-faceted
campaign of aggression and deception against the ex-spouse. Sometimes
other people are involved in this ‘folie a deux’ scenario
and it may well be called ‘folie a plus de trois’. This
includes family members and friends and even neighbours who will
back the alienator. Each will support the alienator, without a qualm.
They fall into the trap of attacking the absent parent and thereby
prevent that parent playing any role in a child’s life. Sometimes
they will go so far, without first hand evidence, to claim that
the absent parent is a sex or physical abuser. Both mothers and
fathers have been responsible for such totally false allegations
being made. Children will be encouraged or even pressurized to lie
about sex abuse or physical contact of some kind in order for the
innocent parent to be eliminated totally from having contact with
the child. Hence the alienators delusions are imposed not only on
an innocent child, but many others, in a form of ‘folie a
pluisieurs’ or madness or delusion of many.
Such alienating and falsely accusing parents may be diagnosed
as suffering from “a personality disorder”. This includes
mixed , unspecified, histrionic, borderline, passive-aggressive
or paranoid behaviour”. (Wakefield & Underwager, 1990).
Such views in these parents lead to a typical totally controlling,
and maintaining of a symbiotic bond and elimination of the other
parent ( Ross& Blush, 1990).
Such alienators impose fear of the absent parent on the child
as already mentioned. This is sometimes termed ‘folie imposee’.
When many or one side is involved it is termed ‘folie a plusieurs’
(Enoch & Ball, 2001).
What is the Solution to the ‘Folie a Deux’
In seeking to deal with the problem it must be emphasized strongly
that what is to follow is the solution only to be considered if
and when the alienation is so pathological that no other course
of action is available. What will have preceded such appearingly
drastic responses is for mediation and the edicts of the court to
have had no effect of changing the alienators dangerous and damaging
acts in the short but even more in the long-term (Lowenstein, 2006a).
This damaging action has come in the form of preventing a child
having good, or any contact, by making that contact very difficult
with the absent and non custodial parent.
The process of assessing, whether or not parent alienation has
taken place is required to be carried out by an experienced psychologist
or psychiatrist. Such a person needs to look not only for the signs
of PAS (Lowenstein, 2006c) but also the manner in which the dissimulation
occurs. This results in the form of the child refusing any contact
or only very limited contact with a previously loved but now alienated
parent. The alienation has taken place through the efforts of the
custodial parent and his/her implacable hostility as previously
stated towards the non custodial parent.
Once the assessment of the problem has been presented to the court,
it is often recommended that efforts are made to gain the co-operation
of the custodial parent and the child so that the alienated parent
and the child are able to establish or re-establish some kind of
positive relationship. If this succeeds and the absent parent has
regular and good contact, that is the end of the matter and one
can describe this to be a success in promoting good parenting on
Unfortunately this course of action from its very inception fails
as a result of the continuing implacable hostility of the custodial
parent and the process of alienation not having been reversed. Hence,
while the alienator often plays “lip-service” to the
process of mediation, this is not supported by the efforts to reverse
the “folie a deux” phenomenon. The child therefore still
resents, if not loathes, the alienated parent and gives the impression
that this is in no way due to having been programmed to share the
alienators implacable hostility.
This scenario, frequently is missed or purposely ignored by psychologists.
Instead the child’s opinion is taken for granted, instead
of investigating the true reasons for the child’s attitude
towards the alienated parent. Judges also make decisions of no or
little contact for the absent parent based on “the child’s
apparent wishes”. This is an act of betrayal, in fact to the
child (!), lacking in sophistication and an injustice. The judicial
decision is made on the basis of the brain-washed view of the child.
Judges will often hide behind: 1) the expert witness’ superficial
opinion that a child’s view cannot be ignored; 2) the expert
who notes the alienation which has occurred yet feels that it is
now too late to do anything to reverse the situation, considering
it now a “damage limitation exercise”.
Expert witnesses who do not fall into the previous two categories
are either ignored or seen as extreme in the view they express when
they seek to reverse the successful alienation process by more drastic
means. Such experts are viewed as being harsh, heartless and “unrealistic”.
