Your best chance of helping children survive divorce poison is to work with a good psychotherapist and, if necessary, a good attorney. In some cases, professional assistance is essential. This chapter will help you decide when and how to seek professional help, and how to make the most of any help you receive.
Although technically “psychotherapy” is a different form of treatment from “counseling,” in popular discussion the terms have come to be used synonymously. To avoid confusion I will use only the terms psychotherapy and therapy and not the term counseling. These terms refer to services provided by mental health professionals whose aim is to alleviate psychological disturbances.
In the immediate aftermath of their parents’ separation, most children show some signs of distress. Don’t overreact to these signs by rushing to the therapist. And don’t assume that your children’s difficult behavior means they are being poisoned against you. They may be just as difficult with their other parent. As long as you and the children have regular contact, and their attitude is not consistently negative over a long period of time, the children may settle down after the divorce is final and everyone begins to feel more grounded.
If your children are brought into the middle of conflicts between you and your ex on a regular basis—if they are repeatedly exposed to bad-mouthing, or are asked to carry angry messages from one parent to the other, or are pressured or manipulated to devalue or distrust a parent—it is a good idea to consult a therapist. Even if the children show no outward signs of disturbance, the chances are that divorce poison is taking its toll or will do so in the future. A mental health checkup could not hurt. Children whose parents are locked in battle often hide their feelings from both parents. A therapist’s office can be a safe harbor in which to express feelings and learn how to maintain love for both parents despite pressures to align with one against the other. If the therapist learns that your child is suffering as a result of the conflict between homes, the therapist may be able to use this information to motivate you and your ex to improve the situation.
Certainly if your child seems chronically disturbed, it is best to call a therapist. Symptoms of disturbance include excessive worries and fears, sadness, decline in school performance, irritability, sleep problems, behavior problems, and physical problems for which no medical basis is found, such as frequent aches and pains. Or your child may show the disrespect, rejection, and declining affection characteristic of children who are, or are becoming, alienated. If your best efforts to help the situation result in no improvement, it is time to call in the experts. When children consistently refuse to see you, you should not allow the situation to continue without getting help. The risk is too great that the lack of contact will entrench the alienation and make it all the more difficult to alleviate.
When divorce poison reaches a moderate or severe level, family members see reality differently. Each parent blames the other for problems, while overlooking his or her own contributions. The children are pressured to take sides. Often the children see one parent as a saint and the other as a sinner.
A good therapist can bring a needed neutral perspective to the family conflicts. He or she challenges distortions of reality and encourages more realistic thinking. The therapist helps each member of the family understand the needs and feelings being expressed through problematic behavior and find healthier ways to adapt. He or she teaches parents and children how to communicate clearly and directly. A breakdown in communication between parents allows the children to play one off against the other. Parents who are eager to hear bad things about the ex will uncritically believe their children’s negative reports or be too quick to conclude that the ex is brainwashing the children. Sometimes, though, the children give each parent a different story. They may try to ingratiate themselves with the parents, get material advantages, or stir up conflict in order to release their own tension and anger. These types of manipulations are interrupted when the parents have reestablished effective lines of communication, and the therapist is the person who can facilitate this. The therapist also teaches everyone in the family how to negotiate with one another, rather than stubbornly hold to a single position that results in unresolvable conflicts.
A therapist’s involvement with the child can assuage a parent’s concern that the child is being abused in the home of the other parent; at the same time, therapeutic oversight protects a parent against false allegations of abuse. This type of oversight is usually preferable to on-site supervision of parent-child contacts; the supervisor’s presence is apt to reinforce the child’s sense that the rejected parent is dangerous to be around.
Alienating Parents
Therapy with alienating parents helps identify the fears, hurt, and shame that often lie beneath the anger that drives divorce poison. It provides a forum for the safe release of hostilities. It helps parents resolve the anger rather than use the children to express it. It helps the parent who is holding on with hate to let go of the ex-spouse and move past the divorce. Therapy helps parents find other outlets for narcissism that do not involve putting down the ex-spouse. It provides the validation that a brainwashing parent often seeks for the disappointments and sense of betrayal he or she has endured, while restraining the expression of these disappointments through the children. It helps parents define clearer boundaries between their feelings and those of the children.
Therapy helps parents find more benign interpretations of the target parent’s behavior. It provides a nonjudgmental atmosphere in which parents can safely admit that they have dispensed divorce poison; this is the first step toward resolving the problem. It helps parents find ways to apologize for their destructive behavior and to help mend the sabotaged relationships. When an alienating parent has decided to cease fire, the therapist will stress the importance of convincing the children of the change in attitude, of letting the children know that the parent now welcomes hearing good things about the other parent.
The therapist will educate alienating parents about the long-term damage caused by divorce poison. Parents will learn how their behavior undermines their children’s self-esteem. (In The Custody Revolution I explain how and why a child’s self-esteem suffers when the child turns against a parent.) They will also learn about how a child’s problems in relating to a parent can generalize to other people and thus handicap the child’s pursuit of gratifying relationships in the future. Even when an alienating parent continues to regard the ex as severely flawed, he or she may understand the need for children to learn how to deal with difficult people assertively, rather than passively avoid them.
Brainwashing parents will learn that continuing their destructive behavior may cost them custody of the children, and that ultimately it may cost them their children’s affection. This may result from having taught their children to end relationships that become uncomfortable, rather than work on improving them. When conflict arises between the brainwashing parent and children, particularly when the children reach adolescence and young adulthood, the children may apply this lesson and end that relationship as well. Or the children may ultimately reject the brainwashing parent because they come to realize and resent their exploitation as soldiers in a war they had no business fighting.
Alienated Parents
Therapy with alienated parents helps them understand how and why divorce poison works, and what they need to do to counteract it. It provides needed validation of their worth as parents when they are under attack from the ex and the children. It supports their continued commitment to the children when they may be tempted to withdraw in defeat. It helps them avoid the common errors of target parents. It helps them strengthen their parenting skills. And it helps them exercise the damage control discussed in the preceding chapter.
In much of the work with alienated parents, the therapist offers specific guidance on how to relate to the children and deal with their hateful or fearful behavior. I think of this type of treatment more as coaching than therapy. Its aim is not to promote insight into personal motivations as much as it is to provide direct, concrete advice and strategies for managing a difficult situation.
In very rare cases a child’s alienation is so severe that it resists all attempts to reverse it, and all possible remedies have been exhausted, including legal recourse. If the point of no return is reached, the therapist will assist the parent to prepare a letter or videotape formalizing the interruption of efforts to reunite, expressing the parent’s lifelong love and commitment to the child, and leaving the welcome mat out for a future reconciliation. Because this communication is apt to be the child’s only remaining tie to you, it is very important to have help in its preparation. See chapter 9, “Letting Go,” for a detailed discussion.
Alienated Children
Therapy gives alienated children a neutral territory in which to air grievances. The therapist tries to help children extricate themselves from their parents’ battles. Alienated children need to achieve a more balanced view of each parent rather than a polarized view of one parent as saint and the other as sinner.
The competent therapist is a voice of reason and balance. He listens carefully to the children and shows them that he understands. But he also gently confronts their corrupted view of reality. He encourages the children to judge for themselves the accuracy of each parent’s allegations. Therapists are often in a better position to do this than target parents are. If your children are moderately to severely alienated from you, they may refuse to listen to what you say. Or, if you challenge them to think about whether they have been told the truth about you, they may feel that you are putting them in the middle. They may mistake your attempt to clarify reality as pressure to side with you against your ex.
In therapy alienated children learn how to stand up to parents who dispense divorce poison. They learn that they do not have to please one parent by hating the other. In some cases, they learn to recognize how they have been influenced and hurt by the battle between their parents. In other cases, they reunite with a parent without ever explicitly acknowledging the manipulations to which they have been exposed.
