Citations Reveal Alternative Practices — Psychological Torture

I am the author of three books[i] on the intersections of fatherhood funding and custody determinations. My work concerns itself primarily with analyzing the research influencing protocols. This article, taken from my written testimony to the New York Custody Evaluation Governor’s Commission, exposes custody evaluations, primarily referred to as “Parenting Evaluations.” I explain the distorted beliefs behind the contrary-to-law methods in use today. To my knowledge no litigant is ever informed of the nature and funding behind the practices applied. Specifically, “hybrid evaluation” which appears to be central to evaluations that misrepresent, hide and create “facts” pertinent to parenting and custody determinations.

The protocols currently applied in contested custody litigation are authored and marketed by trade associations. While the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a premier actor, organizations that work with AFCC include: The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ); Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP); American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML); and, the American Psychological Association (APA). Key operators span numerous organizations for example:

• Robin Deutsch, co-author of Triage Intake Screen, heads the APA ethical board, and holds AFCC officer positions.
• Nancy Ver Steegh, past-President AFCC, affiliate of BWJP, as an employee of Mitchell Hamline Dispute Resolution Institute teaches AFCC mediation methods.
• Loretta Frederick, BWJP, NCJFCJ, writes numerous training documents.

TRIAGE INTAKE SCREEN [ii]

Triage Intake Screen, authored by AFCC Executive Director Peter Salem, Connecticut court employee and AFCC member Debra Kulak, and AFCC officer Robin Deutsch, denotes the formula shift from standard assessment towards unvetted, unacknowledged, distorted processes created by AFCC affiliates. Triage Intake Screens purpose is to advance an internal process of assessment and assignment of court services based on level of parental “conflict.” Conflict is an AFCC-originated and promulgated term applied to contested custody. Evaluation is just one of several judicially mandated services which disputing parents are required to purchase. Fees are often exorbitant. Evaluation is a “first step” or is ordered when serious child maltreatment concerns arise. Statements and conclusions printed in the evaluation are submitted to the court as evidence. The evaluator is considered an expert witness. Courts rarely hold Frye Hearings on the evaluator’s credentials and technique. Evaluators are known to misapply psychological tests to back-up their conclusions. Evaluators act out of allegiance to an undisclosed mediation/conciliation model developed by AFCC. Evaluators are members of the “inter-disciplinary” team. Triage Intake Screen speaks to the evolved nature of mediation and custody evaluation. It is important to note authors and citations, as they represent an ideological glue wedged within family court services.

Courts have turned away from the cause of the divorce and “custody evaluations that emphasized the identification of parenting abilities and assessment of parent-child relationships.”

“Mediation also underwent an evolutionary process, and a variety of practice models emerged. In 1996, Kelly reported, “[it is clear that different mediation models have developed but are rarely acknowledged or described” (p. 383). Notable exceptions at the time included California’s “recommending” mediation model Impasse-Directed Mediation (Johnston & Campbell, 1988), and Transformative Mediation (Bush & Folger, 1994). However, just over a decade later, numerous mediation (and evaluation) models can be identified that have been designed and promulgated in response to the changing and growing needs of separating and divorcing families (Folberg, Milne & Salem, 2004).

…with the evolution of the mediation and child custody evaluation processes, additional dispute resolution processes have emerged. These include parenting coordination (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan & Sydlik, 2004), high-conflict couples counseling (Thayer & Zimmerman, 2001), mediation evaluation hybrid processes (Shienvold, 2004)…”

AFCC taught custody evaluators to ignore parenting ability, history and fitness. Instead, AFCC incorporated processes alleged to foster co- and joint parenting; to end conflict. This paper will look at the origins, content and marketing of the premier processes referenced in Triage Intake Screen.

Mediation is no longer “facilitative.” The court appointee’s goal is not agreement but rather, management.

• Impasse Directed Mediation was developed by Janet Johnston.
• “Transformative” mediation concerns itself with managing emotions and behavior.

Custody evaluations incorporate other AFCC processes.

• parenting coordination (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan & Sydlik, 2004),
• high-conflict couples counseling (Thayer & Zimmerman, 2001), and
• mediation evaluation hybrid processes (Shienvold, 2004)

PARENT EDUCATION

To AFCC all family court services can be classified as “parent education.” The parents are being educated to coparent; adhere to a “parenting plan,” a term that supplants “custody order.” “Parent Education” is key to comprehending how activists manage to justify and conduct such high levels of intrusion into parents lives after dissolution.

“Taking Stock of Parent Education in the Family Courts: Envisioning a Public Health Model,”[iii] written by AFCC Executive Director Peter Salem, and father’s rights aligned, Arizona State University researchers Irwin Sandler and Sharlene Wolchik, advocates for classifying and managing divorce as a public health issue. Citations are notable because they demonstrate how white-washed and father’s rights generated research created and sustains family court practices.

“Parent education programs emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a part of what Singer (2009) has labeled the “velvet revolution” in which the law-oriented, judge-focused adversary model in family law was replaced with more collaborative, interdisciplinary and future-focused dispute resolution processes.”

“Parent Education” outlines the three levels of intervention, with the most severe, or intrusive, being indicated services. Admittedly, services omit due process protections.

“Indicated services are appropriate for parents who are behaving in a way that the court deems to be harmful to their children’s well-being. Such behaviors might include intimate partner violence or chronic high levels of inter-parental conflict, particularly conflict that puts the children in the middle or that involves repeated re-litigation over issues of parenting time, which leads to a lack of family stability.”

“There are important due process considerations that are beyond the scope of this paper.”

PARENTING COORDINATION (COATES, DEUTSCH, STARNES, SULLIVAN & SYDLIK, 2004)

Family court employees and appointees work together, collaboratively as facets of a multi-disciplinary team; a fact undisclosed to litigants. AFCC writes numerous articles promoting their inter-disciplinary, collaborative team model. The evaluator is a member of the team. The evaluation effects the custody order which in turn effects an intended re-assignment of caregiving from the primary (aligned, favored) parent to the non-historical, maltreating parent.

The judge appoints a “manager.” The evaluator may assume the new role. Hearing Masters, Parenting Coordinators and Guardian Ad Litems may perform this management role,[iv] as cited in “Triage Intake Screen.”

The “interdisciplinary team” — judge, lawyer and mental health practitioner — working together to manage and force even the most inadequate parent/child relationships was standardized through fatherhood access/visitation legislation and grants. Welfare reform cemented AFCC’s takeover of family court processes and service network.

PRACTICES

“Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques and Applications,” a 588-page academic textbook, was published in 2004, edited by AFCC executive directors Anne Milne and Peter Salem, and AFCC past-President, Jay Folberg, JD. Its 24 chapters, which cover a wide variety of “state-of-the-art” mediation methods, are authored by founders, leaders, and emerging stars — “an all-star cast of those influencing the development of divorce and family mediation.” Each chapter is authored by a prominent purveyor and explains the basis, rationale and application of their model of practice. Methods “foreshadow the future.”

The procedures outlined in these pages have been taught at colleges and universities worldwide for decades. A cadre of trained mental health and legal practitioners believe AFCC theories represent optimum practice. AFCC’s notions form the foundation of education given at AFCC conferences nationally and internationally, where practitioners accumulate continuing education credits for “coursework” officiated by AFCC. The connections and affiliations of purveyors, the authorities they cite in footnotes to rationalize endorsed practices, are highly significant. A complex overlap of theories and reconstituted research, promulgated by a limited number of practitioners, form the basis of current-day family court services foisted upon litigants involved in contested custody litigation.

