PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ENMESHMENT ISSUES IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES
By Daniel J. Rybicki, Psy.D., DAPBS
© copyright 2001, all rights reserved
(Document last updated 08/19/01)
Excerpt from Dr. Rybicki's forthcoming book on Expert Witness Testimony and Forensic Psychology.
Materials set forth on this Web site are copyrighted by Daniel J. Rybicki, Psy.D. The creators of this website and publications contained herein reserve all rights under copyright laws. The authors do not consent to your use or storage of these materials in permanent disk files, display, or creation of derivative works of these materials without first obtaining our written permission. These materials are not offered as or in lieu of professional advice. We disclaim all express and implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a specific purpose.
|
Continued from Page 1
Several authors such as Kelly and Johnston (2001) or Dallam (1998a, 1998b, 2000) have severely criticized Gardner for his unscientific model of PAS. There are those that have taken the position that the PAS as formulated by Gardner does not meet scientific standards, and therefore fails to meet Frye or Daubert/Kumho standards for admissibility. We will discuss these issues further in a subsequent section of this paper. However it should be understood that while one might argue the scientific and legal status of this label, the fact remains that this type of phenomena has repeatedly been observed to varying degrees in a large number of custody cases (witness rising frequency of topic in professional literature, in seminars at American Academy of Forensic Psychology, e.g. Nicholas, 1997). Clearly the terminology and assessment methodology needs work, and there is a serious need for more empirical data to be gathered in this area of alienation and disturbed family systems dynamic in the conflictual family post-separation or post-divorce. However, there are emerging positions that seem to flesh out more of the important domains to evaluate, and therefore give the custody evaluator more useful guidance for conducting fruitful and fair assessments.
Given that at least ten percent of divorcing couples face intense conflict over custody issues, the potential is fairly large for the undercurrents of tension and conflict to produce conditions in which clinicians will report alienation and enmeshment concerns within the family unit. The intense bitterness which follows from such high conflict divorce may fuel the resulting disturbed communications which in turn yields various forms of interference with visitation and undermining of respect for the noncustodial parent. Studies of children growing up in such high conflict divorce circumstances find that these tensions may continue relatively unabated over an extended period of time (e.g. Sullivan, 1997). The negative effects of such conflict and tension upon subsequent child development has been described elsewhere by authors such as Johnston (1989; 1994; 1995) and clearly documents that children who are caught in such battle zones will often develop a number of psychological problems and adjustment concerns. While debate continues over whether or not the Parental Alienation Syndrome is a term that meets Frye and Daubert standards (e.g., Bricklin & Elliott, 2000; Dallam, 1998; Garber, 1996; Poliacoff, 2000; Williams, 2001; Wood, 1994), there are several recent reports by sources such as Clawar and Rivlin (1991), Lund (1995), Turkat (1994), Stahl (1999) and Hysjulien, Wood, & Benjamin (1994) that have helped to establish this phenomenon as a major concern in child custody matters. These authors point out the importance of considering the impact of parental alienation in seeking to resolve custody and visitation disputes, particularly since this process often plays a prominent role in causing unnecessary disruption in visitation and in the promotion of the relationship with the noncustodial parent. Legal and therapeutic interventions have been suggested by Gardner (1992a; 1992b) which are endorsed by some of these authors as well. In order to understand the controversy and the current state of affairs, it may be useful to begin with a summary of what Gardner has said, and how people have reacted to his positions.
Gardner (1987) is credited as being the first to coin the term "parental alienation syndrome", although Stahl (1999) suggests that the rudiments of this family process were reported originally by Wallerstein and Kelly (1976; 1980) when they discussed the alignment process in divorcing families. Others picked up the study of this issue by examining the nature of high conflict divorce, with Johnston and her colleagues offering useful insight into this dynamic (Johnston, 1989; 1993; Johnston & Campbell, 1988). Gardner sought to formalize the model into a working diagnosis and labeled the process as parental alienation syndrome with eight specific criteria. These include features deemed common in children with moderate to severe PAS. According to Gardner, the evaluator will observe:
• A campaign of denigration
• Weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for the deprecation
• Lack of ambivalence
• The "independent-thinker" phenomenon
• Reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict
• Absence of guilt over cruelty to and/or exploitation of the alienated parent
• The presence of borrowed scenarios
Spread of animosity to the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent.
As Gardner notes, children "who suffer from PAS will exhibit most (if not all) of these symptoms. This is almost uniformly the case of the moderate and severe types...[although] in the mild cases one might not see all eight symptoms."
Some additional support for the value of Gardner's conceptual model comes from work by Dunne & Hedrick (1994), Rand (1997) and Nicholas (1997). Gardner's criteria were found useful for differentiating cases of parental alienation from other types of postdivorce concerns. As reported by Dunne & Hedrick (1994), the cases of parental alienation syndrome appeared to be primarily a function of the pathology of the alienating parent and that parent's relationship with the children. The research by Nicholas suggests that the alienating parent may not always display pronounced pathology, but commonly share the feature of a tendency to distort reality. In the more severe cases, the alienating parent demonstrates marked personality disturbance. These writings are unfortunately largely nonempirical case studies, and reflect clinical accounts of what may be seen by others as one extreme of the continuum of alienation concerns. Other less severe cases and other causes of disturbed parent-child relationship dynamics in the post-divorce environment are outlined in some detail by Kelly and Johnston (2001). We will return to these points after some additional summary of the classic and somewhat extreme position offered by Dr. Gardner.
According to Gardner's model, the primary parent engaging in alienation behaviors is likely to be the mother although there are times when the father is the perpetrator of the alienation (Gardner, 1992a; 1992b ; Ward & Harvey, 1993). Gardner estimates that 9 out of 10 cases involves the mother as the alienating parent, and the father being the parent who is the outcast, rejected by the children, and prevented from developing or continuing to enjoy an effective parent-child relationship with these children of divorce. A campaign of denigration is described by these authors where the father is cast into the role of the villain, with the mother playing the victim role and the child instructed to fear and reject the father. Gardner describes the "programming mother" as angry, critical, and distant. Elements of projection, overprotectiveness, reaction formation, and fury are outlined as underlying factors. Programming of the child may be very overt or very subtle. Name calling, innuendo, and nonverbal forms of hostility may emerge in the course of the alienation process. Destruction of remnants of the father (including gifts given to the child by the father) may be part of a pattern of programming. More subtle forms may include baring the father from coming to the door.
|
"A common maneuver is to require the visiting father to park his car in front of the house and blow the horn when he arrives. He is not permitted to come to the doorstep, let alone, ring the bell. Although not stated, the implication here is that this very act might somehow contaminate the whole household (Gardner, 1987, p.86)."
|
|
