|
THE
FLORIDA
BAR
JOURNAL,
VOL. 73,
No. 3,
MARCH
1999, p
44-48
Although
parental
alienation
syndrome
(PAS) is
a
familiar
term,
there is
still a
great
deal of
confusion
and
unclarity
about
its
nature,
dimensions,
and,
therefore,
its
detection.(1)
Its
presence,
however,
is
unmistakable.
In a
longitudinal
study of
700
"high
conflict"
divorce
cases
followed
over 12
years,
it was
concluded
that
elements
of PAS
are
present
in the
vast
majority
of the
samples.(2)
Diagnosis
of PAS
is
reserved
for
mental
health
professionals
who come
to the
court in
the form
of
expert
witnesses.
Diagnostic
hallmarks
usually
are
couched
in
clinical
terms
that
remain
vague
and open
to
interpretation
and,
therefore.
susceptible
to
argument
pro and
con by
opposing
experts.
The
phenomenon
of one
parent
turning
the
child
against
the
other
parent
is not a
complicated
concept,
but
historically
it has
been
difficult
to
identify
clearly.
Consequently,
cases
involving
PAS are
heavily
litigated,
filled
with
accusations
and
counter
accusations,
and thus
leave
the
court
with an
endless
search
for
details
that
eventually
evaporate
into
nothing
other
than
rank
hearsay.
It is
our
experience
that the
PAS
phenomenon
leaves a
trail
that can
be
identified
more
effectively
by
removing
the
accusation
hysteria,
and
looking
ahead in
another
positive
direction.
For the
purpose
of this
article
the
authors
are
assuming
a fair
degree
of
familiarity
with
parental
alienation
syndrome
on the
part of
the
reader.(3)
There
are many
good
writings
on PAS
which
the
reader
may wish
to
consult
now or
in the
future
for
general
information.
Our
focus
here is
much
more
narrow.
Specifically,
the goal
is
twofold.
First we
will
describe
four
very
specific
criteria
that can
be used
to
identify
potential
PAS. In
most
instances,
these
criteria
can be
identified
through
the
facts of
the
case,
but also
can be
revealed
by
deposition
or court
testimony.
Secondly,
we wish
to
introduce
the
concept
of
"attempted"
PAS;
that is
when the
criteria
of PAS
are
present,
but the
child is
not
successfully
alienated
from the
absent
parent.
This
phenomenon
is still
quite
harmful
and the
fact of
children
not
being
alienated
should
not be
viewed
as
neutral
by the
court.
Any
attempt
at
alienating
the
children
from the
other
parent
should
be seen
as a
direct
and
willful
violation
of one
of the
prime
duties
of
parenthood.
The
criteria
described
below
are
fairly
easy to
identify
separate
and
apart
from the
court
file.
When
there is
uncertainty
about
any of
them,
these
criteria
can be
used to
guide
the
attorney
in the
deposing
of
witnesses
as well
as in
their
examination
in
court.
Criteria
I:
Access
and
Contact
Blocking
Criteria
I
involves
the
active
blocking
of
access
or
contact
between
the
child
and the
absent
parent.
The
rationale
used to
justify
it may
well
take
many
different
forms.
One of
the most
common
is that
of
protection.
It may
be
argued
that the
absent
parent's
parental
judgment
is
inferior
and,
therefore,
the
child is
much
worse
off from
the
visit.
In
extreme
cases,
this
will
take the
form of
allegations
of child
abuse,
quite
often
sexual
abuse.
This
will be
addressed
in more
detail
in
Criteria
II, but
suffice
it to
say that
often
this is
heard as
a reason
for
visitation
to be
suspended
or even
terminated.
On a
more
subtle
and
common
level,
an
argument
heard
for the
blocking
of
visitation
is that
seeing
the
absent
parent
is
"unsettling"
to the
child,
and that
they
need
time "to
adjust."
The
message
here is
that the
absent
parent
is
treated
less
like a
key
family
member
and more
like an
annoying
acquaintance
that the
child
must see
at
times.