The therapist oversees reunions between children and their alienated parent and structures these in a manner that creates the least anxiety for all participants. He tries to help children regain their moral compass by pointing out the cruelty of their rejection of the target parent and reminding them that their abusive behavior would never have been tolerated when the parents were together. Even when children seem unreceptive to the therapist’s words, the discussions plant seeds that may later bear the fruit of insight.
HOW YOU CAN HELP YOUR THERAPIST
The best patients take an active responsibility for their treatment. This is especially the case when it comes to psychotherapy. In addition to working hard to discover what you can do to contribute to the resolution of family problems, here are some things to do to make your therapist’s job a little easier.
It is important that you embark on a course of psychotherapy with hope but with reasonable expectations. Psychotherapy is not magic. Even the best therapists cannot help all families. All they can do is try to help you alleviate the problems. Their efforts may fail because you, or your ex, or your children, choose to ignore painful realities. The importance of people’s choices is perhaps the most overlooked aspect of psychological development. We are not merely products of our environment and our genes. For better or worse, each of us plays an active role in the development of our own personality.
Locating the right therapist can be frustrating. Therapists come with different educational backgrounds and different training experiences. They come with different degrees and different certificates and licenses.
Psychotherapists can be clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, or counselors. Each discipline has its share of excellent, good, fair, and bad therapists. In the United States the use of the title psychologist is regulated by law. Most clinical psychologists have earned a doctoral degree (Ph.D. or Psy.D.) and completed an internship, although some may have a master’s degree (M.A.), which takes fewer years in graduate school. Psychiatrists are medical doctors (M.D.), most of whom continued their training in a residency program following medical school. However, a physician may use the title psychiatrist without having completed a psychiatric residency. Most social workers and counselors have a master’s degree, although some have a Ph.D. and others have only a bachelor’s degree.
Look for a therapist with credentials and experience beyond the minimum required to hang a shingle. For a psychologist this could be a listing in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. For a psychiatrist it could be the completion of a psychiatric residency. For a social worker it could be certification through the Academy of Certified Social Workers (ACSW) or status as an Advanced Clinical Practitioner (ACP). For counselors it could be a doctoral degree or status as a licensed professional counselor (LPC) in states where a license is not necessary to call oneself a counselor.
You should not choose a therapist, though, based solely on degrees, certifications, and licenses. Paper credentials are no guarantee of competence or expertise. Doing therapy with alienated children and their parents is a difficult professional challenge that requires specialized skills, knowledge, and experience. Select a therapist the way you would a surgeon. If you would not pick your surgeon from the telephone directory, don’t choose a therapist this way. It is no exaggeration to say that your contact with your children may depend on getting the best help. Get recommendations from people you trust who are in a position to know which therapists work best with families such as yours.
Family law attorneys usually have enough experience with local professionals to make a referral. Your child’s pediatrician may have some suggestions. Other parents who have been through similar situations may have located therapists with expertise in this area. If you have trouble locating a therapist in your geographical area, write to me and I will do my best to help you find someone competent.
Working with people who intentionally or unintentionally poison their children’s affections is one of the most difficult challenges for a therapist. It requires the willingness to temporarily suspend judgment while searching for the keys to understanding how parents could visit such abuse on their own offspring. This understanding must then be used to help parents channel their pain and personality deficits in another direction, one that protects their children. There are some truly gifted therapists—I’m married to one—who combine the exact amount of empathy and confrontation to promote understanding and change without chasing the patient away. They are able to gently yet firmly encourage better behavior. It is a delicate dance and as difficult to learn as it is to become a ballroom dancer by reading a book.
The right therapist may use terms such as parental alienation or PAS. Or the therapist may characterize her work as helping high-conflict families after divorce or alienated children. The term used is not important. What is important is that the therapist understand the roots of alienation and how to differentiate alienation that is primarily a result of divorce poison from other conditions. You also want a therapist who knows that children can be manipulated to hate a parent and that contact between the alienated children and rejected parent is usually essential to repairing the relationship. When allegations of abuse accompany the alienation, the therapist should have experience in working with children who have made such allegations.
It is very important to select a therapist who understands the unique importance of the parent-child bond. The therapist should regard the loss of this bond as tragic. Regardless of how well your child is functioning in other areas of life, the therapist should be extremely reluctant to throw in the towel and conclude that your child would be better off if you gave up your efforts to reunite.
If you live in an area where no therapist is known for expertise in working with alienated children, choose someone who has general experience in treating parent-child conflicts and who is willing to learn about effective interventions with victims of divorce poison. Most therapists will make the effort to learn through books and consultations with specialists in the field.
Therapists to Avoid
It is well known in the professional community that some therapists do their clients more harm than good. When treating families in which divorce poison is rampant, too many therapists take sides in the tribal warfare and lose their objectivity. They meet with only one parent and the alienated child, conclude that the child’s alienation is reasonable, and never speak with the rejected parent to get the other side of the story. Often these therapists have a poor understanding of the dynamics of brainwashing and thus have a hard time believing that a child’s hatred could be the result of manipulation. They will recklessly offer opinions to the court about a parent they have never seen. They may write letters to the judge recommending that a parent have no contact or only supervised contact with the child. In some cases they go so far as to diagnose a parent they have never even met as a pedophile.
The best therapists judge their clients on the facts and not on preconceived biases. It is usually a mistake to choose a therapist who has worked extensively with your ex and your child without asking to meet with you. How can a therapist expect to repair your child’s relationship with you without seeing you or at least collaborating with your therapist? The very fact that you were excluded from the work must raise a suspicion of bias. The therapist knows you only through the eyes of your ex and your child, and may have formed a negative first impression. This impression could make it more difficult for the therapist to see you from a neutral perspective. You should consult your attorney prior to speaking and visiting with a therapist whom you had no part in selecting. Depending on a number of factors, such as the reputation of the therapist and the history of the therapist’s involvement with opposing counsel, your attorney may advise you to reject belated invitations to meet with the therapist. Or, the attorney may first insist that both sides agree that the therapist’s feedback will play no role in litigation, neither in the form of reports or testimony nor in information provided to others who might use the information in their own reports or testimony.
Some therapists believe that children who reject a parent should be allowed to withdraw from contact until they change their attitude. These therapists hope that time and therapy alone will heal wounded relationships. In most cases they will be disappointed. And so will you if you put your hopes in such a therapist. Although research on treating alienated children is still at an early stage, every published study to date has reached the same conclusion: If a child’s alienation is unjustified, the most reliable path to recovery is to get the child together with the target parent. Unless there are compelling circumstances that require postponing contact, one aspect of the treatment plan should be to have the child spend time with the rejected parent. If the therapist opposes this on principle, he or she is not the best therapist for the job.
Another type of therapist to avoid is one who is biased against either women or men. Even if the bias favors you, this type of bias compromises the quality of the treatment. But be aware that sometimes a therapist’s reputation for bias is undeserved. It is important to investigate the source of the accusation, speak to the therapist about it, and give him or her a chance to explain. You may learn that the therapist has helped many mothers and many fathers. The allegations of bias may have originated from one disgruntled parent who blames his problems on the therapist’s alleged prejudice rather than accepting personal responsibility.
If allegations of abuse accompany alienation, avoid therapists who believe that all such allegations must be true. You can recognize such therapists by their opinions that “children never lie” or “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Either they are unaware of the professional literature in this area, or they have a personal ax to grind. Also, avoid any therapist who tends to deny the reality of child abuse and assumes that all such allegations are false.
