Você está na página 1de 10

CHAPTER 7

CONTACT DIFFICULTIES
AND PARENTAL ALIENATION

A. OVERVIEW
This chapter reviews many of the issues relating to contact difficulties, which includes
parental alienation. The various types of contact difficulties are described here. This
chapter also describes the characteristics of the alienating parent, the target parent, and the
child. Recommendations are offered to the various professions on how to manage these
difficult cases more effectively.
The fact that many divorcing clients become alienated from their lawyers will also be
explored. This discussion will focus especially on lawyers and what they can do to
improve that situation. However, the court, child welfare workers, custody assessors,
psychotherapists, and other professionals will also be discussed. Some observations will
be made regarding the benefits of using a multi-disciplinary approach.
Contact difficulties and parental alienation are issues which have caused much
confusion and difficulty in the field of family law as well as for many custody assessors,
psychotherapists, and child protection agencies. A major concern in these matters is that
the child is scarred by these difficulties, and will carry these scars into adulthood. It is
very important for professionals who are involved with divorce to understand parental
alienation and the various aspects of contact difficulties. This will assist the professionals
to clarify whether allegations of abuse are valid in a particular case or whether there is an
issue relating to contact difficulties or parental alienation in any given case. However, it
may be difficult for the courts to gain a clear perspective in such situations unless the
abuse or alienating behaviour is out in the open and fairly intense, rather than hidden and
veiled as occurs in a great many cases.
Parental alienation is often defined as one parent purposely trying to destroy the
relationship between the child and the other parent, with the child taking the side of the
alienating parent. A more recent definition explores a broader range of alienation,
including that which is done out of occasional anger by a parent, and may even be
unintentional. Although many professionals believe parental alienation to be rare, this
broader range of alienation occurs in many cases which are fought out in court. A still
broader concept is that of contact difficulties, in which a child refuses contact with the
access parent for a broad range of reasons.
A sub-theme in this chapter is the relationship between the client and the professionals
involved in the case. Individuals going through the breakdown of a relationship are, in
the initial stages, very blaming of the other partner and often take little or no
responsibility for the difficulties. Also, when they are dissatisfied with their work with a
professional, such as a lawyer, they tend to act in the same way toward them as they do
toward their spouse: they blame the professional and take no responsibility for the
difficulties. They may become alienated from the lawyer, just as they became alienated
from their partner. This is not an uncommon difficulty. As noted earlier, research shows
that 50% of matrimonial clients become dissatisfied with their lawyers. I will discuss
potential causes for these difficulties, and make recommendations to help resolve them.

B. CONTACT DIFFICULTIES
Some of the literature states that the concept of “contact difficulties” is preferable to
“parental alienation syndrome” for a number of reasons although the idea of “parental
alienation” is acceptable in some of those cases. A recent review of the two concepts and
of the research literature in this area stated, “The term contact difficulties encompasses
more than just alienation and alienating behaviours; rather it represents any negative
change in the child-parent relationship following divorce.” (Kelly and Johnston, 2001).
The issues relating to contact difficulties are more complex than those considered by the
concept of parental alienation. The following areas need to be taken into consideration:
the child, the relationship between the parents, the parents’ personalities, extended family
difficulties, a new spouse or partner, financial issues, impact of litigation, etc.
Janet Johnston proposed that the child’s contribution to the family difficulties is also
very important to consider. Rather than viewing the issues as being personality or
behavioural difficulties, the idea is that the interactional patterns are also crucial
considerations (Johnston, 1993b: Kelly and Johnston, 2001).
Johnston identified six reasons why a child might refuse to visit a parent:

• Fear about leaving their primary attachment figure

• The child may align with one parent to resolve painful loyalty conflicts which
results from the parents’ conflict

• The child may take sides as a form of defense in reaction to long-term conflict
between the parents