Over
time,
this
pattern
can have
a
seriously
erosive
effect
on the
child's
relationship
with the
absent
parent.
An even
more
subtle
expression
of this
is that
the
visitation
is
"inconvenient,"
thereby
relegating
it to
the
status
of an
errand
or
chore.
Again
the
result
is the
erosion
of the
relationship
between
the
child
and the
absent
or
"target"
parent.
One
phenomenon
often
seen in
this
context
is that
any
deviation
from the
schedule
is used
as a
reason
to
cancel
visitation
entirely.
The
common
thread
to all
of these
tactics
is that
one
parent
is
superior
and the
other is
not and,
therefore,
should
be
peripheral
to the
child's
life.
The
alienating
parent
in these
circumstances
is
acting
inappropriately
as a
gatekeeper
for the
child to
see the
absent
parent.
When
this
occurs
for
periods
of
substantial
time,
the
child is
given
the
unspoken
but
clear
message
that one
parent
is
senior
to the
other.
Younger
children
are more
vulnerable
to this
message
and tend
to take
it
uncritically;
however,
one can
always
detect
elements
of it
echoed
even
into the
teenage
years.
The
important
concept
here is
that
each
parent
is given
the
responsibility
to
promote
a
positive
relationship
with the
other
parent.
When
this
principle
is
violated
in the
context
of
blocking
access
on a
consistent
basis,
one can
assume
that
Criteria
I has
been,
unmistakably
identified.
Criteria
II:
Unfounded
Abuse
Allegations
The
second
criteria
is
related
to false
or
unfounded
accusations
of abuse
against
the
absent
parent.
The most
strident
expression
of this
is the
false
accusation
of
sexual
abuse.(4)
It has
been
well
studied
that the
incident
of false
allegations
of
sexual
abuse
account
for over
half of
those
reported,
when the
parents
are
divorcing
or are
in
conflict
over
some
post
dissolution
issue.(5)
This is
especially
the
situation
with
small
children
who are
more
vulnerable
to the
manipulations
implied
by such
false
allegations.
When the
record
shows
that
even one
report
of such
abuse is
ruled as
unfounded,
the
interviewer
is well
advised
to look
for
other
expressions
of false
accusations.
Other
examples
of this
might be
found in
allegations
of
physical
abuse
that
investigators
later
rule as
being
unfounded.
Interestingly
our
experience
has been
that
there
are
fewer
false
allegations
of
physical
abuse
than of
other
forms of
abuse,
presumably
because
physical
abuse
leaves
visible
evidence.
It is,
of
course,
much
easier
to
falsely
accuse
someone
of
something
that
leaves
no
physical
sign and
has no
third
party
witnesses.
A much
more
common
expression
of this
pattern
would be
that of
what
would be
termed
emotional
abuse.
When
false
allegations
of
emotional
abuse
are
leveled,
one
often
finds
that
what is
present
is
actually
differing
parental
judgment
that is
being
framed
as
"abusive"
by the
absent
parent.
For
example,
one
parent
may let
a child
stay up
later at
night
than the
other
parent
would,
and this
scheduling
might be
termed
as being
"abusive"
or
"detrimental"
to the
child.
Or one
parent
might
introduce
a new
"significant
other"
to the
child
before
the
other
parent
believes
that
they
should
and this
might
also be
called
"abusive"
to the
child.
Alternatively
one
parent
might
enroll a
child in
an
activity
with
which
the
other
parent
disagrees
and this
activity
is, in
actuality,
a
difference
of
parental
opinion
that is
now
described
as being
abusive
in
nature.
These
examples,
as
trivial
as they
seem
individually,
may be
suggestive
of a
theme of
treating
parental
difference
in
inappropriately
subjective
judgmental
terms.
If this
theme is
present,
all
manner
of
things
can be
described
in ways
that
convey
the
message
of
abuse,
either
directly
or
indirectly.