The Selection Process
If you and your ex agree to seek professional help for the family, it is important that both of you have a say in choosing the therapist. Recommendations can come from your child’s pediatrician, school, a former or current therapist, an attorney, friends, the local university or medical school, or a professional organization.
When ex-spouses have a high level of mutual distrust, it is common for each to automatically reject any therapist proposed by the other. A good way around this problem is for both of you to write down the names of three to five therapists who have come recommended. Then agree to select the first therapist whose name appears on both lists. Another way to resolve disagreements is for each of you to designate one therapist and then have the designated therapists select a therapist they can both agree upon. If the animosity between you and your ex is too strong to allow even this level of cooperation, you can ask your attorneys to select a therapist through the same processes. Attorneys who are oriented toward helping their clients resolve conflicts amicably will usually know several competent therapists whose work they respect.
If your ex will not agree to participate or allow your child to participate in receiving professional help, you may have no alternative but to ask your attorney for help. Your attorney may file a motion to ask the court to appoint a therapist and order both parents to cooperate with the treatment. A disadvantage of this approach is that it puts such an important decision in the hands of someone who knows little about your family. Often, the judge will ask the two attorneys to suggest a therapist they can agree upon, or to provide a list of therapists from which the judge will choose.
Even when both parents agree to consult a therapist, it is very often a good idea to secure a court order for treatment. This is particularly true when one parent actively opposes the child’s having contact with the other. A court order at the outset ensures the continuity of treatment. Without such an order in place, as soon as the therapist expresses an unfavorable opinion or recommendation, a parent can drop out of treatment and prevent the child from getting help. Another advantage of a court order is that it can specify certain conditions of therapy that will maximize the chances of a successful outcome.
Suppose a ten-year-old child got fed up with writing book reports and decided to quit school. Let us further suppose that our fifth-grade dropout lives with her divorced father, a man who has never valued education and has often expressed this opinion to his impressionable daughter. The girl’s mother seeks my help to get her child back in school. What can I accomplish?
If I have access only to the mother, I can coach her about how to speak with her daughter and ex-husband about the issue. I might also suggest that she enlist a third party to try to reason with the child, such as an older cousin whom the girl admires. But if the father does not respect the mother’s opinion, and actively encourages his daughter to stay home from school, my coaching is not likely to be helpful.
Suppose this mother gets a court order that requires the father to see me in therapy and bring his daughter as well. Even then, if the man steadfastly opposes education, continues to undermine his child’s respect for school, and stubbornly refuses to make her attend, my efforts would most likely fail.
This situation is analogous to a pathologically alienated child, a child who irrationally rejects one parent primarily as a result of the other parent’s influence. But there is one essential ingredient missing from our scenario of the fifth-grade dropout: the truant officer. In real life the mother and therapist would not have to change the father’s attitude before getting the girl back to school. They would have the law on their side to enforce the child’s attendance. The therapist could then work with the father and daughter to help them accept the circumstances imposed by the law. Over time, the therapist might help them appreciate the value of an education. (To home schoolers: I am not suggesting that a child’s education must take place in a schoolhouse. In our scenario the father has no respect for any type of education.)
The point of this exercise is that a psychotherapist is relatively impotent to effect change in a child when the parent in authority adamantly refuses to recognize the problem or do anything about it. For therapy to have the best chance of success with alienated children, we must have the equivalent of a truant officer. The force of the law must make itself felt in the consultation room. This is usually accomplished with court orders.
Most people accept the necessity of parents and truant officers enforcing children’s attendance at school. When it comes to coercing children to participate in efforts to restore a positive relationship with an alienated parent, though, some people object. They regard it as a breach of children’s rights to force them to spend time with a parent, or to attend educational and therapeutic programs designed to repair a damaged relationship.
In cases of physical and sexual abuse of children, the need for government intervention is clear. Even if a child is emotionally bonded to her abuser and protests being removed from the home, few would defend the child’s “right” to self-determination, or regard her removal as controversial. But emotional abuse is different. It leaves no visible scars. In some cases it may be difficult to determine when emotional abuse and toxic parenting rise to a level that requires removal of the child from the home. The same applies to court-ordered treatment: When does emotional abuse rise to a level that justifies the court mandating treatment? Some critics view court-ordered therapy as an overzealous and inappropriate intrusion of the court into private family matters. The may object not to court-ordered intervention in general, but to parent education programs, workshops, co-parenting classes, parenting coordination, and treatment that have not undergone rigorous experimental research. This largely describes all court-ordered psychotherapy since individual therapists have not had their work evaluated by such standards. With these issues in mind (visit www.warshak.com for an in-depth analysis of these controversies), let us examine how the court can help alienated children.
The Role of the Court
Effective court orders do more than merely appoint a therapist and require the child and parents to participate in treatment. The best court orders establish:
This last point is crucial. The orders are effective only if they are enforced. Ideally, the orders will mobilize both parents to manage their conflicts and the family will heal. Some parents, though, are so intent on keeping their children away from the other parent that they fail to comply with the orders as the court intended. Violations of the orders that go unpunished generally encourage the violator to continue to flout the authority of the court. Very often, court orders do not specify the consequences for failure to comply. Perhaps it would be better if both parents know ahead of time how the court will respond to violations.
The orders might include a continuum of consequences from less to more severe, with stiffer penalties for each subsequent offense. If a parent is very late in bringing a child to a scheduled transfer, the parent may have to assume more of the responsibility for driving the child to and from the other parent’s home. If the child misses scheduled time with a parent, the orders can provide for makeup time.
Financial penalties can include the requirement that a parent pay fines, post a bond, or pay court costs and all attorneys’ fees for extra court hearings that are needed to rule on violation of the orders. Some states grant courts the power to suspend the driver’s license of people who are found in contempt of court orders or order them to perform community service. Other penalties include imprisonment or being placed under house arrest. The use of such punishments may seem harsh or excessive, but actually they are not that different from those the court would use against a parent who failed to pay court-ordered alimony or child support. The judge may require the alienating parent to apologize to the children and the other parent in the courtroom and pledge not to interfere in their relationship again. Or the judge may have the parent write a letter of apology to other individuals who were involved in the campaign against the alienated parent, such as coaches and teachers who had been misled about the target.
A drawback of court imposed sanctions on favored parents is that they may increase the child’s sympathy for the favored parent and anger toward the rejected parent who is blamed for the court’s punishment. This makes the favored parent a martyr and the punishments reinforce the child’s rejection of the other parent. If the threat or implementation of sanctions is successful in restoring regular contact between the children and the rejected parent, this may help avert a court decision that would be more unwelcome by the favored parent.
When a parent repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the court orders and continues to obstruct the children’s contact with the other parent, the court may determine, based on all the evidence, that the children’s best interests are served by living with the rejected parent. In such a case, the judge may transfer custody and severely restrict the children’s contact with the alienating parent. Just the threat of this occurring may be enough to motivate the alienating parent and the children to change their behavior. The result may be the resumption of a positive relationship between the children and their other parent without a transfer of custody.
I worked with one family in which three girls refused to spend any time with their mother. After eighteen months of no contact, the mother filed a motion to obtain sole custody of the children. The judge gave her temporary custody of the children for the entire summer, ordered the family into therapy, and carefully regulated the children’s access to their father. Over the next few months, as the children regained their affection for their mother, their contact with their father gradually increased until they were spending about equal amounts of time in each home. At this point, knowing that he could lose custody if the alienation returned, the father ceased his brainwashing.