It is important to understand the concept of mediation and its development as an alternative resolution process (also called “conciliation” and “ADR/alternate dispute resolution”). Historically, mediation assisted willing divorcing couples so they could form an agreement outside of a legal forum, without judicial adjudication (decision-making). The premise of mediation was to take the argument out of the courtroom so the couple could talk through obstacles and differences with the assistance of a trained, neutral party. The practitioner facilitated agreement. Prior to the 1998 funding of federal fatherhood OCSE access/visitation incentive grants, which advocated for the use of mediation-type services to increase non-custodial (mostly dad’s) custody, mediation had been deemed unacceptable where maltreatment presented because the target of abuse remained in a vulnerable position.

For this written testimony, I reiterate portions of my book AFCC net: People, Policy, Practices that Intrude in Child Custody Determinations that examine AFCC textbook chapters found in sections on “methods” and “techniques and interventions.” I condense two concepts cited in “Triage Intake Screen.” “Hybrid Process” forms the base of current evaluation practice. “Impasse-Directed Mediation” discloses the base for processing and management of cases where domestic violence presents. It is important to note that while these unorthodox views undergird all AFCC interventions, they are routinely subjectively misapplied.

HYBRID PROCESS/MEDIATION EVALUATION (SHIENVOLD, 2004)

Pennsylvania mental health practitioner Arnold Shienvold authored chapter 6, “Hybrid Processes.” Shienvold sits on numerous state and federal fatherhood, domestic violence, and psychological protocol commissions. Shienvold presents all-day institutes and several workshops at AFCC conferences. Shienvold has been a member of AFCC’s conference program committee for decades. Shienvold is a key network affiliate who invests in, and consults with, numerous Pennsylvania counseling operations. Shienvold enjoys unprecedented influence over high-cost, mandated, services impacting custody determinations, including evaluation.

In Hybrid Processes Shienvold tells practitioners to combine methods of evaluation, mediation and settlement. Mediation “may be viewed as a hybrid process containing elements from psychotherapy, negotiation, facilitation and other services.” Shienvold “reviews several mixed processes used to help resolve disputes within the family. Dr. Shienvold includes evaluative mediation, mediation followed by arbitration (“med-arb”), and arbitration followed by mediation (“arb-med”).” Discarding impartiality, the mental health or legal appointee becomes a decision-maker, an enforcer. Admittedly, processes are skewed to affect a pre-determined outcome.

“There are times when a rights-based approach, rather than an interest -based approach, is more useful in helping parents resolve disputes. The two techniques might be combined in a way that keeps interests in focus while incorporating processes that deal with rights and power issues.”

The mental health appointee does not “evaluate” the -child fit, consult collateral witnesses, and adhere to guidelines. Instead, the child’s best interests are overridden and replaced with a (father’s) rights-based approach. Unbeknownst to litigants, the court-ordered custody evaluator acts under Shienvold’s “mediation” model. Shienvold admits failure to disclose the mixing of processes is unethical. Shienvold states “the rights-based or power approaches may be more effective in resolving conflicts. Instead of using a simple and pure process, it may be more beneficial to combine an approach that keeps interests in focus and incorporates processes that address rights and power issues.”

Where “evaluative mediation (eval-med)” is applied in contested custody, the evaluator conducts a custody evaluation, recommends a custodial determination, then, the same practitioner “changes roles and becomes a mediator in an attempt to facilitate the parties settlement of their dispute.” The evaluator has authority from the court and has the duty to testify at any subsequent hearing or trial. Eval-med parallels the process of “arb-med” — arbitration followed by mediation. In arb-med, the appointee makes a “judgement.”

“If the parties perceive the evaluator as “powerful” and strongly attached to the decision maker in court, they are likely to adjust their genuine desires and accept compromises (based on the results of the evaluation) that they would not have accepted if there were no formal report to the court.”

The appointee has greater “power.” Shienvold concedes it correlates to “muscle mediation” and has inherent power imbalances, but is acceptable as long as “the parties” are “informed.” Eval-med and arb-med “can be used to help attorney’s or judges settle a case.” The neutral party intentionally combines two or more processes to settle a dispute. “The parties are likely to be influenced by the arbitrator (evaluator) and “settle” for an alternative that they might not have accepted in a “pure” mediation.”

Shienvold advocates for evaluations that reward the unfit parent as a method of forcing primary parents to capitulate.

In mediation-arbitration (“med-arb”) the appointee is given authority by the court to make a binding decision regarding some aspects of the dispute. Med-arb is being used more frequently because “working with high-conflict families is extremely difficult, especially because their ability to communicate is so poor.” “Traditional mediation with these difficult situations is, at best, an extremely slow and frustrating process.” Med-arb gives an “instantaneously binding decision.” Shienvold states the authority could come from a court employee, such as a hearing master, or conciliation court.

Because “all of the pitfalls associated with a “powerful” or “muscle” mediator are present in this type of process” the solution is to have the decision “sealed.” The pre-determined outcome is not disclosed so that the parties continue to negotiate without feeling muscled.

The arrogance of AFCC affiliates rears its head in Shienvold’s conclusion: “It is imperative that as conflict resolvers, we remain open to the use of these hybrids and recognize the important role that each can play in assisting individual families to resolve their conflicts in the most expedient and just ways possible.”

IMPASSE-DIRECTED MEDIATION (JOHNSTON)

Chapter 5 “Therapeutic Mediation with High-Conflict Parents” is written by Janet Johnston and Marsha Kline Pruett, both instrumental in forming domestic violence A/V protocols that lean heavily on alienation theory, including psychologically labeling women raising maltreatment. “High conflict couples counseling” incorporates similar methodology.

Johnston/Pruett begin with an admission that historically mediation was only applied to couples willing to work together. Acknowledging that prevailing wisdom was mediation forced cooperation from victims in instances of abuse, Johnston/Pruett claim a mediator can right things by addressing the “power imbalances” in the relationship. Again, maltreatment is relegated to an inequality easily fixed.

Johnston/Pruett claim Johnston’s research shows parents who refuse to conciliate hold “psychological and systemic dynamics that generate and sustain the disputes.”

Parents who refuse to conciliate hold “psychological and systemic dynamics that generate and sustain the disputes…In most cases and varying degrees, the negative views of one or both spouses have some basis in fact, as part of their real experience of the other spouse’s violent, neglectful, or substance-abusing behavior. The goal for the mediator/clinician is to help parents distinguish unrealistic from realistic fears about the other parents’ capacity to safely and competently care for the children.” Johnston and Pruett’s solution is “impasse directed mediation” where “the role of the mediator is intensified” and interventions occur in a legally defined framework.

Johnston/Pruett are two of several AFCC members who promulgate theories that those who contest generous non-historical, unfit parent custody awards are mentally disturbed. Johnston/Pruett never apply their psychological labels to maltreating males or to those who pursue custody awards not commensurate with routines established during the marriage. He is not the “sick” parent — she is. The seeds of psychological labeling of primary caregiving mothers are laid. As in PAS theory, maltreatment does not exist except as a figment of a disturbed person’s psyche. It has become standard practice for mental health practitioners to instantaneously diagnose mothers as mentally unstable. Labeling is a first step to custody switches and guarantees a long stretch of litigation services. Evaluation is an integral process that uses psychological tests and interviews to psychologically label litigants and children.

“Painful, unwanted feelings are associated solely with the former spouse, in order to attain relief from anxiety and the disturbing feelings that accompany it. These persons tend to view the other parent as irresponsible, even dangerous, while they view themselves as the essential, responsible and safe caretaker.” They “develop rigid ideas of betrayal, conspiracy and exploitation at the hands of the ex-mate. The children are pressured to mirror the rejected parents’ feelings and perceptions in order to assure themselves that they will continue to derive nurturance and caretaking without being rejected, in turn.”