When
this
phenomenon
occurs
in
literally
thousands
of
different
ways and
times,
each of
which
seems
insignificant
on its
own, the
emotional
atmosphere
that it
creates
carries
a
clearly
alienating
effect
on the
child.
Obviously,
this
type of
acrimony
is very
common
in
dissolution
actions
but such
conflict
should
not
necessarily
be
mistaken
or be
taken as
illustrative
of the
PAS
syndrome;
however,
the
criteria
is
clearly
present
and
identifiable
when the
parent
is eager
to hurl
abuse
allegations,
rather
than
being
cautious,
careful.
and even
reluctant
to do
so. This
latter
stance
is more
in
keeping
with the
parent's
responsibility
to
encourage
and
affirmatively
support
a
relationship
with the
other
parent.
The
responsible
parent
will
only
allege
abuse
after he
or she
has
tried
and
failed
to
rationalize
why the
issue at
hand is
not
abusive.
Simply
put, the
responsible
parent
will
give the
other
parent
the
benefit
of the
doubt
when
such
allegations
arise.
He or
she
will, if
anything,
err on
the side
of
denial,
whereas
the
alienating
parent
will not
miss an
opportunity
to
accuse
the
other
parent.
When
this
theme is
present
in a
clear
and
consistent
way,
this
criteria
for PAS
is met.
Criteria
III:
Deterioration
in
Relationship
Since
Separation
The
third of
the
criteria
necessary
for the
detection
of PAS
is
probably
the
least
described
or
identified,
but
critically
is one
of the
most
important.
It has
to do
with the
existence
of a
positive
relationship
between
the
minor
children
and the
now
absent
or
nonresidential
parent,
prior to
the
marital
separation;
and a
substantial
deterioration,
of it
since
then.
Such a
recognized
decline
does not
occur on
its own.
It is,
therefore,
one of
the most
important
indicators
of the
presence
of
alienation
as well.
as a
full
measure
of its
relative
"success."
By way
of
example,
if a
father
had a
good and
involved
relationship
with the
children
prior to
the
separation,
and a
very
distant
one
since,
then one
can only
assume
without
explicit
proof to
the
contrary
that
something
caused
it to
change.
If this
father
is
clearly
trying
to
maintain
a
positive
relationship
with the
children
through
observance
of
visitation
and
other
activities
and the
children
do not
want to
see him
or have
him
involved
in their
lives,
then one
can only
speculate
that an
alienation
process
may have
been in
operation.
Children
do not
naturally
lose
interest
in and
become
distant
from
their
nonresidential
parent
simply
by
virtue
of the
absence
of that
parent.
Also,
healthy
and
established
parental
relationships
do not
erode
naturally
of their
own
accord.
They
must be
attacked.
Therefore,
any
dramatic
change
in this
area is
virtually
always
an
indicator
of an
alienation
process
that has
had some
success
in the
past.
Most
notably,
if a
careful
evaluation
of the
pre-separation
parental
relationship
is not
made,
its
omission
creates
an
impression
that the
troubled
or even
alienated
status
that
exists
since is
more or
lees an
accurate
summary
of what
existed
previously.
Note
that
nothing
could be
further
from the
truth!
An
alienated
or even
partially
or
intermittently
alienated
relationship
with the
nonresidential
parent
and the
children
after
the
separation
is more
accurately
a
distortion
of the
real
parental
relationship
in
question.
Its
follow-through
is often
overlooked
in the
hysterical
atmosphere
that is
often
present
in these
cases. A
careful
practitioner
well
knows
that a
close
examination
is
warranted
and that
it must
be
conducted
with the
utmost
detail
and
scrutiny.
If this
piece of
the
puzzle
is left
out, the
consequences
can be
quite
devastating
for the
survival
of this
relationship.
Also,
without
this
component,
the
court
can be
easily
swayed
into
premature
closure
or
fooled
into
thinking
that the
turmoil
of the
separation
environment
is
representative
of the
true
parent-child
relationship.