Absence of Confidentiality
Usually when people consult a psychotherapist, they expect their communications to remain private. The rule of confidentiality is a cornerstone of doctor-patient trust. But therapy for divorce poison often requires a relaxation of this traditional rule. In order to effectively explore and resolve disagreements, the therapist must be free to bring up with one family member issues raised by the others. This does not mean that the therapist haphazardly reveals everything. One of the arts of conducting psychotherapy is deciding what, when, and how to reveal information. An experienced and good therapist (experience by itself is no guarantee of competence) uses discretion. Information is revealed when there is a good chance that the revelation will further the goals of therapy. Information is withheld when it is likely that the repercussions of revelation will cause more harm than good and interfere with the progress of treatment.
Everyone in the family also needs to know that, depending on the conditions of treatment set up by the court and the laws of your state, what goes on in therapy may be revealed to the attorneys and the judge. If parents are not able to resolve their dispute outside of court, the therapist’s records may be subpoenaed and the therapist may be compelled to testify.
Of course, knowing that their words and behavior may be subject to the scrutiny of the court, parents are apt to be selective in what they say. They will try to appear cooperative and reasonable. They will hide behavior that would cast them in a bad light. They will present themselves as “new and improved” parents.
This type of posturing may not be entirely bad. In the process of trying to look good, people often become better parents. Everything they do to make a good impression on the judge can simultaneously benefit the children. They may be more attentive to the children than usual. They may be more patient. They may become more involved in school activities. They may be more supportive of their children’s relationship with the other parent. All of these improvements, even if calculated to impress the court and gain advantage in a custody battle, can help the children.
Communication Between the Therapist and the Judge
One issue that must be decided prior to beginning treatment is how involved the therapist will be in court proceedings. Sometimes the therapist reports directly to the court if there are problems in the treatment, if a parent does not cooperate with court orders, or if the therapy cannot proceed effectively under the current schedule of parent-child contacts.
In one case, a therapist was appointed by the court to facilitate a child’s relationship with his father after the child was kept from his dad for three years. The mother used the father’s first name when talking with the child about him and told her son that the man was dangerous and evil. The therapist attempted to use a gradual approach to reunite the child with his father, while allaying the mother’s concerns about her son’s safety. When the therapy reached the point of having the child meet in a joint session with his father, the mother refused to cooperate and claimed that she would not force her son to be in the same room with such a horrible man.
The therapist informed the judge and the attorneys of the impasse. He suggested that the goal of healing the father-son relationship was feasible if the treatment plan included having the boy live with his father for a significant block of time and carefully regulating his contact with his mother. The judge decided to impose these conditions on the family. The mother, who was already upset with the therapist for even attempting to place the boy in the same room with his father, was now furious with the therapist. As a result, she did not benefit from subsequent therapeutic sessions. Her son was very upset with the judge’s new order and initially withdrew from the therapist. After a very short time, though, the boy established a close bond with his dad and a warm relationship with the therapist. Eventually this boy was able to express love for both his father and his mother. And despite his mother’s denigration of the therapist, the boy looked forward to his sessions and expressed regret when the treatment came to an end.
The obvious drawback to an arrangement where the therapist testifies in court is that as soon as the therapist does so she will be seen as taking sides in the dispute between the parents. If, for example, the therapist tells the court that the children are ready to spend more time with their maligned father, the children and their mother will see the therapist as an enemy. This will make it difficult for the therapist to keep them meaningfully involved in treatment. The father may also resent the therapist’s testimony, believing that the therapist did not go far enough in supporting him or in criticizing the mother.
To circumvent this problem, some courts appoint another professional to oversee the progress of the case, talk with the therapist and other relevant people, such as the child’s teacher, and make recommendations to the court when changes are needed. The therapist is explicitly shielded from participating directly in the litigation. Attorneys are not permitted to subpoena his records, and they cannot require him to testify in court. The title of the “go-between” professional varies across jurisdictions. Most often they are called parenting coordinators. They may also be called special masters, case managers, or guardians ad litem. In addition to serving as a liaison between the therapist and the court, parenting coordinators are appointed in situations where parents disagree so often that they need a referee to help them communicate and to mediate issues such as the schedule of parent-child contact during holidays. Often the court delegates to the parenting coordinator the authority to make decisions (other than a change in custody) when parents reach an impasse. This may reduce the need to return to court frequently, thus saving time, money, and the escalation of conflict that is often associated with preparing for court appearances. Legal or mental health professionals can fill this role, depending on where the case takes place. When speaking to the court, in order to protect the therapist’s relationship with the parents and children, the parenting coordinator may conceal the exact source of information that led to the recommended changes. The hope is that the parents will continue to see the therapist as neutral in their disputes, and that the alienated children will not hold it against the therapist if the court requires them to spend more time with the hated parent.
In some cases this approach has merit, but it has at least three significant problems. First, even though an attempt is made to conceal the therapist’s true opinions, the parents can usually figure out that something the therapist told the go-between led to the new court orders. Second, the legal requirement of due process may conflict with this model. In our courts a person has the right to confront the evidence that is used in a trial. If a case manager bases a recommendation on something the therapist has reported, both parents may have the right to know what that information is, and to put the therapist on the witness stand in order to verify the therapist’s report. Third, this approach is more expensive, because it requires parents to pay for the services of the additional professional and to pay two fees when the go-between meets with the therapist.
There is a third option for a therapist’s involvement in court proceedings that is something of a compromise between making recommendations in court versus avoiding any participation in the litigation. Under this option, the therapist testifies strictly about the current and past status of treatment, without discussing conditions that could either facilitate or hinder the child’s future progress. When asked about such matters as the child’s schedule of contact with each parent, the therapist explains that she does not have all the information she needs to opine on how changes in the schedule would affect the treatment. If the therapist has worked with only one member of the family, and has had no communication with therapists of the other family members, this is probably accurate. If the therapist does have information about the entire family, and particularly if she has reviewed a comprehensive custody evaluation, she may not be able to testify honestly that she has no opinion about the schedule.
Let us suppose that the therapist has concluded that a father is actively brainwashing his child against the mother and that the child’s only hope for forming a more realistic view of his mother is to have a longer block of time with her than the every-other-weekend schedule currently in place. If the therapist is asked in court what it would take for the child to make progress toward the treatment goals, an honest answer is: a change in schedule. The alternative is for the therapist to be shielded from such questions, either by agreement of the attorneys or a rule of the court. Instead, another professional is appointed to make recommendations. These recommendations are based on his own investigations of the family, the therapist’s account of the treatment and her opinions about the reasons for the lack of progress, and his own knowledge about how to reverse alienation. Although this third option keeps the therapist from having to endorse recommendations that one parent sees as unfavorable, the parents still hear the therapist’s opinions about why the child has not made more progress. This testimony itself is likely to anger whichever parent is seen as contributing most to the lack of progress.
Models for providing treatment to high-conflict divorced families are in an early stage of development. Different approaches are used in different parts of the country. At present there is no research that allows us to conclude which approach is best. My best guess is that each approach works well in some situations and not as well in others. Because therapy with these families is such a delicate process, a difficult professional challenge even for the most experienced therapists, I recommend providing the additional insulation for the therapist if the family can afford it and the laws allow it. There may be a psychological advantage to having this cushion between the therapist and the court. Even when the parents know where the recommendations originate, it may sting less to hear a parenting coordinator make them than to read them in the therapist’s report or hear the therapist make them from the witness stand. But I am not convinced that this insulation is essential, or even superior to the approach where the therapist is allowed to testify in court or report to the judge and attorneys on the current status of treatment and on recommendations for accelerating the progress of treatment.