• The child may be emotionally over-involved with the residential parent

• Prior exposure to emotional or physical abuse between parents

• Counter-rejection of a parent who has rejected the child


In comparison to a child having contact difficulties, Kelly and Johnston clarified their
view of an alienated child in 2001 by stating that such a child “… expresses, freely and
persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection,
and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual
experience with that parent.” Their model is on a continuum from the child having a
healthy relationship with both parents to parental alienation.
According to Kelly and Johnston, there are four factors that increase the likelihood of
alienation:

• Triangulation of a child in parental conflict

• Separation experienced by the child as being very humiliating

• Highly conflictual divorce and legal process

• Conscious and unconscious input from new partners, extended family and
professionals
These authors agree with the parental alienation concept that the alienating parent has
very negative views toward the target parent and that the child does not need to have
contact with that parent. The target parent is often viewed as being dangerous to the
child and as having had little positive interaction with the child in the past. Alienating
parents also state that the child should have the right to make the decisions regarding
contact with the target parent.
Kelly and Johnston also agree with the parental alienation view expressed earlier that
the target parent’s capacity to look after the child is in the normal range.
Stolz and Ney (2002) also focus on alienation although they prefer to focus on the
issue of resistance rather than on the individuals because that puts more emphasis on the
relationships. Their view is that if the divorce process were dealt with in a less
adversarial manner, there would be less resistance to visitation.
In terms of contact difficulties, the research strongly suggests that the courts should
impose a very clear parenting plan for families in which there is high conflict. Although
other models have been developed for parenting plans with high conflict families
(Brandt, 1998; Gilmour, 2004); Stewart (2001) has proposed the following
recommendations for these situations:

• Minimal or no contact between parents

• Extensive detail with little flexibility left to parents

• Regular routines for children

• A primary parent to make the main decisions

• Access may be limited or supervised

• The parents to make use of a ‘communication book’ rather than communicate


directly

• Making use of neutral places for transfer of the children


The discussion of contact difficulties here was partly based on the article by Freeman and
Freeman (2003).

C. INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY DYNAMICS IN PARENTAL


ALIENATION
Richard Gardner first developed the concept of parental alienation syndrome as “a
disturbance in which children are preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent -
denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.” In his revised book in 1998, (Parental
Alienation Syndrome, 2nd Ed., (Gardner, 1998), he went on to write: “It results from a
combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrination and the child’s
own contribution to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or
neglect are present, the child’s animosity may be justified, and so the parental alienation
syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.”
Other writers add that parental alienation also occurs when a parent keeps harping to
the child about the other parent’s imperfections. In my experience, it sometimes happens
that both parents have alienating behaviour and both feel victimized by the other parent,
with neither taking responsibility for being part of the problem.
Parental alienation is most likely to occur in that segment of the divorcing population
which has been defined by Constance Ahrons in “The Good Divorce” (Ahrons, 1994) as
“fiery foes”. This group makes up 25% of the divorcing population, and it is they who
are most likely to hire lawyers to fight over custody. It is in these families that the need
to protect the children and the need to seek revenge against the other parent are most
likely to be mixed together and confused with each other, often without the parents being
aware that their desire to protect their child is also mixed with a need for revenge.
For example, I have been involved in some cases in which the alienating parent states
that the target parent was never abusive during the marriage, but can no longer be trusted
with the child after having gotten angry at the alienating parent a couple of times over the
course of the breakdown of the relationship and is now seen as being emotionally
unstable. They may do this without understanding that anger is a normal occurrence
during the emotional process of divorce. On the other hand, it may be based on a
conscious or unconscious wish to punish the target parent through the child for leaving
the relationship.
In this chapter, I will list a number of factors that can be reviewed by professionals
and parents to assist them to determine whether parental alienation is a factor in a
particular case. I will focus first on the “alienating parent”, then on the child, and finally
on the “target” parent. A number of factors need to be present, including the child’s
active participation, for parental alienation syndrome to exist. Generally, the more factors
fit a particular case, the greater the level of the parental alienation. A case of parental
alienation can be defined as being mild, moderate, or severe depending of the number of
factors involved and on their intensity.
i. The Alienating Parent
Following are some of the main characteristics of an alienating parent.
Perceptions and emotions:
a. Distorts reality in terms of seeing risk to the child where none exists or
exaggerates minor problems.
b. Believes the child is better off without contact with the other parent.
c. Labels the other parent’s attempts at communication as harassment.
d. Is usually not aware of the negative impact of the alienating behaviour on the
child.
Behaviours:
a. Exaggerates or invents incidents of being abused by the target parent, and
discusses these with the child.
b. Tells the child that he or she is unsafe with the target parent.
c. Makes negative comments to the child about the other parent, such as saying the
other parent does not love the child.
d. Denies phone contact or refuses to give the child presents or letters sent by the
other parent.
e. Cancels visits, giving excuses such as: the child is sick when it is not true or the
illness is minor.
f. Does not allow the target parent access to information.
g. Blames the target parent, in the child’s presence, for not providing child support or
for other perceived faults.
h. Makes false statements about the other parent.
i. Creates temptations for the child that interfere with parenting time.
j. May try to move in order to another location so as to limit access to the target
parent.
In my experience, many alienators have been abused or neglected in their own
childhood and unconsciously project their unresolved past grievances onto the current
situation.
In a book on the topic entitled “Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children from
Parental Alienation”, Douglas Darnall (Darnall, 1998) categorized alienators into three
groups:
• The naive alienator, who unintentionally says or does things about the other
parent which are alienating, feels bad about it, and may try to make amends after
becoming aware of the problem.

