Calif-legal.com: Expert Article - PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ENMESHMENT ISSUES IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES by Daniel J. Rybicki, Psy.D., DAPBS

continued from Page 3

Some have questioned the value and wisdom of Gardner's suggestion for a "parentectomy" in such severe cases of parental alienation (e.g., Isman, 1996; Lee and Olesen, 2001; Mauzerall et al., 1997; Poliacoff, 2000; Williams, 1990, 2001; Wood, 1994), arguing that the "cure" is worse and more detrimental than the "disease." A more cautious approach would be individually tailored for the specific needs of the case, but the recommendations might include court orders which establish greater structure and place limits on the alienating parent, court ordered therapy and case monitoring, and use of a special master or guardian ad litem to monitor compliance and report further developments to the court (Stahl, 1999). The goal is help the alienating parent understand the harmful effects of alienation, while working to address any underlying pathology which may fuel the alienation process. Stahl notes that only in the most critical of cases would there be support for a temporary disengagement with the alienating parent.

The moderate cases have mothers who appear as less fanatic but still quite enraged. Stahl (1999) suggests that these parents are quite angry and often vengeful in their behavior toward the other parent. They feel hurt, and expect the child to take sides and be loyal to them over their relationship with the other parent. Stahl agrees with Gardner in noting that moderate alienating parents will work very hard to prevent visitation and to interfere with the quality of the relationship between the father and the child. They are unreceptive to complying with court orders but will do so minimally to avoid negative legal consequences. They may still bring up sexual abuse allegations, but they can differentiate between preposterous claims and those that may have some validity. They seem to delight in hearing negative news about the other parent and they communicate their dislike of visitation arrangements. They often refuse to speak to the other parent and may make derogatory remarks about them to the child. They will hold fast to their view of needing to protect the children from this other parent and see the other parent as untrustworthy, yet appear more subtle in their expression of these views with the child, friends, or therapist. The children from this system will mirror the level of severity, and like the mother, appear less fanatic but still guarded and prone to acting out. Like other high-conflict families (Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Johnston & Roseby, 1997), there will be a high level of anxiety, splitting, insecurity, and distortion, with one parent set up as the good parent and the other as the bad parent. Children will have difficulty in integrating positive and negative images of each parent, but this will be less pronounced than is apparent in the severe alienation family system (Stahl, 1999). These cases call for interventions that are less drastic than the severe cases. A change of custody may still be considered, at least for a temporary measure (Ward & Harvey, 1993). Gardner suggests that therapy be conducted by one therapist working with both parents and the children. The therapist should be court-appointed. The therapist will work to reduce the overprotective and controlling efforts of the alienating mother, while empowering the children to take care of themselves. The therapist will help the children appreciate the value and need for visitation with the father, and will work to use increased visitation time to facilitate a more effective interaction between them. This experience is monitored and helps the child to confront the false assumptions they have held, and to learn new and more adaptive methods of relating to the father.

Finally, the mild cases of parental alienation tend to be more focused and limited in scope. Gardner suggests that these parents have a more healthy bond with the children and are able to recognize that alienation from the father is not in the best interests of the child. They are more willing to take a conciliatory approach to the father's requests. They may still have little regard for the importance of visitation and tend to have difficulty tolerating the presence of the other parent at events important to the child. Stahl (1999) suggests that these cases will involve subtle attempts at turning the child against the other parent and drawing the child into the alienating parent's viewpoint. This may involve conscious and unconscious actions. The main motive may be for the parent to look better in the eyes of the child. In most cases, Stahl suggests, the results of this family dynamic will be a slight increase in loyalty conflicts and anxiety but no fundamental change in the child's own view of the alienated parent. Intervention for this group tends to be focused on specific issues, seeking to balance out the communications and dynamics. Family systems work is done to overcome the divorce impasse which may fuel the alienation.

According to authors such as Gardner (1987; 2001b) and Ward & Harvey (1993), the problems associated with the process of parental alienation tend to take on a life of their own, and unless dramatic interventions are adopted, the ongoing conflicts and undermining of parental value can serious endanger the mental health of the child. The emotional bond of the parent and the child is disrupted and in some cases destroyed, causing irretrievable damage to the child's overall development. The child is cast into the role of a "loyalty bind", having to choose which parent they love more. Cartwright (1993) notes that prolonged alienation of the child may trigger other forms of mental illness and that slow judgments by the courts tend to exacerbate the problems. In keeping with recommendations from Gardner, this evidence points to the importance of prompt and effective interventions in such cases.
Stahl (1999) reports that the children who are most susceptible to alienation are the more passive and dependent children, or the children who feel a strong need to psychologically care for the alienating parent. The child and alienating parent share a sense of moral outrage and there is a fusion of feelings between them. While noting that there is a plethora of research studies in this area, Stahl suggests that the clinical descriptions which have found their way into the professional and legal literature offer some useful guidelines for consideration in custody decisions. Long-term effects of alienation left unchecked may lead to various pathological symptoms, which include but are not limited to:

• splitting in their relationships
• difficulties in forming intimate relationships
• a lack of ability to tolerate anger or hostility in relationships
• psychosomatic symptoms and sleep or eating disorders
• psychological vulnerability and dependency
• conflicts with authority figures
• and, an unhealthy sense of entitlement for one's rage that leads to social alienation in general.

With the classic Gardner model of PAS in mind, it may be useful to review some of the criticisms that have been levied against Dr. Gardner and his position. These criticisms have highlighted the fact that Gardner's model has focused almost exclusively on the alienating parent as the etiological agent of the child's alienation, ignoring considerable clinical research which shows a host of other factors (e.g. Johnston, 1993). Kelly and Johnston (2001) contend that "alienating behavior by a parent is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a child to become alienated (p.249)," implying that the model is too simplistic and ignores important other data. Second, these authors contend that the model proposed by Gardner is largely untestable and unfalsifiable because it is tautological. Third, they note that the PAS cannot properly be considered a diagnostic syndrome as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, nor does it reach the level of nondiagnostic syndrome. It does not offer any new information to the court, and it lacks empirical support. Finally, these authors contend that using medical terminology such as syndrome to describe a complex process of family dynamics, situational influences, and individual pathology and development is to do more to obfuscate the nature of alienating processes that appear in high-conflict cases. These arguments are carried further into challenges to the entire PAS model at the level of admissibility (e.g., Williams, 2001; Zirogiannis, 2001), and form a basis for questioning the utility of Gardner's model for custody litigation.