“In most cases and varying degrees, the negative views of one or both spouses have some basis in fact, as part of their real experience of the other spouse’s violent, neglectful, or substance-abusing behavior. The goal for the mediator/clinician is to help parents distinguish unrealistic from realistic fears about the other parent’s capacity to safely and competently care for the child.”

Johnston/Pruett propose combining “therapeutic counseling with mediation techniques” for couples failing to come to an agreement. They term their system “Impasse-Directed Mediation.” The authors recommend “a skilled mediator/clinician who has considerable experience working with fragile, vulnerable, narcissistic and potentially volatile people. Without such experience and training, the family is likely to best the mediator, adding to the considerable load of problems already plaguing the family during divorce.”

The techniques outlined by Johnston/Pruett could be classified as comical and ludicrous, except that they are the established treatment for victims of severe maltreatment. Maltreated moms and kids are court-ordered to appointees who label them with a variety of psychological disorders and then attempt to coach them to accept his flaws.

“A deeply humiliated mother, whose husband fell in love with a secretary at his office seeks to reassure herself of her own self-worth by proving him to be an irresponsible, “bad” parent. As she is supported and reassured about how special she is to her children and what a good job she has done in protecting them from the hurt of the divorce, her need to attack him in court (e.g. a public arena) and to view him as a lousy father decreases. For these parents, careful redirection of their defenses is necessary to help them design and maintain successful divorce arrangements.” This view, or theory, highlights a curious, common occurrence. Adjudication of the “attack” — her legal claim of father’s unfitness — is taken “out” of court and instead hidden inside an appointee’s office where the charges are never addressed. Instead, the appointee zealously fosters access and works to break the defenses of the petitioning parent through the use of “interventions.”

As the parents become sensitized to interventions, the mediator can move onto counseling. Mediators are told to inform parents who want the other parent to be held responsible for their caregiving, about the “legal realities.” “Through confrontation, education, encouragement that parents obtain legal consultation and interviews with child protective workers and court personnel, the mediator helps the parents define and limit their options…” Mediators use threats of legal intrusions and sanctions to break resistance. Child protective workers are recruited, and often, purposely disregard child abuse.

Johnston/Pruett warn “sometimes parents induce a crisis…[that] may entail an incident of verbal abuse that escalates to shoving or snatching the child at the time of transfer between parental residences, or a refusal to allow the child to make a scheduled transition to the other parent’s home, prompting a screaming match on the telephone, in front of the child.” The mediator is told to intervene by “reminding them verbally or with a gesture that they are becoming mired in their impasse and escalating again.” This suggestion highlights a common behavior of court appointees — yelling, admonishing, physically cutting off litigants attempting to raise serious caregiving concerns.

When control is an issue between spouses and they are locked into power struggles the mediator is told to use paradoxical injunctions.

“The mediator can acknowledge the parents’s need to fight, help them develop a forum, and identify topics over which to continue their battles. For example, the mediator might suggest that the parents meet for coffee at the local doughnut shop to fight some more about which parent actually bought most of the child’s winter clothes. For couples who experience shock and perhaps great shame around the events of the separation, some attention may need to be given to reworking the events, giving each parent an opportunity to discuss his or her views of critical incidents. A woman might wish to discuss, once again, how she happened to learn about her husband’s infidelity and whether or not there was evidence that he had planned to tell her, as he insists he did. Apologies carry remarkable power to help heal old wounds, and the mediator should encourage them whenever possible.”

Clothes become the issue of a power struggle. Infidelity, which can indicate a pattern of maltreatment, is dismissed as her complaining again. The complexity of forgiveness becomes minimized. Suggesting parents take their argument to the local coffee shop is flat-out ludicrous and indicates a severe misunderstanding of inherent danger.

Johnston/Pruett advise mediators to reframe negative behaviors in benign or positive terms. As an example, they cite a father who doesn’t let the children return mothers phone call. The mediator should reframe the behavior as dad trying to avoid a predictable fight. The mediator is told to “commend him on his efforts — misplaced though they may be.”

For parents who continue their impasse the mediator is told to use stories, myths, folktales, and analogies to preserve face and steer the couple clear of old impasses. Once the couple understands the parameters a final coparenting plan can be put in place. The mediator is advised to consider “A mother who has felt dominated wants some openness in the agreement, so that she can make minor modifications without feeling boxed onto a “final” agreement that may not meet her work schedule over the long term.” The mediator is not concerned with how a pattern of domination will impact the children.

Johnston/Pruett claim their research showed a majority of parents in mediation settle. However, “some families continued to function at a disturbed level that raised concerns for the children’s longer-term psychological and social development. Family restructuring among this subgroup must occur in a fuller sense in order to safeguard the futures of these children. These families require a more intensive intervention — a two-stage therapeutic endeavor.”

A subheading titled “Fostering Structural Family and Individual Change in Entrenched Custody Disputes” covers processes enacted upon those with the highest levels of maltreatment. “The first rule governing work with these most chronic and chaotic families is to create a legally defined framework that helps constrain the conflict through external controls.” A legal contract or court order applies strict rules to the parents. “The mediator assists not only in helping parents to identify, understand and resolve psychological and interpersonal conflicts, but the advocacy role of the mediator is intensified, much like the role of guardian ad-litem [GAL, another court-appointee position] but with a strictly therapeutic focus and bent.” Mediators are told to remember “there are two sides to every story.” This advice highlights the now-common practice of using legal sanctions to force capitulation.

Johnston admits three quarters of the families included in her study of impasse extended counseling experienced domestic violence.

Mediators are advised to include attorneys in the process. Inherent ethical violations for both legal and mental health practitioners are not addressed. “Attorney’s may function as an important potential foil and cooperative partner to mediators in these endeavors. Techniques for including attorney input during the process and utilizing the authority inherent in the attorney role to resolve impasses bring the level of collaboration between legal and mental health professionals to new heights.” GAL’s, supposedly acting under a “best interest for the child” standard could be included in this advice. Litigants are often unaware that the attorney billing for legal defense is actually working with the court appointee.

“No longer do mediation and therapeutic strategies need to be divorced from one another, creating confused layers of service providers for families who need integration and consolidation of services and management. In the impasse model, the mediators and attorneys form alliances that operate, as all good marriages should, to foster the future health and well-being of the children, first and foremost, as well as the parents who are raising them.”

STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING IMPASSES

Chapter 12 “Strategies for Managing Impasses” is written by Robert Benjamin, MSW, J.D., a lawyer and social worker specializing in conflict resolution since 1979. Benjamin is a Family Systems/Dynamics advocate. Benjamin advocates for out-of-the-norm methods of intrusion meant to settle disputes. “Traditionally impasse analysis and management have been limited to a focus on the parties,” because of “an unwarranted assumption that the third-party role as a mere “objective” and “neutral” bystander is minimal.” Benjamin has authored numerous books including “The Mediator As Trickster,” “Guerilla Negotiation” and “The Beauty of Conflict.”

Benjamin discusses other factors that may cause an impasse such as values and power imbalances.

“Power and control impasses can be elusive. Some people operate out of the desire to control and gain the advantage over others. Behaviors expressing fear of loss and need of self-protection may resemble controlling behavior. From whichever source, the inclination to be controlling and have power does not necessarily mean there is a power imbalance, per se. Some mediators work has a political edge to it in which there is a tendency to make judgments and identify the parties as either a victim or perpetrator based on their status (e.g. male or female, homemaker or professional), or actions (e.g. an incident of domestic violence or expression of anger) alone. In every conflict, and most apparently in family conflicts, varying leverages and entitlements are available to each party and may shift over time. The frequent reference to the “level playing field” as a requirement for mediation is dubious in theory and nonexistent in practice. Power balance is a dynamic rather than static state that shifts during the course of the negotiation process. Very seldom can a determination be made as to which party is all powerful, leaving the other powerless.”