• The active alienator means well and believes the child should have a relationship
with the other parent but lashes out at the parent in front of the child.

• The obsessed alienator is on an intentional and active campaign to destroy the


relationship between the child and the target parent, and is absolutely certain of
the validity of his or her cause.
Naïve and active alienators are more likely to accept help for the problem than is the
third group.
Darnall’s definition, which is broader than Gardner’s, is important for professionals to
keep in mind because it helps to differentiate between types of alienators, thus allowing
for different types of intervention to suit the case. Based on Gardner’s definition, the
alienating parent forms an alliance with the child against the other parent. This factor is
not part of Darnall’s definition. In his definition, the child could become alienated from
one parent when the other parent does not wish that to occur. Both definitions are useful,
although the list of characteristics listed above are based on Gardner’s definition.
ii. The Child
For parental alienation to occur, according to Gardner’s definition, there must be
alienating behaviour on the part of one parent with the child fully supporting that parent,
acting as advocate and spokesperson for that parent’s anger. The child must have
awareness, whether consciously or not, of the parent’s hatred toward the target parent.
If we use concepts from the field of family therapy, we can say that the child has an
alliance with one parent and is split off from the other, the target parent. The split
between the target parent and child mirrors the split between the parents. However, these
are relationship issues whereas the concept of parental alienation focuses on individuals’
attitudes and behaviours.
Gardner’s and Darnall’s definitions of the child are very similar. For example, they
agree that the child hates the other parent. I have found, in my work that this is not
always true. I have seen cases in which the children put on an appearance of hating the
target parent out of loyalty to the alienating parent. Once they grow up and leave home,
this type of child is more likely to reconnect positively with the target parent.
In addition to hating the target parent, these children:
a. Hate the target parent for reasons which are often trivial.
b. Feel no guilt for their anger or for avoiding the other parent.
c. Use behaviours which may look rehearsed - parroting statements made by the
alienating parent. Such statements may be beyond the child’s age level and
understanding.
d. May deny having any memory of positive experiences with the target parent
during the visits, or at any time in the past.
e. The child often refuses to speak to the target parent, and states that it is their
decision to hate the target parent or refuse visits, and deny that it has anything to
do with the alienating parent.
f. Often refuse to give reasons for not wanting to see the other parent.
g. Are not prepared to forgive the target parent for their imperfections, large or
small.
As research has shown, it is those children who are most caught in the middle between
their parents who experience the greatest emotional and behavioural difficulties after the
divorce. For them, being caught in the middle is more harmful than the divorce itself
(Buchanon, Maccoby, and Dorbush, 1994).
iii. The Target Parent
The target parent, out of frustration, often gives up on attempting to contact the child,
thus confirming both the child’s and the alienating parent’s views about the target parent
that they do not really care about the child. The target parent’s withdrawal may fluctuate
with irritation or anger expressed directly to the child, if the opportunity arises, for not
wanting to have contact with the parent, thus alienating the child further. These ups and
downs could result in the judge viewing the target parent as being the problem, and