Once
this
ruling
is made
by the
court,
it is an
exacting
challenge
to
correct
its
perception.
In a
separate
but
related
issue, a
word
should
be said
about
the use
of
experts.
First,
it must
be
understood
that all
mental
health
professionals
are not
aware of
nor know
how to
treat
the PAS
phenomenon.
In fact,
when a
mental
health
professional
unfamiliar
with PAS
is
called
upon to
make a
recommendation
about
custody,
access,
or
related
issues,
he or
she
potentially
can do
more
harm
than
good.
For
example,
if the
psychologist
fails to
investigate
the
pre-separation
relationship
of the
nonresidential
parent
and the
children,
he or
she may
very
easily
mistake
the
current
acrimony
in that
relationship
to be
representative
of it,
and
recommend
that the
children
should
have
less
visitation
with
that
parent,
obviously
supporting
the
undiagnosed
PAS that
is still
in
progress.
If that
expert
also
fails to
evaluate
critically
the
abuse
claims
or the
agenda
of the
claimant,
they may
be taken
at face
value
and
again
potentially
support
the
undiagnosed
PAS. If
that
professional
is not
also
sensitive
to the
subtleties
of
access
and
contact
blocking
as its
motivator,
he or
she may
potentially
support
it,
thereby
contributing
to the
PAS
process.
When
these
things
occur,
the
mental
health
professional
expert
has
actually
become
part of
the PAS,
albeit
unwittingly.
Alarmingly,
this
happens
often.
Suffice
it to
say, if
PAS is
suspected,
the
attorney
should
closely
and
carefully
evaluate
the
mental
health
professional's
investigation
and
conclusion.
Failure
to do so
can
cause
irreparable
harm to
the
case,
and,
ultimately
to the
children.
Criteria
IV:
Intense
Fear
Reaction
by
Children
The
fourth
criteria
necessary
for the
detection
of PAS
is
admittedly
more
psychological
than the
first
three.
It
refers
to an
obvious
fear
reaction
on the
part of
the
children,
of
displeasing
or
disagreeing
with the
potentially
alienating
parent
in
regard
to the
absent
or
potential
target
parent.
Simply
put, an
alienating
parent
operates
by the
adage,
"My way
or the
highway."
If the
children
disobey
this
directive,
especially
in
expressing
positive
approval
of the
absent
parent,
the
consequences
can be
very
serious.
It is
not
uncommon
for an
alienating
parent
to
reject
the
child(ren),
often
telling
him or
her that
they
should
go live
with the
target
parent.
When
this
does
occur
one
often
sees
that
this
threat
is not
carried
out, yet
it
operates
more as
a
message
of
constant
warning.
The
child,
in
effect,
is put
into a
position
of being
the
alienating
parent's
"agent''
and is
continually
being
put
through
various
loyalty
tests.
The
important
issue
here is
that the
alienating
patent
thus
forces
the
child to
choose
parents.
This, of
course,
is in
direct
opposition
to a
child's
emotional
well
being.
In order
to fully
appreciate
this
scenario,
one must
realize
that the
PAS
process
operates
in a
"fear
based"
environment.
It is
the
installation
of fear
by the
alienating
parent
to the
minor
children
that is
the fuel
by which
this
pattern
is
driven;
this
fear
taps
into
what
psychoanalysis
tell us
is the
most
basic
emotion
inherent
in human
nature--the
fear of
abandonment.
Children
under
these
conditions
live in
a state
of
chronic
upset
and
threat
of
reprisal.
When the
child
does
dare to
defy the
alienating
parent,
they
quickly
learn
that
there is
a
serious
price to
pay.
Consequently,
children
who live
such
lives
develop
an acute
sense of
vigilance
over
displeasing
the
alienating
parent.
The
sensitized
observer
can see
this in
visitation
plans
that
suddenly
change
for no
apparent
reason.
For
example,
when the
appointed
time
approaches,
the
child
suddenly
changes
his or
her tune
and
begins
to
loudly
protest
a visit
that was
not
previously
complained
about.