“In the process of balancing the power one party may need additional information, but the other party also needs protection and reassurance that the balancing is to his or her advantage as well. Using the “victim/perp” labeling obviously works against this understanding of protecting both parties.”

This statement highlights the “coddling” and “excusing” of, not only a misuse of power, but criminal behavior.

To advance his unvetted mediation methods (and those who practice them) Benjamin founded the platform “mediate.com” which he advertises in AFCC conference brochures, listing AFCC members who join. A notable video features Benjamin interviewing Joan Kelly disclosing her intervention strategies for parents embroiled in contested custody.[v]

TRANSFORMATIVE MEDIATION

Instead of facilitative mediation, AFCC promotes transformative mediation. This management concept which is best understood through example. Missouri spends its Access/Visitation grant operating a mediation program with M.A.R.C.H. Mediation. Program Director, Dawn Kuhlman sells trauma-informed mediation (cross-pollination).[vi] An affiliate of Missouri’s AFCC chapter, (promoted as a government service on the website https://www.govserv.org/US/St.-Louis/97836023531/MO-AFCC,) Kuhlman markets her reconstituted mediation method in a TedX video.[vii] Missouri’s A/V program director Kulhman admits she does not use “facilitative” mediation methods, but rather practices her self-designed “transformative” method (tapping, eye-roll, and neuro-feedback), to manage clients’ emotional reactions rather than formulate a custody arrangement that optimizes child rearing.

REFORMULATED PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME (JOHNSTON/KELLY)

The logic behind AFCC’s business model of evaluation, diagnosis, treatment and management, is outlined by practitioners Janet Johnston and Joan Kelly in “The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome” published in 2001.[viii] Johnston/Kelly repackaged Gardner’s theory around the family systems/dynamic idea that the family unit must remain cohesive, and if not, the cause can be attributed to an emotional failing of the resisting parties.

The stated goal of AFCC practices is to encourage a child’s positive relationship with both parents. Johnston/Kelly use a line drawing to exhibit variables in affection:

• children who have a good relationship with both parents;
• a child who “aligns” with one parent;
• children who are “allied” with one parent; and,
• “estranged” children (these being the most alienated children).

Johnston/Kelly admit estrangement due to “history of family violence, abuse, or neglect” is legitimate, and that the separation makes the child “feel safe enough to reject the violent or abusive parent.” Johnston/Kelly feel some children are “traumatized by an act of violence that from an adult’s perspective might not have been very serious or injurious.” Johnston/Kelly claim early incidents of “excessive force or abuse toward a family member that after separation escalates into a powerful family legend that can contribute to child alienation in addition to estrangement.” However, Johnston/Kelly conclude the important reason to distinguish real abuse is because those children “need a post-traumatic stress disorder intervention at the outset. Only after the trauma has been properly addressed should one consider whether interventions for alienation are necessary (see Lee & Olesen, 2001).”

In addition to abuse, Johnston/Kelly recognize “severe parental deficiencies, including persistent immature and self-centered behaviors; chronic emotional abuse of the child or preferred parent; physical abuse that goes undetected; characterologically angry, rigid, and restrictive parenting styles; and psychiatric disturbance or substance abuse that grossly interferes with parenting capacities and family functioning” contribute to a child’s dislike. Claiming “there may be some kernel of truth,” in alienation “the child’s grossly negative views and feelings are significantly distorted and exaggerated reactions.” Johnston/Kelly claim the rejection is a “pathological response” to “complex and frightening dynamics within the divorce process itself, to an array of parental behaviors, and also to their own vulnerabilities that make them susceptible to becoming alienated. The profound alienation of a child from a parent most often occurs in high-conflict custody disputes; it is an infrequent occurrence among the larger population of divorcing children.”

For clinicians to diagnose and intervene, Johnston/Kelly state assessment using a “systems framework” is critical. “These ‘alienating processes,’ including children’s and parents’ psychological responses, need to be taken seriously and fully assessed for preventive action to be taken, especially when children are younger.”

Johnston/Kelly categorize actions of each party which contribute to, and have the potential to, cause alienation.

1. Aligned Parent — To identify behaviors and beliefs of the favored parent Johnston/Kelly cite PAS authors Clawar & Rivlin, 1991; Gardner, 1987; and Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980.

• Badmouthing — “Negative views of the rejected parent may be freely, angrily, and repeatedly expressed to the child by the aligned parent… The effect of the continued drumbeat of negative evaluation of the parent is to erode the child’s confidence in and love for the rejected parent and to create intolerable confusion. These evaluations might also be expressed indirectly, covertly, or unconsciously and might include innuendoes of sexual or child abuse or implications that the parent is dangerous in other ways… aligned parents’ behaviors reflect several organizing beliefs that might not be consciously spiteful and vindictive but nevertheless are potentially very damaging to the child’s relationship with the other parent. As a consequence of their own deep psychological issues, the aligned parent can harbor deep distrust and fear of the ex-spouse and be absolutely convinced that he or she is at best irrelevant and at worst a pernicious influence on the child. Consequently, a first major organizing belief is that their child does not need the other parent in their lives.”
• Mount a Campaign Against — Because the parent believes the other parent is dangerous, they try to block access. They “campaign to protect the child…on multiple fronts by involving attorneys, therapists, pediatricians, and school personnel.” They seek “restraining and supervised visitation orders, installing security equipment at the residence, and finding reasons to cancel visits when orders for contact exist…Sometimes, earlier disciplinary interactions involving angry or confrontative (but not abusive) behaviors by the rejected parent are repackaged as confirmation of violence toward the child.”
• Pathological — Johnston/Kelly distort quality caregiver attributes with a psychological pathology. The constitutional right to litigate a custody determination, and involvement from others concerned about the child’s circumstance, become vilified actions. Johnston/Kelly end their diatribe by claiming the “legal fight” exists to alleviate depression.

“Both empirical research and clinical observation indicate that there is often significant pathology and anger in the parent encouraging the alienation of the child, including problems with boundaries and differentiation from the child, severe separation anxieties, impaired reality testing, and projective identifications with the child (Dunne & Hedrick, 1994; Johnston, 1993; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Lampel, 1996; Lund, 1995; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). It is not a normal parental strategy to encourage the complete rejection of the other parent. Even when there is history of child abuse, the other parent is mentally ill, or the child’s safety is endangered, the average parent will seek different avenues and more rational means of protecting the child. Furthermore, such parents often recognize that their child loves that parent despite the destructive behavior. It should be noted that the divorce process and its professional participants often mobilize and enable these aligned parents to present themselves in a coherent, organized manner. The nature of the adversarial process encourages hostile, polarized, black-and-white thinking with little challenge, presents perceived truths as facts and fuels and channels rage in a scripted manner. The intensity and duration of the legal fight may also serve as an antidote to depression.”

Contrary to pathologizing the “favored parent” (which is really the quality, primary caregiving parent), Johnston/Kelly acknowledge parental flaws of the rejected or “targeted” parent, then discount seriousness. Ultimate blame is put on litigation, and the child’s response.

2. Unbonded Parent — “It is apparent that in many cases of alienated children, parents who are rejected have contributed to the alienation in one or more significant ways. It is important to state, however, that these rejected parents’ behaviors do not by themselves warrant the disproportionately angry response of the child nor the refusal to have contact. Their parental involvement and capacities were generally within a normative range but might have become compromised by the marital conflict, the divorce disputes, and the child’s problematic response.”