making a judgment accordingly, thus rewarding the alienating parent for their
inappropriate behaviour.
A crucial factor to consider is whether there are valid reasons for the child refusal to
visit the other home. A child claiming that the target parent’s home is not much fun, for
example, is not a valid reason for alienating behaviour. A parent who allows the child to
avoid visits for such reasons is, whether intending to do so or not, reinforcing the
alienation on the part of the child.
If we relate parental alienation with the emotional process of divorce, the naive
alienator is more likely to have fewer negative feelings and a more positive intention
toward their ex-spouse. Some of their remaining negative emotions may impact what
they say to the child. In my experience, there is no connection between intensity of anger
on the part of a parent and parental alienation. In other words, a parent may be very upset
and the child is not alienated whereas, in another case, a parent may no longer have
intense feelings but the child is very alienated. However, the active alienator is likely to
become angry at times and to make angry statements either directly to the child, or in
their presence. The obsessed alienator is fully stuck in the anger stage, and may continue
being stuck there for years if not decades to come.
iv. Power Issues and Parental Alienation
Since the issue of violence and sexual abuse has been discussed elsewhere in this
manual, I will mention it only briefly in this context. All professionals involved in a case
must take allegations of abuse seriously. Although a great deal could be written about
this matter, only a couple of points will be made here. It is important to determine, for
example, whether either parent has previously abused or neglected the child, or is
currently doing so. An abusive parent is very likely to minimize or deny any abuse. On
the other hand, a parent who alienates, and perhaps the child as well, is likely to
exaggerate abusiveness on the part of the other parent or make things up. The child who
is alienating is more likely to blow things out of proportion in terms of abuse toward the
target parent, whereas a child who is being abused by the alienating parent may deny any
problems in this home or make allegations and later withdraw them.
Another power factor that is often inappropriately used in the divorce process is
money. This factor can play a major role in parental alienation. In cases of parental
alienation, the custodial parent’s denial of access may result in the other parent avoiding
making support payments. On the other hand, a non-alienating parent is also more likely
to deny access if support payments are not being made.
Most people who write about parental alienation are from the helping professions, and
they focus only on personal and interpersonal issues - thus missing half of the equation.
This article is not the right forum to discuss the issue of money in depth. Suffice it to say
that it is often men who use money as a point of power and it is often women who use the
children as a point of power. This reflects the common situation after separation - the
woman often has less income, although she has the children. Parents use the tools they
have at their disposal to get back at the other spouse: money, children, child protection
services, the police, and the legal system.

D. CRITIQUE OF THE CONCEPT OF PARENTAL ALIENATION


A number of critiques have been written about parental alienation syndrome and much
of this has been summarized by Turkat (2002). The reader should be aware that there is a
difference between the concept of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome.
Most writers have issue with the concept of the syndrome but not with parental
alienation. Some of these points are that

• Parental alienation syndrome does not fit within DSMV (Diagnostic and Statistic
Manual) which is a list of psychological diagnoses.

