What is the theory of parental alienation?

☞ Parental alienation was first referred to as a term in 1985, in the USA, by Richard Gardner. From then until today there is still no unified clinical and scientific definition, while the way "experts" approach it in the literature is constantly shifting. A very broad description, however, that is encountered most often, is that parental alienation occurs when a child rejects a parent and resists contact with them without reasonable cause. ☞ This phrase, "without reasonable cause", is critical to understanding the broad controversy that has arisen regarding the ethical and scientific validity of the theory of parental alienation. In custody court cases there are usually testimonies about a wide range of behaviors and circumstances that explain the child's avoidant behavior towards the non-preferred parent: domestic violence, either witnessed by the child or directed at the child, sexual abuse, indifference, neglect, authoritarian parenting, the presence of a new partner with whom the child has a conflictual relationship, or even practical factors such as distance or the parent's professional obligations.☞ Moreover, children, especially at younger ages, very often find it difficult or are afraid to talk about their abuse, especially when it is sexual, and cite seemingly trivial reasons which, after deeper investigation, reveal the true dimension of the very difficult abusive situation they are experiencing (Pipe et al. 2007).☞ In the theory of "parental alienation", the explanations children give for their fear and resistance to communication with one parent are either characterized as irrational or treated as the product of suggestion, especially when there are allegations of abuse. This unwillingness to take seriously the child's experience and wishes—an unwillingness that is contrary to the principles of child-friendly justice—can be explained if we examine the ideas underlying the theory of parental alienation. In the theory of "parental alienation", the "right to two parents" supersedes the right—but also the obligation—to protect the child from abuse, a stance that coexists "harmoniously" with the arbitrary belief that most allegations of domestic violence or sexual abuse are false.

The criteria for distinguishing the "alienated" child from the abused child.

☞ Most contemporary scholars of the theory of "parental alienation" acknowledge that we cannot speak of parental alienation when there are valid reasons for the child's avoidant behavior, including abuse (Bernet et al. 2018). In order to distinguish the "alienated" child from the abused child, they have compiled a list of eight criteria (Gardner 1986, Lorandos 2013). Two of these criteria are considered necessary, while the remaining six are merely supportive of the parental alienation case (Lorandos 2013). The interpretation of all eight criteria is extremely ambiguous. Each of these eight criteria, which are nothing more than subjective interpretations of the attitudes and behaviors of the child and parents, could equally well be interpreted as an indication of abuse rather than "alienation" (Milchman 2021, Meier 2021).Suggestibility and false allegations☞ Scholars of the parental alienation "theory" rely heavily on research studying suggestibility processes (suggestibility studies) in order to support the claim that children, especially at younger ages, are manipulated by the preferred parent into making false allegations of sexual abuse (Barden 2013, Campbell 2013, Lorandos 2013). However, the studies used to support this claim are mainly experimental studies in which what the parents suggested to the children were not allegations of abuse, but neutral to mildly unpleasant information, never, however, traumatic (Milchman 2021).

The above studies have been the subject of strong criticism on the grounds that convincing children to believe insignificant details that are irrelevant to their lives has nothing to do with making them believe that a parent they love is sexually abusing them (Eisen, Quas, and Goodman 2002, Eisen, Goodman, Quin, Davis, and Crayton 2007, Malloy and Quas 2009).

On the one hand, the empirical data are very limited; on the other hand, experimental studies on suggestibility processes do not constitute a reliable basis for claiming that comprehensive descriptions of real abusive events can be attributed to suggestion (Milchman 2021). Moreover, the limited empirical data that exist regarding suggestibility processes in cases of actual sexual abuse seem to indicate the opposite, namely that when there are allegations of sexual abuse, these are not the product of suggestion (Milchman 2021, Pipe et al. 2007).Trivial justification☞ Supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" characterize as trivial the reasons why children resist communication, when these reasons seem trivial or irrational to adults and the child's resistance seems disproportionate in relation to the justification for this behavior. These seemingly trivial reasons may sometimes constitute a veiled cry for help, especially when children fear the consequences of disclosing the abuse they suffer at the hands of a violent biological parent (Pipe et al. 2007).

In these cases, experts must pay very close attention when evaluating the child's behavior. The absence of evidence should not be equated with the absence of abuse. Even if abuse has not been documented or proven, expert evaluators should not overlook even the slightest suspicion that abuse has occurred (Milchman 2021).Campaign against the "alienated" parent☞ Supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" claim that when children persistently report to many adults that they are being abused, they are conducting a so-called defamation campaign against their "innocent" parents. In some cases, this may be true. In other cases, however, children's repeated allegations of abuse may constitute desperate attempts to find someone who will believe them. They may be seeking help from people they reasonably believe can protect them (for example, other family members, friends and their parents, neighbors, teachers, school staff, or therapists) (Milchman 2021).