• Litigation — interpersonal and legal conflict causes the parent to withdraw contact, give up on therapy. Johnston/Kelly conclude “such parents need coaching to assist them in remaining connected with their children.”
• Affronted and Offended — “by the lack of respect and ingratitude afforded them. Hurt and humiliated” parent reacts by counter-rejecting. “Their anger might also stem from sheer frustration and lack of patience or might arise from retaliatory needs to treat the child in the same manner in which they have been treated.” The aligned parent uses the counter rejection to reinforce condemnation of the “bad” parent.
• Parenting Style — Johnston/Kelly admit “sometimes rejected parents have demonstrated a harshness, lack of empathy, and rigidity in their parenting style that however, does not rise to the level of emotional or physical abuse.” Then Johnston/Kelly pivot and claim the preferential parent’s allegations of abusive and/or unfit parenting conjoin with the child’s prior experience, leads to rejection. Ironically, Johnston/Kelly admit such a parenting style causes older children in intact families to rebel and challenge rigid and harsh parents, but does not lead to refusal to have contact because that is only a possibility when parents live in separate homes.
• Self-Centered and Immature — Even though Johnston/Kelly admit parents who put their own needs and enjoyment first have self-centered and immature personalities, they claim “in the custody battle, these behaviors are focused on, exaggerated, and come to symbolize the parent’s disinterest in the child.”
• Critical and Demanding Traits — “Rejected parents might have exhibited critical and demanding behaviors in parent-child interactions during the marriage. In the high-conflict custody dispute, such behaviors might take on new meaning and contribute to alienation. Demands for straight As, perfection in athletic performance, or unwise and angry criticism of their children’s appearance and friends, although not at the level of emotional abuse, can contribute to the child’s alienation in the context of the other operative factors. Interestingly, this demanding, critical behavior on the part of the rejected parent might be a consequence of his or her perception that the aligned counterreacts to the perceived harshness and overcompensates by becoming even more lenient or overprotective with the child.”
• Diminished Empathy — “cannot differentiate the needs and behaviors” from the anger they feel towards the other parent whom they blame for creating the child’s rejection. “they have little empathic connection with the child and cannot be emotionally available to their child even when they raise legitimate complaints. This lack of empathy or even subtle dismissal of the child’s feelings can lead to intensified fury in the child and can further deepen the alienation.”

3. Child — Johnston/Kelly list factors that blame the child.

• Age and emotional maturity — children younger than 7 or 8 with attachment difficulties and intense anxiety at separation from their custodial parent are at considerable risk for developing a more consolidated alienation…as their cognitive and emotional abilities mature and must be protected by well-conceived interventions (Johnston et al., 2001; Sullivan & Kelly, 2001). Overall, the most common age range of the alienated child is from 9 to 15.
• Feelings of Abandonment — the child perceives a “new lover” as defection, and diminished attention as abandonment. Another common alienating element occurs when children feel that a parent has abandoned them when he or she leaves the family residence. “In high-conflict divorces, some nonresidential parents do not see their children for a number of months due to high legal conflict about access and the absence of interim orders. When this occurs, feelings of abandonment and anger often deepen and put children at risk for becoming alienated.”
• Temperament And Personality Vulnerabilities — Children are also fair game for psychological labeling. “Alienation increases with greater psychological adjustment problems in the child (Johnston, 1993; Lampel, 1996; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Anxious, fearful, and passive children lack the resiliency to withstand the intense pressures of the custody battle and the aligned parents’ alienating behaviors. It might be psychologically easier for them to choose a side to avoid crippling anxiety. Children with poor reality testing are more likely to be vulnerable, particularly in the absence of other family members or professionals assisting the child by clarifying the troubling and confusing events and behaviors associated with the divorce.”
• Emotional or physical dependence — Johnston/Kelly claim the aligned parent uses conditional love to gain the child’s alignment. The enraged, aligned parent will threaten to disown the child if they visit the other parent. Children who identify with the aligned parent will readily reject the maligned parent to preserve the core aspects of their own identity. Others “rescue” the depressed and hurt parent. “This role reversal, in the context of protracted legal conflict, creates a vulnerability to strongly align with that needy parent.”
• Lack of External Support — includes infrequent or lack of contact. The aligned parent exacerbates alienation because the child has no opportunity to spend significant time with the rejected parent and their extended family. “Children are not able to test and retest the reality of that parent and his or her behavior and to compare their current observations with their own distorted memories or with the negative accounts of the aligned parent. Furthermore, because false allegations of sexual or child abuse most often result in limited and supervised visiting for many months, the presence of this supervision framework promotes children’s acceptance that a parent is dangerous or hurtful. Once evidence accumulates that no abuse has occurred, damage to parent-child relationships is often quite extensive and creates formidable barriers to reconstructing the relationship between rejected parents and their children. When children have few external resources-such as therapists, extended family members, or other trusted adults-their vulnerability increases, particularly if they are emotionally isolated with the aligned parent.”

Johnston/Kelly developed a diagram with the child at the center and two concentric circles containing blocks that contribute to the child’s response. All factors have interplay. This diagram continues to justify custody determinations and treatment methods enacted by AFCC affiliates even today.

CUSTODY EVALUATION GUIDELINES

For this testimony, I provide a “Draft” copy of APA Custody Evaluation Guidelines, which I received from another advocate. I subsequently highlighted parts of the document which I found relevant. Most important are the citations. While the Guidelines appear to merit ethical evaluations, the citations show a different story. The citations show AFCC’s processes are marketed. For this testimony I will disclose the truth of several citations. First it is necessary to reiterate the purpose of APA guidelines, and to inform the committee that an evaluator’s first allegiance is to the needs of the child. If an evaluator is not trained in maltreatment, if the evaluator is using an undisclosed process, or operates under an undisclosed Access/Visitation contract with the court, they are ethically obligated to recuse themselves.

“When disputes have not been resolved, psychologists render a valuable service when they provide competent, impartial and adequately supported opinions with direct relevance to the “best interests of the child” (Symons, 2010). “Best interests of the child” is defined in many state statutes. The standard generally reflects criteria “related to the child’s circumstances and the parent or caregiver’s circumstances and capacity to parent with the child’s ultimate safety and well-being the paramount concern” (Child Information Gateway, Department of Health and Human Services, 2018, p. 2). A custody evaluation generally involves relevant facets of the child’s needs as well as the parenting qualities and capacities of each of the adult parties.

Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are intended to facilitate the continued development of the profession and to help facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every professional situation. They are not definitive, and they are not intended to take precedence over the measured, independent judgment of psychologists (APA, 2015).”

Guideline 1. The purpose of the child custody evaluation is to assist in identifying the best interests of the child, in recognition that the child’s welfare is paramount.

Guideline 4 “When the specifics of a case are such that the psychologist does not possess the requisite competency to conduct the custody evaluation, this situation provides psychologists with an important opportunity to decline involvement and suggest a more suitable evaluator.

Guideline 11. Psychologists strive to function as fair and impartial evaluators. Rationale. Child custody evaluations address complex and emotionally charged disputes over highly personal matters, and the parties are usually deeply invested in a specific outcome. The volatility of this situation is often exacerbated by a growing realization that there may be no resolution that will satisfy every person involved. In this contentious atmosphere, cognitive, confirmatory, implicit, or other biases may signal impaired neutrality. Implicit biases may predispose the psychologist to make premature decisions and to construe the merits of the data accordingly.

Guideline 15. Psychologists endeavor to conduct appropriate screening for family violence, child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, and resultant trauma. Rationale. Renewed parent-child contact may pose risks of renewed violence and child abuse, and parenting skills may become compromised in an environment of intimidation and fear. An extensive literature links violence and other forms of maltreatment to relationship dissolution and to problems with custody and post-separation co-parenting (Austin & Drozd, 2012). Application. With respect to the screening process, psychologists are endeavoring to preserve, protect, and promote safe, healthy and functional relationships and living arrangements. Psychologists strive to identify potential physical or sexual abuse, child abuse, or coercion and control behaviors on the part of family members or caregivers, and to utilize these findings, as appropriate, in their assessment.”