It is in
these
instances
that a
court,
once
suspecting
PAS must
enforce
in
strict
terms
the
visitation
schedule
which
otherwise
would
not have
occurred
or would
have
been
ignored.
The
alienating
parent
can most
often be
found
posturing
bewilderment
regarding
the
sudden
change
in their
child's
feelings
about
the
visit.
In fact,
the
alienating
parent
often
will
appear
to be
the one
supporting
visitation.
This
scenario
is a
very
common
one in
PAS
families.
It is
standard
because
it
encapsulates
and
exposes,
if only
for an
instant,
the
fear-based
core of
the
alienation
process.
Another
way to
express
this
concept
would be
that
whenever
the
child is
given
any
significant
choice
in the
visitation,
he or
she is
put in
the
position
to act
out a
loyalty
to the
alienating
parent's
wishes
by
refusing
to have
the
visitation
at all
with the
absent
parent.
Failure
to do so
opens
the door
for that
child's
being
abandoned
by the
parent
with
whom the
child
lives
the vast
majority
of the
time.
Children,
under
these
circumstances,
will
simply
not opt
on their
own far
a free
choice.
The
court
must
thus act
expeditiously
to
protect
them and
employ a
host of
specific
and
available
remedies.(6)
As a
consequence
of the
foregoing,
these
children
learn to
manipulate.
Children
often
play one
parent
against
the
other in
an
effort
to gain
some
advantage.
In the
case of
PAS, the
same
dynamic
operates
at more
desperate
level.
No
longer
manipulating
to gain
advantage,
these
children
learn to
manipulate
just to
survive.
They
become
expert
beyond
their
years at
reading
the
emotional
environment,
telling
partial
truths,
and then
telling
out-and-out
lies.
One
must,
however,
remember
that
these
are
survival
strategies
that
they
were
forced
to learn
in order
to keep
peace at
home and
avoid
emotional
attack
by the
residential
parent.
Given
this
understanding,
it is
perhaps
easier
to see
why
children,
in an
effort
to cope
with
this
situation,
often
find it
easier
if they
begin to
internalize
the
alienating
parent's
perceptions
of the
absent
parent
and
begin to
echo
these
feelings.
This is
one of
the most
compelling
and
dramatic
effects
of PAS,
that is,
hearing
a child
vilifying
the
absent
parent
and
joining
the
alienating
parent
in such
attacks.
If one
is not
sensitive
to the
"fear-based"
core at
the
heart of
this, it
is
difficult
not to
take the
child's
protests
at face
value.
This, of
course,
is
compounded
when the
expert
is also
not
sensitive
to this
powerful
fear
component,
and
believes
that the
child is
voicing
his or
her own
inner
feelings
in
endorsing
the "no
visitation"
plan.
Conclusion
All the
criteria
listed
above
can be
found
independent
of each
other in
highly
contested
dissolutions,
but
remember
that the
appearance
of some
of them
does not
always
constitute
PAS.
When all
four are
clearly
present,
however,
add the
possibility
of real
abuse
has been
reasonably
ruled
out, the
parental
alienation
process
is
operative.
This
does not
necessarily
mean,
however,
that it
is
succeeding
in that
the
children
are
being
successfully
alienated
from the
target
parent.
The best
predictor
of
successful
alienation
is
directly
related
to the
success
of the
alienating
parent
at
keeping
the
children
from the
target
parent.
When
there
are
substantial
periods
in which
they do
not see
the
other
parent,
the
children
are more
likely
to be
poisoned
by the
process.
Another
variable
that
predicts
success
is the
child's
age.
Younger
children
generally
are more
vulnerable
than
older
ones.
Also,
another
variable
is the
depth
and
degree
of
involvement
of the
pre-separation
parent-child
relationship.
The
longer
and more
involved
that
relationship,
the less
vulnerable
will be
the
children
to
successful
alienation.
The
final
predictor
is the
parental
tenacity
of the
target
parent.
