continued from Page 5

This model and the model offered by Kelly and Johnston (2001) both rest on extensive clinical experience and case studies, just as does the PAS model proposed by Gardner. What is different is that these new reformulations move from a simplistic medical model approach which labels a diagnosable syndrome on the basis of a set of observed symptoms to a more rich and clinically useful family systems and ecological approach that places issues of alienation within the context of larger interpersonal dynamics, life experiences, and developmental processes. Both approaches will require more empirical and scientific study, but one feature that favors these reformulation models is their reliance on a body of empirical data from family systems research, and their statement of multiple clinical pathways by which alienation and related problems may arise. These components are more likely to meet Frye and Daubert standards for admissibility, and many of these parts rest on a body of research that is already in the literature (e.g., Johnston, 1993; Johnston and Campbell, 1988).

Thus features outlined in the more sophisticated model of alienation offered by Kelly and Johnston (2001) raise additional family systems concerns, and point to types of intervention which have a sound theoretical footing within the field. They direct the clinician to consider several commonly understood family dynamics which have been observed in a number of clinical setting. For instance, they support the recommendation of studying the family process of enmeshment. Just as alienation and estrangement may be concerns which help shape the custody evaluation, it may be critical for the evaluator to carefully assess the level and degree of any enmeshment or boundary disturbance that are present in a post-divorce family system. While the literature does not often incorporate discussion of this topic into descriptions of parental alienation, it would appear that enmeshment and overidentification of the child or children with one parent may significantly contribute to the level and intensity of observed alienation processes.

The term enmeshment has been widely used in the family therapy literature since it was popularized by the work of Salvador Minuchin (1978). Describing psychosomatic families, Minuchin and his colleagues outlined the impact of four disruptive family dynamics: enmeshment, overprotectiveness, rigidity, and lack of conflict resolution methods. The offspring in these families included anorexic girls who were so caught up in the family pathology that they were unable to differentiate themselves and were locked into an illness that reflected the family disorder. They were trapped in rigid roles with their other family members and they were treated in such an overprotective manner so as to make a virtual moat around the family system which blocked out the outside world. Attempts to penetrate these protective walls were rebuffed, leaving no opportunity for corrective feedback, new learnings, or breaking the suffocating mold that held the members captive.

"Enmeshment refers to an extreme form of proximity and intensity in family interactions...In a highly enmeshed, overinvolved family, changes within one family member or in the relationship between two family members reverberate throughout the system...On an individual level, interpersonal differentiation in an enmeshed system is poor...in enmeshed families the individual gets lost in the system. The boundaries that define individual autonomy are so weak that functioning in individually differentiated ways is radically handicapped (Minuchin, et al, 1978, p.30)."