CITATIONS — APA Custody Evaluation Guidelines

Citations disclose embedded ideology and AFCC practices.

Evaluation How To BOOK

Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court,[ix] a book cited under the section “Parent Interviews” relies on the work of Leslie Drozd, Michael Saini, and Nancy Oleson. All three AFCC affiliates promote alienation and enfold its concepts into domestic violence processing. Parenting Plan Evaluations chapters are written by preeminent father’s rights researchers. I re-typed the chapter titles and authors, and follow with an excerpt explaining how created evidence/research drives practice.

SECTION 1:

1. Social Science Evidence and the Law

Jonathan W. Gould, Milfred Dale, Nicki Fisher, Madeline Gold

SECTION 2: Foundation of Personality Development: Parental Insightfulness

2. The Importance of Keeping the Inner World of the Child in Mind for Parenting Plan Evaluations

David Oppenheim & Nina Koren-Karie

SECTION 3: Factors Associated with Children’s Adjustment to Parents’ Separation and Time Sharing

3. How Do parenting Time and Interparental Conflict Affect the Relations of of Quality of Parenting and Child Well-Being Following Divorce?

Irwin Sandler, Sharlene Wolcik, Emily Winslow, John Moran, David Weinstock, Nicole Mahrer

4. Father-Child Relationships: The Missing Link Between Parenting Time and Children’s Mental and Physical Health

Willliam Fabricius, Karina Sokol, Priscilla Diaz and Sanford Braver

5. Supporting Father Involvement in the Context of Separation and Divorce

Marsha Kline Pruett, Carolyn Pape Cowan, Philip Cowan, Lisa Pradhan, Sarah Robin

6. Shared-Time Parenting: Evaluating the Evidence of Risks and Benefits to Children

Bruce Smyth, Jennifer McIntosh, Robert Emery, Shelby Higgs Howarth

7. Critical Analysis of Research on Parenting Plans and Children’s Well-Being

Michael E. Lamb (fatherhood promoter)

SECTION 4: Children’s Disorders That Require Specialized Parenting

8. Children With Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Parental Separatoin and Divorce

Rachel Birnbaum, Lucyna Lach, Donald Saposnek

9. Co-Parenting Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Disruptive Behavior Disorders

Suzanne Kerns and Ronald Prinz

SECTION 5: Complex Special Issues Affecting Parenting and the Stability of the Parent-Child Relationship

10. Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Parenting Plan Evaluations: Assessing Children’s Memory and Behavior

Kathryn Kuehnle, Pamela Ludolph, Sonja Brubacher

11. Gatekeeping After Separation and Divorce

Lawrence Ganong, Marilyn Coleman, Ashton Chapman

12. Intimate Partner Violence and Child Custody

Fernada Rossi, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Brittany Rudd

13. Empirical Studies of Alienation

Michael Saini, Janet Johnston, Barbara Joe Fidler, Nicholas Bala

14. Relocation, Research, and Child Custody Disputes

Patrick Parkinson, Micola Taylor, Judith Cashmore, William Austin

SECTION 6: Cultural and Political Issues

15. Cultural Dynamics of Divorce and Parenting

Michael Saini, Gitu Bhatia

16. Never-married Parents in Family Court

Stanley Braver, Liza Cohen Hita

17. Gay and Lesbian Parents and Their Children: Research Relevant to Custody Cases

Suzanne Johnson, Elizabeth ‘Connor, Samantha Tornella

SECTION 7: Research Applied to Practice

18. Considerations for Step-Up Planning: When and How to Determine the “Right” Time

Marsha Kline Pruett, Robin Deutsch, Leslie Drozd

19. Putting It All Together: Effective intervention Planning for Children and Families

Lyn Greenberg, Lay Lebow

“The scientific information provided in these chapters can assist legal and mental health professionals to proffer empirically based opinions, conclusions, and recommendations when working with children and families in family law matters. A unique feature of this book is the focus on providing legal and mental health professionals with the most relevant and comprehensive information about the empirical evidence to inform practice regarding pertinent issues that impact the children and families within the context of child custody disputes.”

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DIFFERENTIATION

Austin, W. G., & Drozd, L. M. (2012). Intimate partner violence and child custody evaluation, part 1: 885 Theoretical framework, forensic model, and assessment issues. Journal of Child Custody: 886 Research, Issues, and Practices, 9(4), 250–309. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271927939_Intimate_Partner_Violence_and_Child_Custody_Evaluation_Part_I_Theoretical_Framework_Forensic_Model_and_Assessment_Issues/link/5807793508aefaf02a2c408f/download

This citation promotes a domestic violence classification system which Janet Johnston originated. Promotion of the classification system is very well funded and marketed throughout AFCC and father’s rights research.

In 2009, OVW child custody differentiation grant was issued because “the family court system is failing to adequately protect the safety and wellbeing of children — and their battered and battering parents — in child custody cases where domestic violence is alleged.” Recipients BWJP and its partner Praxis International, assembled a “blue ribbon team of representatives from NCJFCJ and AFCC, as well as scholars and expert practitioners from across the country.” The Child Custody Differentiation Project permits “stakeholders” to collaborate and maintain a hierarchal status quo. The grant report is part of a menagerie of materials compiled by government services consulting firm Young Williams. [x] Pages 5–10 list due process violations inherent to family court services.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

Another citation promotes the use of behavioral science to force compliance.

Langan, E. B. (2016). The elimination of child “custody” litigation: Using business branding techniques to transform social behavior. Pace Law Review, 36, 375–437. 947 https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1920&context=plr

HYBRID EVALUATION

Lund, M. E. (2015). The place for child custody evaluations in family peacemaking. Family Court Review, 948 53, 407–417 https://www.law.buffalo.edu/content/dam/law/restricted-assets/pdf/cle/161118/wright-1.pdf

This citation promotes concepts inherent to Hybrid Evaluations. The citation ends with a reference to the work of IAALS, which is contained in the Young Williams compilation.

“Custody evaluations could contribute more to peacemaking by the following:

• Require evaluators to obtain formal training in conflict resolution along with their training in forensic skills;
• Recognize that recommendations from a neutral custody evaluation are a part of a continuum of dispute resolution;
• Use mental health professionals to debrief evaluation reports with parents to help them understand the information and deal with emotional reactions;
• Require post-evaluation mediation and settlement conferences to discuss the contents of the evaluation and work on resolving open issues without litigation.

I also call for family law attorneys to develop a peacemaking mindset and skills for using custody evaluations for dispute resolution. As part of therapeutic jurisprudence, I believe all family law attorneys who work on custody cases should be formally trained in conflict resolution and have continuing education in the effects of parental conflict on children. Attorneys and mental health consultants should be working with clients to assess the need for evaluation, what kind of evaluation, ways to educate parents about good parenting and co-parenting throughout the evaluation process, and ways to help influence parents to be open to settling instead of prolonging litigation. With the recent work done by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) Honoring Families Initiative (Kourlis et al., 2013) and the recent Special Issue of Family Court Review about the IAALS White Paper (Shepard & Emery, 2014), I have some renewal of the hope I started out with 25 years ago that custody evaluations can play a positive role in helping separating families. Evaluators can play the role of being the sensitive eyes and ears of the court about families in custody cases, while also being peacemakers. I believe the family law courts of the future will require that of us.

A related project funded to promote AFCC practices is The Cady Initiative, Pathways to Resolution project.[xi] This project is the newest incarnation of reform efforts meant to maintain the status quo.