• Research regarding parental alienation is insufficient to confirm the existence of


parental alienation syndrome at this time

• The concept of contact difficulties, described earlier in this chapter, is thought by


some writers to be more useful (i.e., Freeman and Freeman, 2003).
There is considerable debate in the professional literature as to which view is the most
useful to take, in the best interests of the child – that of contact difficulties or parental
alienation.
There is also disagreement in the literature as to management strategies when
allegations have been made or regarding what the contact plan should be when the
allegations ob abuse have been confirmed. In other words, there is no agreement between
professionals on what to recommend to the courts when parental alienation or abuse is
involved. This needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, preferably in custody /
access assessments because of the complexity of the issues and because abuse and
parental alienation are often hidden. This makes it difficult for judges to determine how
to proceed when there are allegations and counter-allegations on both sides.

E. VARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF CONTACT


DIFFICULTIES AND PARENTAL ALIENATION
In my experience, many families have difficulties which are similar to contact
difficulties and parental alienation but do not quite fit those categories. Even if they do
not exactly fit, they are nonetheless important for professionals to consider. This brief
section will explore a number of these variations.
For example, I have been involved with many cases in which a child tells both parents
he would prefer to live with them and not the other parent, in an attempt to be loved by or
to create the illusion of loyalty to both parents. In the more extreme cases of this nature,
the child tells both parents about problems in the other home, which are exaggerated or
untrue. Both parents, on hearing these allegations, take steps to protect the child from the
other parent, such as preventing access, making reports to child protection agencies or the
police, or taking the matter to court. Both parents may try to reduce or stop the
connection between the child and the other parent, and using the authorities and various
professionals to accomplish that goal.
This situation, in which both parents respond appropriately to the allegations by the
child against both homes results in the child becoming extremely powerful, to his or her
own detriment. The child’s behaviour creates chaos in both homes as a result of child
protection workers, the courts, and other authorities taking steps to limit their power as
parents ‘in the best interests of the child’. Various professionals, such as therapists,
physicians, or lawyers, get involved over time, and may become drawn into the family’s
negative patterns, thus becoming ineffective or, unintentionally, adding to the problems.
This type of situation is far more destructive to all concerned than parental alienation
because it greatly increases the difficulties in both homes and leaves the child with no
stability and security in either home.
In another variation on the theme of parental alienation, the child may act in a very
alienating manner toward one parent even though neither parent attempts to be alienating.
This often occurs because a parent was previously angry and may have been somewhat
alienating at the time. The child does not realize that there has been an improvement in
the parent’s attitude and keeps acting based on the earlier situation. I have assessed a
number of cases of this type, in which the target parent blames the other parent for the
child’s behaviour, when it is no longer valid to do so. In some cases, a child will hate the
target parent for years as a result of seeing the other parent hurt - such as having lost a
business, having been beaten up or having made a suicide attempt during the separation
process.
In another scenario, some children become alienated toward a parent who attempts to
be alienating, forming an alliance with the target parent instead, even though that parent
may be unaware of the alliance and may not see the child for a long time. The situation
can become very difficult when a child is alienated toward the parent they are living with.
In some cases, this results in violence on the part of the child toward the custodial parent
or their siblings, running away, acting out in the community, taking drugs, etc. In some
of these cases, the child is consciously acting out as a way of trying to get the parent to
give up custody.
Finally, there is the type of situation in which a child takes the side of one parent while
another child takes the side of the other parent. As I have experienced in a number of
cases, the children may act out the parents’ conflict toward each other, sometimes putting
each other at great risk. Although such behaviour is usually not intense, I have been
involved in a number of cases in which the children attacked each other with knives and
other weapons. This pattern, and the one described in the previous paragraph, are fairly
common in families in which there had been violence in the marriage, and a child,
usually a boy, takes the place of the father, even if that parent has been totally uninvolved
for some years. Such a child can be very violent toward their siblings, their mother, and
others in the community.
Although I will not discuss these variations further in this manual, I recommend a
team effort between professionals in these cases as well as with those involving parental
alienation as this will almost certainly be required to resolve the difficulties in some of
the more difficult family situations. Otherwise, the professionals often simply become
part of the problem.

Você também pode gostar