A
targeted
parent
often
gives up
and
walks
away,
thus
greatly
increasing
the
chances
of
successful
alienation.
The
question
remains:
What if
all four
criteria
are
present,
but the
children
are not
successfully
alienated?
Should
this
failure
at
alienation
be seen
as
nullifying
the
attempt
at
alienation?
The
answer
to that
should
be a
resounding
"No!" It
should
be, but
often it
is not.
It is
very
common
to read
a
psychological
evaluation
or a
GAL's
report
that
identified
PAS but
then
notes
that
since it
was not
successful,
it
should
not be
taken
very
seriously.
Nothing
could be
further
from the
truth.
Any
attempt
at
alienating
the
children
from the
other
parent
should
be seen
as a
direct
and
willful
violation
of one
of the
prime
duties
of
parenthood,
which is
to
promote
and
encourage
a
positive
and
loving
relationship
with the
other
parent,
and the
concept
of
shared
parental
responsibility.
It is
our
feeling
that
when
attempted
PAS has
been
identified,
successful
or not,
it must
be dealt
with
swiftly
by the
court.
If it is
not, it
will
contaminate
and
quietly
control
all
other
parenting
issues
and then
lead
only to
unhappiness,
frustration,
and,
lastly,
parental
estrangement.
1 PAS
syndrome
applies
and
relates
equally
to the
nonresidential,
as well
as the
residential
parent.
D.C.
Rand,
The
Spectrum
of
Parental
Alienation
Syndrome.
15 Am.
J.
Forensic
Psychol.
No. 3
(1997).
2 S.S.
Clawar
and B.V.
Rivlin,
Children
Held
Hostage:
Dealing
with
Programmed
and
Brainwashed
Children,
A.B.A.
(1991).
3 M.
Walsh
and J.M.
Bone.
Parental
Alienation
Syndrome:
An
Age-Old
Custody
Problem,
71 Fla.
B.J. 93
(June
1997).
4 N.
Theonnee
and P.G.
Tjaden,
The
Extent,
Nature
and
Validity
of
Sexual
Abuse
Allegations
in
Custody
Visitation
Disputes,
12 Child
Abuse
and
Neglect
151-63
(1990).
5
National
Center
on Child
Abuse
and
Neglect,
Washington,
D.C.:
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
2998,
Contract
105-85-1702.
6 The
appointment
of a
guardian
ad litem,
the
appointment
of an
expert
to
conduct
a
psychological
evaluation
of the
child
and the
parents,
the
employment
of
make-up
or
substitute
access
and
contact,
or an
enlargement
of same
to the
nonresidential
parent,
and as
previously
suggested
by the
authors
in their
last
article,
a
consideration
for
entry of
a
multidirectional
order.
Walsh
and
Bone,
supra
note .3
J.
Michael
Bone,
Ph.D.,
is a
sole
practice
psychotherapist
and
certified
family
law
mediator
in
Maitland.
He
concentrates
in
divorce
and
post-divorce
issues
involving
minor
children,
and has
a
special
interest
in PAS.
He has
served
as on
expert
witness
on these
and
related
topics
and has
been
appointed
by the
court to
make
recommendations
involving
PAS and
families.
Michael
R. Walsh
is a
sole
practitioner
in
Orlando.
He is a
board
certified
marital
and
family
law
lawyer,
certified
mediator
and
arbitrator,
and a
fellow
of the
American
Academy
of
Matrimonial
Lawyers.
For more
than 20
years,
he has
been a
frequent
lecturer
and
author
for The
Florida
Bar.
This
column
is
submitted
on
behalf
of the
Family
Law
Section,
Jane L.
Estreicher,
chair,
and
Sharon
O.
Taylor,
editor.
PARENTAL
ALIENATION
VIDEO
Click
here to
view a
video on
Parental
Alienation
which
has
become
an
epidemic
and is
damaging
children
and
parents.
PA is a
sickness
in one
parent
trying
to drive
the
other
parent
out of
the
children's
lives.
|