INTERVENTIONS

A citation that promotes therapeutic interventions (which are distorted psychological practices applied to children), is written by Robin Deutsch, a promoter of “Overcoming Barriers,” an alienation treatment process.

Deutsch, R. M. (2008). Divorce in the 21st century: Multidisciplinary family interventions. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36, 41–66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289852762_Divorce_in_the_21st_century_Multidisciplinary_family_interventions

“Family courts are increasingly stressed by larger caseloads, greater numbers of pro se litigants, highly litigious and complex divorces, and limited resources. Divorce cases in family courts have evolved from judicial decisions about who should be awarded custody of the children, to decisions about how to share parenting time and access to the children. This model often requires legal and clinical interventions other than trial. Education, mediation, and evaluation are services offered or required by most courts. These interventions rely upon multidisciplinary partnerships or collaborations. This article will describe new interventions that address the needs of all divorcing parents to those that are specifically focused on high conflict between parents. A review of parent education components, mental health roles in the collaborative law process, brief focused evaluations, therapeutic reunification, and parent coordination will be described.”

PARENTAL ALIENATION — Warshak

The last citation “Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies that Compromise Decisions in Court and in Therapy” [x] represents the naked exploitation of parental alienation theory and practice peppered throughout the alternative system. Premises and concepts sustain each other. Acceptance of one belief (father involvement is necessary), leads to acceptance of even more absurd assumptions (mothers who insist children should not have to endure dad’s maltreatment are gatekeepers, alienators; children who attach to their primary parent are pathologically diseased). Masterful alienation practitioners corral and repackage principles that float within this atmosphere. Masterful practitioners twist and reconfigure truths, they make maniacal reasoning appear sane, illogic sensible.

Author Richard Warshak is a preeminent practitioner featured at numerous family court association training events. Warshak’s articles and the work of those that cite his authority, are heavily marketed. Warshak operates out of the University of Texas, he prolifically advances distorted psychological labeling and treatment methods conceptualized by “parental alienation.”[xi] The methodology justifies judicial custody orders that switch primary caregiving parent, that award primary and sole custody to non-historical, unfit and maltreating parents. Treatment isolates the child (or children), forces acceptance and capitulation. The trauma suffered by the child aides in their breakdown, reprogramming, and reattachment.

The APA custody evaluation guidelines raise the issue of alienation in Guideline 5 which advises psychologists to acquire and maintain specialized competency in “complex issues.” The Drozd/Austin citation, domestic violence differentiation, is dubbed “special situations and difficult experiences.” Additional examples are a parent diagnosed with a communication disorder, or a parent-child bond that reflects atypical interpersonal history. Parental conflict and parent-child contact problems are categorized alongside intimate partner violence and child maltreatment, substance abuse, and mental health. Alienation is embraced as a contact/attachment concern.

“Attachment issues with parents and with siblings are important complex issues for child custody evaluations, with effort being made to optimize the bond with both parents, particularly with young children. Psychologists strive to understand and evaluate issues of bonding within the existing family dynamics.

Parent-child access problems are a complex area of study such that psychologists seek to obtain knowledge of the state-of-the art literature in this topic. The employment of such terms as “parental alienation syndrome” and “alienating behaviors” (e.g., Warshak, 2015) to address parent-child contact problems has engendered considerable controversy and confusion, because these terms do not convey the full complexity of these problems. Psychologists strive to understand parent-child contact problems through a suitably thorough investigation of all potential causes, including vulnerabilities of the children and evidence of behavior, vulnerabilities of the parents including healthy and unhealthy attachments of parents and children, and other family dynamics. Competencies may be enhanced by participation in case supervision, peer consultation, and continuing education, particularly when complex issues unexpectedly arise that are outside the psychologist’s scope of expertise when conducting child custody evaluations.” (APA guideline)

Warshak’s article, one of various materials endorsing alienation, was included in a South Carolina Guardian Ad Litem training packet. The article contains a disclaimer: “This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.” The APA endorses alienation and Warshak’s incendiary treatments.

Warshak writes therapists, lawyers and evaluators give inadequate recommendations to the courts, and therefore judges make unwise decisions due to false beliefs about children’s pathological alienation. Warshak’s article presents ten (10) myths he claims are contradicted by empirical research, specific case outcomes, and his thirty years of evaluating, treating and consulting on cases with alienation claims. The researchers cited by Warshak are other parental alienation purveyors.

While Warshak claims his article “pertains to the pathological variant of parental alienation and not to situations in which a child’s rejection of a parent is proportional to the parent’s treatment of the child” the fallacies themselves prove otherwise. When reading Warshak’s work, one must pay attention to the intentional twisting of concepts, to the psychological terms applied to normal, human behavior. The entire article is a draining distortion written by someone with no real experience of, or appreciation for, the everyday acts and imperfections of child rearing. Warshak addresses all forms of court actors including: evaluators, parenting coordinators, guardians ad litem, attorneys appointed to represent the children’s best interests, and judges.

Below, I extracted large swathes of Warshak’s citation because the thinking is so inexplicable, it must be read to be believed. To assist, I add clarification, Warshak’s writing is italicized.

The fallacies themselves confront all objections to alienation diagnosis. Parent’s maltreatment is reduced, instead, primary parenting becomes psychological abuse warranting parental castration. Evaluators are told how to get the court to accept diagnosis and treatment. Alternative diagnosis are offered. Trauma which occurs when a child loses their traditional caregiver, is trivialized.

It must be noted that alienation diagnosis and treatment is fee-driven, meaning it does not occur unless paid for. Once a primary parent loses contact, alienation is not a consideration. This juxtaposition leads parents who have been eliminated through judicial orders, believing they are victims of alienation, a fact that benefits alienation promotion. Parents harmed by alienation ideology wind up promoting alienation because, in family court, the attributes are applied to the wrong parent. Once custody is switched, the isolated child is brainwashed.

1. Children Never Unreasonably Reject Parent With Whom They Spend the Most Time

Warshak claims children are not “invulnerable to cognitive distortions” about their primary parent. “This mistaken assumption predisposes evaluators to search for flaws in the rejected parent to explain the children’s rejection while failing to investigate and sufficiently weigh the other parent’s contributions to the children’s negative attitudes. Knowing that children’s rejection of the parent with whom they spend the most time can be unreasonable and reflect the noncustodial parent’s influence, custody evaluators, therapists, and judges should view the available data and evidence without any preconceived assumptions about the extent to which the child’s rejection is justified versus unjustified. When gathering and considering data, child custody evaluators should consider alternative explanations for a child’s negative attitudes regardless of which parent spends the most time with the child.

Therapists should remain alert to the possibility that a child’s complaints about the parent with whom the child predominantly lives may be unduly influenced by the other parent and may not reflect the child’s true experiences or be an accurate account of the alienated parent’s behavior. Consulting and testifying experts who review custody evaluations that attribute children’s rejection of the parent with whom they spend the most time solely to the rejected parent’s behavior should be alert to the possibility that a confirmation bias skewed the data gathering and interpretation (Martindale, 2005) and perhaps gave inadequate attention to the influence of the favored parent.”

2. Children Never Unreasonably Reject Mothers

This fallacy holds that a class of parents (primary caregiving mothers) are immune from their children’s irrational rejection. “A corollary fallacy is that only mothers are accused of fostering parental alienation and that this means that the concept of irrational parental alienation is bogus and simply a litigation tool for fathers (NOW Foundation, n.d.). Both fallacies are disproved by case law and empirical studies that document the existence of alienated mothers and alienating fathers in one third to one half of cases.”

Over the decades, as women assume income and wealth that affords purchase, alienation researchers expanded their operation to favor mothers. Those cases are then fused into research, to give balance to a practice developed to favor abusive dads. .