Single versus Multiple Therapists
Another decision that must be made before beginning treatment is whether to have one therapist for the entire family or one therapist for each member of the family. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
Having one therapist instead of several saves a lot of expense. Also, it avoids problems that arise when more than one therapist is involved with a family. Many years ago Dr. Gardner wrote about the drawbacks of each parent’s consulting a separate therapist. In recent years, other therapists have noted the same problems. Therapists who hear only one side of the story may lose their objectivity and adopt the distorted positions held by their patient. If they do so, they may contribute more to the problem of ruptured family relationships than to the solution. When a single therapist works with the entire family, there is less chance that the therapist will be taken in by each person’s reality distortions. There is a greater chance that the therapist will have an active awareness of each person’s contributions to the problems.
The major disadvantage of the single-therapist approach is that it is quite difficult to carry out successfully. The therapist must strive to understand each person’s perspective, and communicate this understanding to each member of the family. At the same time, the therapist must promote changes in attitudes and healthier family functioning. This role is familiar to family therapists.
The therapy may flounder when the therapist conducts joint sessions with various family members. At least one of the participants is likely to be disappointed that the therapist was not more of an advocate for his position. If the therapist’s input is seen as playing a role in court decisions, whichever parent was most unsatisfied with the court’s actions will probably hold it against the therapist. It is easy to appreciate the delicate balancing act that a therapist must perform in order to simultaneously maintain the positive regard of the children and both parents over the course of treatment. If the problems in the family are too severe, if a person is too rigid and unyielding in his distortions of reality, even the most skilled therapist is likely to meet with failure.
To avoid these pitfalls, sometimes a separate therapist works with each member of the family. This approach has its own problems. In order to avoid the problems discussed above when a therapist hears only one side of a story, the therapists must remain in close contact with each other. They must schedule periodic conferences to keep each other informed of their progress and insights and to coordinate their efforts. Naturally, such conferences, in which each therapist charges for his time, add to the expense of the treatment. The logistics of coordinating the schedules of four or more professionals to locate a time for conferences often results in less than optimal communication among therapists. Even with good communication, the more therapists there are, the greater the chance that one of them will lose objectivity and accept the distortions of his patient. If this problem is not resolved early enough, it could sabotage the entire team’s efforts.
I consulted on one case in which a therapist was taken in by his thirteen-year-old patient’s misrepresentations. The therapist became a strong and vociferous advocate for his patient. Despite the reservations expressed by the other therapists involved with the family, the therapist testified in court that his patient was afraid of his mother and should not be forced to spend time with her or even talk to her on the phone. The therapist recited a long list of alleged misbehavior by the mother that he thought justified his patient’s alienation. In reality, the boy was extremely hostile toward his mother, openly denigrated her, and showed not the slightest fear in her presence. The allegations of her misconduct were typical distortions of an irrationally alienated child. In fact, the child was actually afraid of his father, whom he desperately tried to please by going along with the campaign of hatred against the mother. Not only did the therapist fail to help the boy repair his relationship with his mom, in his zeal to defend his patient’s “right” not to see his mother, he overlooked the high price the boy was paying for his alienation. The longer the boy remained out of touch with his mom, the more his mental health deteriorated. Eventually, the boy became so depressed that he had to be hospitalized. Even then, the therapist insisted that the mother not be allowed to visit her son in the hospital. The boy did not begin to recover until he was assigned a new therapist, who worked toward reuniting mother and son.
If several therapists are going to be involved with the same family, it is easier if the therapists are all part of the same practice or close professional associates. Communication is less of a problem because the group practice may hold regularly scheduled conferences to review their cases. When therapists have worked together for a long time, they are more receptive to each other’s feedback. They are less likely to disrupt the team effort by overidentifying with their patient’s distortions and becoming adversarial toward other family members and their therapists.
In our work with alienated children and their parents, my wife and I have developed a model that capitalizes on the strengths of both the single therapist and multiple therapist approaches, while minimizing the drawbacks of each. Both of us meet initially with each member of the family. We then divide up the therapeutic work. Some members of the family see my wife in therapy; the others meet with me. Usually one of us sees one parent, while the other sees the other parent and the children. When the parents meet together in a joint therapy session, both therapists are present. Both parents find it reassuring that their therapist participates in the joint session. Both parents feel that they have an ally. The odds that either one will walk away from a joint session feeling unsupported by his or her therapist are much less than with a single therapist. Yet the parents are unable to manipulate either of us to accept their distortions, because we have many opportunities to discuss between ourselves our impressions of the family. Thus, the treatment enjoys the benefits of the multiple-therapist approach, but does so without the great cost of having a separate therapist for each member of the family.
As with the issue of whether or not the therapist should have contact with the court, we don’t yet have research studies that allow us to conclude whether it is better to have a single therapist, two therapists, or more. Some families will probably do best with one therapist. Other families will benefit from having the talent of several therapists at their disposal. The time to decide this issue is usually before treatment begins. The person who helps decide it is usually the mental health professional who first evaluates the entire family.
If your family’s problems with divorce poison reach the courthouse, the chances are that your first encounter with a court-appointed mental health professional will not be for therapy; it will be for a custody evaluation (in Canada, it is called a custody and access assessment).
In order to sort out the cross-allegations that are common to disputes about child custody or child placement schedules, courts often appoint a mental health professional to conduct a thorough evaluation of the family. Depending on the provisions of the court order, the evaluator will send a report of the findings and recommendations to the judge, the attorneys, or both.
Court-ordered evaluations often play a pivotal role in the outcome of cases in which there is actual or alleged alienation. This is good if you have a competent and thorough evaluation. You can have confidence in an evaluator who
If your evaluation meets these criteria, whether or not the findings and recommendations are what you had hoped for, I advise you to seriously consider using the evaluation to guide your resolution of your dispute.
Unfortunately, many custody evaluators appointed by a judge fail to meet these high standards. Many so-called impartial court-ordered custody and sex abuse evaluations are incomplete, incompetent, and far from impartial. They suffer from numerous and critical flaws that don’t merely detract from their value but also seriously undermine the court’s search for the optimal custody disposition.
What should you do if you have good reason to believe your evaluation was not fair or competent? First, discuss your concerns with your attorney. Many parents automatically dismiss conclusions and recommendations that are disappointing. Yet we all have blind spots that keep us from seeing ourselves as others see us. A good attorney will try to help you see things more objectively. If your attorney recommends that you accept the evaluator’s recommendations, give this advice from your ally your most careful consideration. Your attorney may not be right, but you should certainly entertain the possibility that you are wrong.
After you first hear the examiner’s findings, allow yourself time to process the information. It may help to seek the counsel of someone you trust to be objective, such as a therapist, a religious leader, or a wise relative who has stayed out of your family’s conflict. You don’t want to ask the opinion of friends or relatives who have joined in the tribal warfare. You already know they will take your side, and that is not what you need at this time.
Ask yourself if the examiner took all the important information into account. Were her statements factually correct? Did she discover reasons for your child’s negative feelings that you had not thought of? Or did the evaluator place too much emphasis on your child’s trivial excuses for the alienation, or on your child’s wildest allegations about your behavior? Did the examiner attribute your child’s alienation to your behavior, even though similar behavior in other divorced parents does not generally cause a child to be so totally rejecting? Did the examiner fail to consider that your child had a better relationship with you before your ex started bad-mouthing you, or before the divorce, even though you showed the same type of behavior and personality traits in the marriage that your child now sees as enough reason to reject you?
If after all this thinking and discussion you believe that your evaluator is mistaken, what should be your next step? Do what you would do in any other situation in which you were unsure of a doctor’s recommendation. Get a second opinion. When I am asked for a second opinion, I will review as much information as possible to give parents, their attorneys, and the court a thorough analysis and critique of the evaluation.