They may be determined to find support, especially if they sense that neither they nor their protective parents will be believed. In these cases, expert evaluators should identify the people to whom the children speak, find out what they say, when they said it, and what they expected or wanted to happen. They should be able to distinguish a reasonable attempt to seek help from malicious comments (badmouthing) (Milchman 2021).Lack of ambivalence☞ Supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" claim that all children, even abused ones, feel ambivalence and long for their abusive parents (Bernet 2013, Baker 2015). The justification for this claim is based mainly on cases of children in child protection institutions. On this criterion, supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" fail to make the essential distinction between custody cases where children live with their protective parent and children who have been removed from both parents and are in institutions (Milchman 2021). One context cannot be compared to the other. Other research that parental alienation scholars cite to support the claim of non-rejection of the abusive parent has flawed assumptions & design (Meier 2021).Alliance with the preferred parent☞ Supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" claim that children's alliance with the preferred parent is an indication of "alienation", especially when children exaggerate their unpleasant experiences with the parent they reject. However, especially when there are allegations of abuse, the child-protective parent alliance most likely serves the child's need for protection. Even when children exaggerate the shortcomings of the parent they reject, it is very likely that they are trying to bolster the credibility of the protective parent, especially if they know that their allegations of abuse are not believed (Milchman 2021).Children as independent thinkers☞ Supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" claim that children reproduce the views of the parent with whom they are allied when the allegations of children and parents are similar. In these cases, it is very likely that the opposite is happening, namely, that it is the parents who reproduce the children's views, and not the children who reproduce the parents' views. Moreover, it is very likely that children have shared experiences with the allied parent (for example, in cases of financial strangulation, an experience that did not exist before the separation) and that the non-preferred parent behaves similarly towards both the parent and the child (Milchman 2021). This criterion also deliberately ignores research showing that children independently develop their own valid reasons when they resist communication with one parent (Fortin et al 2012).Spread of hostility towards the extended family☞ Supporters of the theory of "parental alienation" claim that children's hostility towards the extended family of the parent they reject is an indication of "alienation". However, children may feel justified anger towards the extended family for various reasons. The extended family may be taking the abuser's side. It may pressure the child to deny the abuse. It may accuse the child of lying. It may praise the alleged abuser while invalidating the child. Experts should very carefully evaluate the reasons for a child's hostile attitude, and not automatically assume that the child is being manipulated by the preferred parent (Milchman 2021).

The origins of the theory of parental alienation and the myth of false allegations.

☞ We have seen that in the theory of "parental alienation", especially when there are allegations of abuse, the child's fear and avoidant behavior towards one parent are explained as the product of suggestion, that is, a vague set of behaviors by the preferred parent aimed at severing the child's relationship with the non-preferred parent. In other formulations, depending on the degree of responsibility attributed to the child itself, supporters of the theory of parental alienation speak of "brainwashing" or of the child's pathological alignment with the preferred parent, scientifically unaccepted notions that ignore basic concepts of developmental psychology (Mercer 2022).☞ The unjustified insistence within the theory of "parental alienation" regarding false allegations largely reflects the views of its originator, Richard Gardner. Gardner, who worked as an expert witness in parental responsibility court cases representing fathers who had been accused of sexually abusing their children, claimed that almost all allegations of child abuse are false and are the result of brainwashing by vindictive mothers to turn children against the father. The extreme solution he proposed was to remove children from the safe parent and have them stay with the "alienated" parent (and abuser) so that their attitude towards him would change.☞ Richard Gardner's problematic personal views were never considered scientifically credible by the international academic and legal community. Numerous legal and other official bodies make recommendations that testimony invoking "parental alienation syndrome" not be accepted in court cases, pointing out the danger this practice poses to the best interest of the child, since once the term "parental alienation" enters the courtroom, allegations of domestic violence are not treated with due attention.

Bibliography

Baker, Amy J. L., and Mel Schneiderman. Bonded to the Abuser: How Victims Make Sense of Childhood Abuse. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.

Barden, Richard C. “Protecting the Integrity of the Family Law System: Multidisciplinary Processes and Family Law Reform”. In Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, edited by Demosthenes Lorandos, William Bernet, and Richard Sauber (263–288). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2013.

Bernet, William, and Bradley Freeman. “The Psychosocial Assessment of Contact Refusal”. In Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, edited by Demosthenes Lorandos, William Bernet, and Richard Sauber (47–73). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2013.

Bernet, William, Nilgun Gregory, Kathleen M. Reay, and Ronald P Rohner. “An Objective Measure of Splitting in Parental Alienation: The Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 63, 2018: 776–783.

Campbell, Terence W. “Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Context of Custody and Visitation Disputes”. In Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, edited by Demosthenes Lorandos, William Bernet, and Richard Sauber (163–189). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2013.

Gardner, Richard. Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, 1986.

Lorandos, Demosthenes. “Legal Interventions in Cases of Parental Alienation”. In Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, edited by Demosthenes Lorandos, William Bernet, and Richard Sauber (232–262). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2013.

Meier, J., 2021, "Developmental changes in children and adolescents: relevance for parental alienation discussions" in Jean, M., & Margaret, D. (2020). Challenging Parental Alienation, New Directions for Professionals and Parents. Routledge.

Mercer, J., 2022, "Questioning the scientific validity of parental alienation labels in abuse cases" in Jean, M., & Margaret, D. (2020). Challenging Parental Alienation, New Directions for Professionals and Parents. Routledge.

Milchman, M., 2021, "Distinguishing parental alienation from child abuse and adverse parenting", in Jean, M., & Margaret, D. (2020). Challenging Parental Alienation, New Directions for Professionals and Parents. Routledge.

Pipe, Margaret-Ellen, Yael Orbach, Michael Lamb, and Ann-Christin Cederborg. “Seeking Resolution in the Disclosure Wars: An Overview.” In Child Sexual Abuse: Disclosure, Delay, and Denial, edited by Margaret-Ellen Pipe, Michael Lamb, Yael Orbach, and Ann-Christin Cederborg (1–10). New York: Routledge, 2007.