What follows is nevertheless a solution, not often employed which
could well reverse the betrayal both of a child and an innocent
and rejected parent who has been wronged. Such a parent and such
a child has often also been betrayed by an unjust judicial system.
What now follows is the more extreme approach in cases of severe
pathological indoctrination or programming by the custodial parent.
Silveir & Seeman (1995) considers the only solution possible
to the ‘folie a deux’ pathological phenomenon to be
separation of the individuals involved until the alienated parent
has been able to have good contact with the child. This may appear
to be a drastic solution. The solution is likely to be frowned upon
by those who consider themselves to be ‘child centred’
and this viewpoint is understandable. Let us however, look at the
situation from the point of view of the long-term consequences to
allowing ‘folie a deux’ to continue its unjust and damaging
course of action. The child loses a good parent and the parent loses
the opportunity of rearing the child he/she has created. Let us
remember our basic principle, that the input of two parents is on
the whole better than one parent, all things being equal. The long-term
deprivation of a parent for a child has been delineated as leading
to a perpetuation of the same situation occurring ad infinitum.
Following the separation from the alienator the child should be
provided with intensive therapy by a skilled therapist who understands
the pathology of PAS. In addition to this it is not justice but
injustice that has triumphed (Lowenstein, 2006d, e, f, g).
The articles considers the shared psychotic disorder (folie a
deux) which is often an integral part of the parental alienation
process. The way it functions insidiously, leads to the alienation
of a good parent. The basis is the intractable hostility of the
alienating parent against the now non resident parent. The alienator
systematically destroys the child’s attitude, affection and
love which the child previously felt for the now absent parent.
The child forms a pathological bond (folie a deux).
Eventually contact between the child and the alienated parent becomes
negligible or non existent. After mediation and lack of response
to the courts decisions, the author recommends splitting the child
totally for a time from the programmer. The purpose of this is for
the child to receive treatment to deal with the alienation without
being under the influence of the alienator, and at the same time
to have contact with the alienated parent. This should continue
until good contact is possible once again with both parents.
Cartwright, G. F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of PAS. American
Journal of Family Therapy, 21(3), 205-215.
Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children held hostage:
Dealing with programmed and brainwashed children. Chicago, American
Enoch, D., & Ball, H. (2001). Folie a deux (et folie a plusieurs).
Uncommon Psychiatric-Syndromes, (4th Edition). London, Arnold.
Gardener, R. A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the
differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse.
Cresswell, NJ, Creative Therapeutics.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006a). Long-term reactions as a result of
PAS. (Being considered for publication).
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006b). The psychological assessment and treatment
of pathologically induced alienation (Dealing with alienation leading
to an induced phobic reaction.) (Being considered for publication).
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006c). Signs of PAS and how to counteract
its effects. Journal of Parental Alienation, Vol 2(2), 26-30.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006d). Real justice of non custodial parents
and their children. (Being considered for publication.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006e). Assessing the treatment of parental
alienation. (Being considered for publication).
Lowenstein L. F. (2006f). The types of remedial and therapeutic
methods required in parental alienation. (Being considered for publication).
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006g). Overturning the programming of a child.
Journal of Parental Alienation, Vol 1(5), 1-12.
Lund, M. (1995). The therapist’s view of PAS. Family &
Conciliation Courts Review, 33(3), 308-316.
Rand, D. C. (1997). PAS. American Journal of Forensic Psychology,
Vol 15, No 3, 37.
Ross, K. L., Blush, G. J. (1990) Sexual abuse validity discriminators
in the divorced or divorcing families. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations,
Silveira, J. M., & Seeman, M. V. (1995). Shared psychotic
disorder. A critical review of the literature. Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry, 40(7), 389-395.
Turkat, I. D. (1995). Divorce related malicious mother syndrome.
Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 253-264.
Wakefield, H., & Underwager, 1990. Personality characteristics
of parents making false accusations of sexual abuse in custody disputes.
Issues in Child Abuse Allegations, 2(3), 121-136.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, D. (1994). Second chances
: Child visitation interference in divorce. Clinical Psychology
Review, 14(8), 734-742.