As I wrote in The Custody Revolution, I am repeatedly chagrined at the incompetence that passes for professional work in this realm. Obvious biases are disguised as pronouncements of established scientific fact. Lawyers have a term for the serious-sounding deceptions of pseudo-science that trade on the respect accorded real science and masquerade as the real thing in court. The term is junk science. I am sorry to say that junk science is widespread in the work and testimony of court-appointed experts.
Inexperienced Evaluators
One reason it is so difficult to locate an excellent custody evaluator is that many of the professionals doing this work are inexperienced. Conducting a custody evaluation is a stimulating professional challenge. It is an opportunity for the professional to contribute meaningfully to the best interest of children caught in the crossfire of their parents’ war. But the rewards of the challenge are soon outweighed by the mental anguish, the threats (of violence, malpractice suits, and complaints to licensing boards), the schedule disruptions necessitated by being on call to give testimony, and the unpaid bills that are part and parcel of this work. As a result, many seasoned veterans refuse court appointments for this work. Among those who remain in the field, a large percentage are handicapped by lack of experience.
The practice of managed care has driven many mental health professionals into the courtroom. They are able to charge higher fees for their services, and they do not have to rely on third-party providers to approve their charges. Some of these evaluators have years of experience and finely honed skill in conducting evaluations and psychotherapy with their office patients. However, these skills do not automatically transfer to work that will influence custody dispositions.
An evaluation for court purposes requires different types of interview techniques and different approaches to interpreting the results of clinical examinations and psychological tests. One obvious difference: A psychotherapist must be concerned with building and maintaining a good relationship with the patient. This goal dictates the therapist’s choices regarding the conduct of treatment, choices such as when to ask questions, when to probe for more details, when to challenge the patient, and when to allow contradictory statements to pass without comment. In gathering information for the court, however, the examiner is more concerned with getting specific details, resolving contradictions, and evaluating the credibility of the participants. The examiner can risk alienating a forensic client because the relationship will not continue past the litigation. This is one reason why model standards and guidelines for child custody specialists caution against therapists giving opinions and testifying about who should have custody of children they treat. The therapist’s perspective is likely to be skewed in favor of their patient’s stated wishes, rather than reflect an objective analysis of the children’s best interests. This is especially true for therapists who fail to appreciate that what children say may not represent their genuine and independent preferences, and that children can give detailed and convincing, yet false, reports about a parent.
Another difference between purely psychotherapeutic work and work that involves legal decisions concerns the degree of confidence the expert must have in the opinions expressed. A therapist can afford to form a tentative hypothesis about a person’s problems and share this with the patient. If the therapist is wrong, subsequent work will reveal this and allow the therapist to revise his or her interpretation. But when the interpretation influences a decision that will have a lifelong effect on the psychological welfare of all the participants, the expert had better have a higher degree of certainty before expressing an opinion. Usually no opportunity exists to correct errors.
Even professionals who are experienced in conducting custody evaluations and enjoy excellent reputations in their community are often weak when it comes to identifying the process of parental alienation. Special interview techniques are necessary to unmask systematic programming. Detailed knowledge of brainwashing helps the examiner know where and how to look for evidence of indoctrination. Many examiners lack this knowledge.
I hasten to add that there are many hardworking exceptional professionals whose contributions to the resolution of difficult child custody disputes are nearly priceless. But, as in any profession, there are also those whose work falls far below acceptable standards. A consultant’s critique can help you and your attorney understand where an evaluator went wrong, and whether the errors were substantial enough to change the basic conclusions and recommendations. If so, your attorney will need to expose the flaws of the evaluation and ask for a new evaluation, or at least ask the court to give little if any weight to the evaluator’s report and testimony.
But remember, don’t be too quick to dismiss the evaluator’s recommendations because they are not what you had hoped for. The evaluation report may be your last opportunity to avoid the spirit-sapping bitterness of a trial in the family law court, which one California judge described as “the place where they shoot the survivors.” Don’t let disappointment and anger lead you to irrationally cast aside the treasure of a good evaluation. In your quest for your children’s love, it could be your biggest mistake.
OPTIONS FOR HEALING DAMAGED PARENT-CHILD
RELATIONSHIPS
Children who reject a parent after divorce—who refuse or resist contact with a parent—or whose contact with a parent is characterized either by extreme withdrawal or gross contempt, represent one of the greatest challenges facing divorced families and the professionals who serve them. When the court determines that a child’s refusal or reluctance to see a parent is unwarranted, and that a child’s best interests are served by repairing a damaged relationship with a rejected parent (or that a child will be harmed in the long run remaining in the full-time care of the favored parent), the court faces what one Canadian judge called “a stark dilemma.” The court must weigh the long-term benefits against the risks that the attempt to repair the parent-child relationship will either be unsuccessful or will involve an unacceptable degree of emotional cost, such as creating psychological trauma or provoking the child’s destructive behavior.
Other than accepting the child’s refusal of contact with the rejected parent, the court generally follows, and professionals recommend, one of three options, each of which has advantages and drawbacks.
Psychotherapy While the Child Lives with the Favored Parent
The first option is often called “reunification” or “reintegration” therapy. In some cases therapy is accompanied by gradual increases in the amount of time the children spend with the rejected parent, with initial contacts sometimes taking place within the therapy or in the presence of another party. A variant of this option is to maintain custody with the favored parent, but increase time significantly and immediately with the rejected parent, often to a full half-time.
The first option is most likely to be effective in early stages with less severe problems and when the favored parent and child are likely to cooperate. It provides greater continuity of care for the child and may be less acutely stressful than the second and third options. Also, this option is suitable when the court decides that, despite a child’s unreasonable alienation, taking into account all the evidence, the favored parent is better suited to manage the responsibilities of custody.
This option is less desirable with more chronic and severe cases of alienation. As I mentioned earlier in the book, and document in my professional articles, therapy of severely, and some moderately, alienated children usually meets with failure when the children live primarily with the favored parent. Divorce poison is most potent when the child is isolated from the target parent. A day-long or even weekend contact may be an insufficient antidote. Many alienated children require more time to emerge from the shadow of the alienating parent and respond positively to the target. When these children first arrive at the home of the alienated parent, if they are not loudly and rudely expressing their hatred, they are acting sullen, withdrawn, and emotionally frozen. Over time the icy barrier of their negative attitudes melts under the warmth of the parent’s love and attention. Generally, the older the children the longer they maintain their angry withdrawal and the more time is needed for the thawing process.
Unsuccessful treatment under the first option may prevent, if not delay, the delivery of effective help because courts are reluctant to order older children, seen as less likely to comply, to have contact against their will with the rejected parent. Also, leaving the child with the favored parent, and gradually expanding the child’s contact with the rejected parent, is not recommended when the favored parent sabotages treatment (for instance, repeatedly fails to bring the child to appointments, or repeatedly terminates treatment until locating a therapist who supports his or her positions), is a high risk for abducting the child, or provides an emotionally toxic environment, such as intimidating the child into rejecting the other parent. Some children are victims of a favored parent’s coercive control and domination. In these families, a parent continues harassing and controlling the ex-partner by manipulating the children to turn against the victim parent. Leading authorities in the field call it emotional abuse when the favored parent’s behavior contributes significantly to the children’s negative attitudes. Our society’s standard of care regarding abused children is to prioritize protecting them from further abuse.
Placing the Child with the Rejected Parent
The second option, sometimes called “environmental modification,” places or maintains some or all of the children in the temporary or permanent custody of the rejected parent, while allowing some contact between the children and the favored parent. Therapy may be court-ordered or initiated by the rejected parent. Or, the parent may simply count on time healing the relationship.
A significant variant of this option restricts or suspends contact between the children and the favored parent for an extended period of time until certain conditions are met. This approach is most likely in cases where the court: traces the child’s alienation primarily to the influence of the favored parent; determines that the child needs protection from physical or emotional abuse; determines that the favored parent’s behavior, while falling short of abuse, sabotages efforts to repair the damaged parent-child relationship; or concludes that a child who has been apart from the rejected parent needs a concentrated period of time with that parent and away from the other parent’s influence in order to restore and consolidate a better relationship.
The second option usually follows prior failed attempts to remedy the problem. This option relieves children of the burden of feeling responsible for determining custody. Spending long blocks of time with the rejected parent motivates some children to overcome their negative attitudes, provides a direct experience of the parent that challenges their distorted views, and builds a foundation of shared experiences which may help rekindle positive feelings.
When children have been isolated for several months or more from a parent with whom they previously enjoyed a close relationship, and they are now severely alienated, I have seen the most success when they are placed with that parent for an extended period of time. Rather than gradually phase in contact with the formerly loved parent, we reverse the process. The children move in at once with the rejected parent, and then gradually phase back into the life of the alienating parent. This assumes, of course, that the alienated parent can manage the responsibilities of caring for the children on a daily basis and is better able to provide an environment in the children’s best interests. Also, in my experience children younger than fifteen years old adapt more easily than older children to this transition.
While the children live with the target parent, I recommend carefully restricting and regulating their contact with the alienating parent. We begin with a period of no contact, followed by phone contact, then brief in-person supervised or monitored contacts, and then more extended contact. Everyone in the family is made aware that the progress the children make with the rejected parent and the impact of contact with the other parent on this progress will be constantly evaluated. This serves as an incentive for both parents to minimize divorce poison, and it motivates the children to treat the rejected parent with greater respect. At first this better treatment may not be heart-felt. Nicer behavior toward the target, though, can awaken dormant warm feelings. Also, when the children are not outwardly rebuffing overtures of love, it makes it easier for the alienated parent to keep making those overtures.
The optimal length of time before contact is restored with the favored parent varies according to the circumstances of each individual child and family. Ideally, the resumption of contact is based on an evaluation of the child’s progress and such factors as the favored parent’s ability to modify behaviors that create difficulties for the children, the children’s vulnerability to feeling pressured to realign with a parent, the duration of the alienation, and the favored parent’s past conduct and compliance with court orders. In general, the more chronic and severe the alienation, the longer period of time before the child’s contact with the aligned parent is resumed. With severely alienated children, a period of three to six months will usually allow the child to consolidate gains and work through the numerous issues that arise in living with the rejected parent free from the influence of the favored parent. But, contacts in a therapeutically monitored situation may optimally occur sooner. Three months is about the length of time that children in therapeutic boarding schools and residential treatment centers initially go without seeing a parent.
In some cases the alienating parent continues active efforts to program the child against the target. If these efforts are successful, and retard or reverse the recovery process, the contacts are supervised, reduced, or temporarily eliminated. If the child’s renewed bond with the target is strong enough to withstand efforts to poison it, the contacts with the alienating parent continue and are increased when appropriate.
Also, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the recovery of loving relationships is often easier when siblings are separated. The child who is least alienated is the first to move in with the rejected parent. When that relationship is on a strong footing, the other children are introduced into the alienated parent’s home. In some cases, the other children spontaneously ask to spend time with their rejected parent when they see their sibling benefiting from the relationship.
Children who are poisoned against a formerly loved parent should not be confused with those who never had a relationship with a parent and whose other parent is not promulgating alienation. In cases, for example, when a parent who had previously abandoned an infant returns and claims the right to see the child, it is often best to expose the child to the parent in a gradual manner and allow the relationship to develop naturally. If the other parent supports the developing relationship, and the returning parent treats the child with sensitivity and understanding, this phasing-in approach will work best for everyone.
It is important to consider the individual circumstances of each case and craft a plan that fits the circumstances, rather than squeeze every family into the same treatment. Also, I remind the reader of the many conditions discussed in chapter 3 that are either not alienation or are not alienation that results from a parent’s malignant influence. These conditions require different treatments than the ones prescribed in this book for victims of divorce poison.
The importance of reuniting children with the alienated parent does not necessarily mean that the children should permanently spend more time with the target parent than with the alienating parent or that legal custody should necessarily change. If efforts to reduce divorce poison are unsuccessful, the alienating parent will continue to do a poor job of supporting the children’s relationship with the target. In other respects, though, the alienating parent may be better situated to manage the children. For example, a mother who influences her children to turn against their father may be more available during the school week to supervise the children. Or the father may have limited skills in dealing with the routines of the school week and easily lose his patience. The custody decision must ultimately rest on a careful consideration of all the factors that influence children’s welfare and of each parent’s capacity to provide a healthy growth-promoting environment. Certainly the emotional abuse I call divorce poison should weigh heavily in the decision. But it should not be the sole criterion to the exclusion of all other factors.
Courts and parents should not assume that custodial transfer is desirable in all cases or that all children will adjust to such court orders. Research studies emphasize the importance of contact between an unreasonably alienated child and the rejected parent, but particularly with older children, mere contact alone may be insufficient to promote healing. Many children reject the parent with whom they spend the most time. If effective assistance is not available to help the family adjust, children removed from the parent with whom they feel most identified may suffer psychological discomfort, defy the court order, or act out.
If the second option fails (such as when a child runs away and the court decides to leave the child with the favored parent), this may increase the child’s resistance to healing the relationship, and the successful flouting of the court orders may diminish the child’s respect for the law. Or, a child may enjoy a “honeymoon” phase while being showered with attention from long-lost relatives, but will have difficulty adjusting when the novelty wears off. Other children may appear to overcome their alienation, when in fact they may be hopelessly resigned to a situation beyond their control, burying, rather than resolving, unbalanced negative views of the rejected parent. Many, but not all, alienated children initially are furious when the court overrides their preferences. People who believe that courts should not frustrate strongly expressed desires of children oppose this option.
The risks of placing children with a parent they have been taught to hate or fear can be reduced if the judge makes it clear to the children that the court expects them to work on repairing their damaged relationship with the rejected parent, that failure is not an option, that refusal to cooperate will not result in a custody award to the favored parent, and that the sooner the children heal their damaged relationship with the rejected parent, the sooner they will have contact with their favored parent. Without direct experience with the outcome of such court orders, and in the face of a headstrong teenager’s vehement protests, custody evaluators, therapists, lawyers, judges, and sometimes parents, often underestimate the power of the court to elicit a recalcitrant child’s compliance. Repeatedly I have seen children (even those who had been out of contact with a parent for several years) back down from their threats and, within twenty-four hours and with proper assistance, appear relieved, relaxed, communicative, and sometimes affectionate with the rejected parent. My experience is similar to that described in the American Bar Association study that reports: “Children may say, ‘I hate her. I’ll never speak with her if you make me go see her,’ ‘I’ll run away,’ or ‘I’ll kill myself if he comes to see me.’ However, in some cases, children were told to say these things by the programming and brainwashing parent…. It is not uncommon to see these threats disintegrate after court orders change.”
Some children, particularly younger ones, adjust rather quickly to living with the rejected parent and do not experience the level of distress that others had feared. It helps, though, to have a program available to help older children and teenagers make a softer landing while safely jump-starting the parent-child reunification. I am excited to report that, in the years since this book was first published, I have discovered just such an intervention. In the Afterword, I describe this program and tell the story of its discovery.
Moving Out of One Home without Moving Into the Other
In some families moving in with the alienated parent cannot be accomplished without incurring too great a risk of harm to the child. Yet if the child remains in the alienating parent’s home he stands little chance of escaping divorce poison and renewing a bond with the other parent. In such cases courts can consider placing the child in another environment that serves simultaneously as a safe site, as a bridge to facilitate gradually increasing contact with the target parent, and as a barrier to restrict and monitor contact with the alienating parent. Depending on the child’s behavior and emotional status, this environment can range from the home of a relative or friend, to a foster home, community shelter, boarding school, residential treatment center, or psychiatric hospital. The situation is analogous to the treatment of a truant child. If a parent is unsuccessful in getting a child to attend school on a regular basis, the child may eventually be removed from the home and placed in a foster home or more restrictive facility.
Candidates for a transitional placement are those children who threaten dire consequences if they are forced to see the alienated parent. They promise to defy the court order, run away, attempt suicide, or become violent. Some of these are idle threats, but they all must be taken seriously and properly evaluated. If the evaluator finds a substantial risk, or if a child has already successfully resisted court-ordered contact with the alienated parent, the child may be better off in a transitional facility. Also, a facility such as a hospital permits a more in-depth investigation of the risk of suicide. Other children are so filled with fear of the target parent that they are unable to subdue their panic long enough to experience the parent as benevolent. In this case, it helps them to be in the home of a relative who serves as a bridge to the irrationally feared parent. With the availability of the innovative program I describe in the Afterword, a transitional placement may be unnecessary or needed only for a brief period of time. Again, let me stress that experienced mental health professionals should recommend and carry out treatment plans that are tailored to the circumstances of your family. Avoid one-size-fits-all solutions that end up fitting no one.
When considering the option of a transitional site, it is important not to minimize the risks of harm to a child being with the rejected parent. It is also important not to exaggerate the risks. Embittered parents who have lost custody often blame all their children’s psychological problems on the court or the target parent. While we would expect a child caught in the maelstrom of divorce poison to carry the scars of battle, we have no reason to assume that the potential harm caused by reuniting with a parent is greater than the harm caused by losing that parent. The American Bar Association study reached the same conclusion: “There are risks incumbent in any process; however, a decision has to be made as to what is the greater risk. It is usually more damaging socially, psychologically, educationally, and/or physically for children to maintain beliefs, values, thoughts, and behaviors that disconnect them from one of their parents … compared to getting rid of the distortions or false statements.”
Boarding schools, such as college preparatory schools, military academies, and therapeutic residential schools offer another alternative. This removes children from direct exposure to family tensions and allows them to concentrate on their own development. Psychotherapy conducted with children when they are away from their parents and associated pressures may have greater success assisting them to develop more balanced perceptions of each parent. A boarding school may be the best hope for teenagers who are functioning poorly, are subject to parental pressures to align with one against the other, are exposed to chronic conflict between the parents, and have been unable to find relief from prior interventions. A drawback of this option is that the child forgoes regular face to face contact with both parents, yet may not be spared alienating influences through other means of communication. Also, the expense of boarding schools is outside the reach of most families.
In most cases of severe alienation, working through the legal system is indispensable. It is equally indispensable to hire a good attorney to help you navigate the rough waters of this system. In fact, selecting the right attorney is at least as important as selecting the right therapist. It can mean the difference between success and failure in maintaining or reclaiming your bond with your child.
To save money, or simply because they do not have enough funds, some parents choose to represent themselves in custody litigation. I think this is a big mistake. Any case involving allegations of divorce poison, whether you are the accused, the accuser, or both, is not one in which to indulge Perry Mason fantasies. The difference between self-representation and attorney representation is like the difference between treating your own superficial cut and having major surgery. You can put a Band-Aid on a cut, but you do not perform surgery on yourself. Trying an alienation case is not a do-it-yourself operation.
I have sympathy for those who want to save themselves the expense of hiring a lawyer, but I much prefer to work with families in which each parent is represented by counsel. I will usually turn down a parent’s request for trial assistance when he or she has no attorney. I know I am not the only custody expert who feels this way. A lawyer can help get unreasonable clients to be more reasonable. A good attorney, despite zealous advocacy for the client’s position, will be better able than the client to maintain objectivity.
The best type of attorney to hire is one who believes in amicably settling family disputes. In chapter 4 I mentioned the model of practice known as “collaborative family law.” Collaborative lawyers pledge to work exclusively for an out-of-court settlement. They have nothing financial to gain by going to court, because as soon as you decide to litigate rather than negotiate a settlement, collaborative lawyers by contract must withdraw from the case. The idea is to encourage an atmosphere of constructive and creative negotiations to help the family best weather the crisis of divorce. If you and your ex-partner choose at the outset to have a collaborative divorce, you will be taking a giant step in the direction of safeguarding the welfare of your children. The odds of your children becoming alienated will be dramatically reduced.
Some lawyers who do not formally subscribe to the collaborative law model nevertheless have reputations for encouraging and supporting efforts to settle conflicts in a peaceful fashion. Find one of these to represent you. Try to avoid lawyers who generate unnecessary conflict and hostility. Your family already has enough of that.
In choosing a lawyer, find one who specializes in child custody matters. Any such attorney will have had a lot of experience with divorce poison. They may not be familiar with the term parental alienation, but you can educate them by showing them this book and encouraging them to visit www.warshak.com to find resources for attorneys.
Let your attorney know from the outset that you prefer to resolve your dispute out of court. If your child appears to be losing respect or affection for you, don’t make the mistake of rushing into a legal battle before exploring other options. What you are seeing may not be alienation, and it may not be a result of divorce poison. The best thing to do is for you and your ex-spouse to consult a therapist. This would be a natural adjunct to a collaborative divorce.
If you think your ex is not committed to your active participation in the lives of your children, or your ex will not voluntarily participate in therapy, then you may have no choice but to seek help through the court. Speak to your attorney about getting the court to order an evaluation and treatment. The attorney can also help ensure the best conditions for treatment in line with the guidelines discussed earlier in this chapter. This may be your attorney’s most important contribution toward resolving your child’s alienation.
Psychotherapists, divorce attorneys, and family court judges agree that families with children who refuse to spend time with a parent present tough challenges. First we must determine if the child is truly alienated and, if so, why? Who is contributing to the alienation and how are they doing it? In some cases one parent is primarily responsible for the child’s alienation. It may be the favored parent, who poisons the children’s affections. Or it may be the rejected parent, whose treatment of the children is bad enough to push the children away. In other cases both parents, the children, and perhaps an earlier therapist have made substantial contributions to the rupture of the relationship. Either way, parents who are responsible for alienation almost always deny their role and blame the other parent. As we have seen, even if you are a relatively innocent victim of divorce poison, your mistakes can make things worse. I hope this book will help you take an active role in correcting the problem.
Even with full knowledge of the causes of alienation, the problem is extremely difficult to overcome. Some parents are so rigidly stuck on the notion that the other parent is worthless and that the children are better off without a parent, no therapist will be able to make a dent in their position. At the first sign that the therapist is not in perfect agreement with everything they say, they dismiss the therapist as biased or in collusion with the other parent. Some of these parents even accuse the judge of being in collusion with the therapist, the opposing attorney, and the target parent, or accuse the entire judicial system of being corrupt. If your ex-spouse exhibits signs of being this rigid and is unable to establish a trusting relationship with any competent therapist, you will most likely end up in court.
Make sure your attorney is experienced in trying these types of cases. If you have the misfortune to get a severely flawed custody evaluation, your attorney may want to hire a trial consultant to assist in the cross-examination of the evaluator. Also, the attorney may want to secure the services of an expert who can testify on general issues related to your case, such as the diagnosis and treatment of alienated children.
It is my hope that the advice in this book will help you maintain or reclaim your child’s love and respect without the expense of professional assistance. But if your situation warrants it, you should not hesitate to avail yourself of the help good mental health professionals and good attorneys can provide. Years from now your children will thank you for your efforts.