“Evaluators who hold an ideological position against the concept of pathological parental alienation reflexively dismiss the possibility that a child’s negative behavior toward a parent is unwarranted or is influenced by the favored parent. Such evaluators fail to adequately explore plausible rival explanations for case facts and data that relate to children’s alienation and instead they prejudge the children’s alienation as justified by mistreatment from the rejected parent…lack of critical thinking in a custody evaluation and in testimony is the failure to consider alternative explanations for a child’s negative thoughts, feelings, and behavior toward the rejected parent (Warshak, 2003b). Evaluators operating under an anchoring bias rely on accusations about the rejected parent’s behavior as a point of reference for subsequent data gathering and interpretation (Martindale, 2005). This reference point leads to selective attention to evidence that confirms initial impressions, and inattention to disconfirming evidence. Confirmation bias operates when evaluators prejudge concerns about irrational parental alienation as unlikely and then seek, attend, and heavily weigh evidence of the rejected parent’s contributions, while they avoid and discount evidence of the favored parent’s contributions.”

Warshak recommends articles compiled by alienation promoters William Bernet and Desmondes Lorandos, two members of Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG) who operate alienation literature clearinghouses. Warshak tells attorneys to peruse the extensive literature to learn how to question a contrary evaluator’s lack of critical thinking, bias, admissibility and weight.

Warshak references alternative diagnosis “the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, fifth edition includes “unwarranted feelings of estrangement” as an example of a “Parent–Child Relational Problem” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 715)” to conclude “evaluators and therapists should keep an open mind about the possibility that children’s rejection of their mother or their father is not warranted by the rejected parent’s behavior.”

3. Each Parent Contributes Equally to a Child’s Alienation

In this justification, Warshak identifies practitioners who disseminate tainted research and reformulated, ideological-based diagnosis and treatments. Because alienation theory is really about reassigning blame, turning abusers into victims, it is extremely important to familiarize oneself with the work practitioners stand on. Johnston and Kelly operate out of San Francisco, parents with high-incomes form the base of their research. Johnston & Kelly authored the seminal article “The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome” published in 2001.[xii] Johnston/Kelly repackaged Gardner’s theory around a family systems/dynamic idea that the family unit must remain cohesive, and if not, the cause can be attributed to an emotional failing of the resisting parent and child. Clawar & Rivlin are alienation promoters who frequented early father’s rights conventions.

Warshak notes Gardner’s (1985) original formulation of pathological alienation describes multiple contributions for the “child’s disturbance.” Warshak states “work that followed (e.g., Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Warshak, 2010a), left no doubt that the attitudes and behaviors of the parent with whom the child appears to be aligned are a key element in understanding the genesis of the problem. Responding to allegations and concerns that clinicians and courts placed too much emphasis on the contributions of the favored parent and not enough emphasis on other factors, Kelly and Johnston (2001) recast the problem in a family systems framework…Kelly (2003) was one of the first to expose this fallacy. Drawing on 40 years of experience as a researcher, custody evaluator, mediator, and Special Master, she found that in as many as one third of entrenched parental disputes, one parent was clearly responsible for initiating and sustaining conflict.”

Psychological labeling is an alienation norm applied alongside, and in replacement of, alienation diagnosis. The two go hand-in-hand, affiliates market the correlation.

“Clinical reports and some large-scale empirical studies describe disturbed and disturbing behavior on the part of favored parents, often characteristic of borderline and narcissistic psychopathology (Eddy, 2010; Friedman, 2004; Kopetski, 1998; Rand, 1997a, 1997b, 2011). Favored parents are more likely than rejected parents to display controlling and coercive behavior, poorly modulated rage, paranoid traits, and parenting styles that encourage enmeshed parent– child relationships, such as intrusive and infantilizing behaviors (Garber, 2011; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005; Kopetski, 1998).”

Amassed research turned fit, primary caregiving parents into deviants. While domestic violence differentiation ignores psychological abuse, alienation theory heaps the accusation onto a caregiving parent. The bond, the love, becomes disease.

“Based on their study of 1000 custody disputes, Clawar and Rivlin (2013) identify the favored parent’s programming as the primary dynamic behind a child’s alienation, and they regard such programming as psychologically abusive. Kelly and Johnston (2001) agree that the behaviors of the favored parent constitute emotional abuse of the child.”

Warshak pounds the claim that the offending parent’s behavior is irrelevant. For proof Warshak relies on his own treatment program, which forces submission by isolating children for days with a team of practitioners.

“Outcome studies for the educational intervention, Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent-Child Relationships, show that children can overcome their negative attitudes and behavior without any change in the rejected parent’s personality or behavior… Although the workshop teaches parents how to more effectively communicate and manage conflict with their children, this is not the central element linked to improvement in the parent–child relationships. Dramatic transformations of children’s negative attitudes occur during the 4-day workshop when they learn about and gain insight into the process by which they became alienated and when they have a face-saving way to recover their affection for their parents…Some children have very good reasons for feeling disillusioned with the rejected parent, but the favored parent eagerly fans the flames of negative feelings. In such cases the child’s rejection has both strong rational and strong irrational components. The rejected parent’s behavior may be sufficient to alienate the child in the short-run, but the favored parent’s behavior interferes with the healing that would naturally occur with time and support. And there is no doubt that, in some cases, the rejected parent’s behavior can exacerbate or ameliorate the impact of the favored parent’s influence (Warshak, 2010a). But this does not mean that the rejected parent is equally responsible for a child’s alienation formed in the context of psychological abuse by the aligned parent… In an effort to appear evenhanded, evaluators and judges sometimes go to great lengths to balance positive and negative statements about each parent without clarifying the behaviors that most harm the children (Kelly, 2003).

“It is not surprising that multiple threads form the tapestry of a child’s irrational aversion to a parent; this is true for nearly every psychological disturbance in childhood. But evaluators who anchor their data gathering and analyses with the assumption that both parents contribute equally to their children’s alienation overlook or undervalue information that supports alternative formulations. Operating under this fallacy, evaluators fail to take into account the significance of the history of parent–child relationships when they weigh the contributions of rejected parents to their children’s alienation.”

Alienation theory is a psychological twisting of facts. Children who prefer their historical parent, who prefer quality caregiving, are labeled unreasonable. A parent’s temper outburst is blamed on the child. The child is responsible for improving the abusive relationship. Warshak tells evaluators to identify alienation by questioning:

“Is the rejected parent’s offensive behavior, such as a temper outburst, a maladaptive reaction to a child’s rejection or is it a likely cause of the child’s rejection?

Does the child appear motivated to improve the relationship, such as engaging meaningfully in therapy interventions, or does the child seem content with the loss of the parent?

Does the child show genuine interest in the parent changing his or her behavior…or does the child convey that no amount of change will be sufficient to heal the relationship?

Does the child regain affection when the rejected parent modifies the behavior about which the child complained, or does the alienation continue unabated despite improvements in the parent’s behavior?”

Another alienation staple rears its head during Warshak’s long tirade: therapy that acknowledges parental maltreatment will fail. The only way to treat the child is by changing custody. To verify this claim, Warshak cites alienation promoters Bala and Fidler.

“When evaluators mistakenly hold both parents equally culpable for the children’s alienation, they are likely to avoid recommendations that they believe would disappoint and discomfort the children. They will be more inclined to recommend that the children remain with their favored parent and be allowed to avoid the other parent until therapy helps children gradually overcome their negative attitudes…When the rejected parent’s behavior is inaccurately assumed to be a major factor in the children’s alienation, therapy proceeds in unproductive directions. Sessions aim to modify the rejected parent’s behavior, help that parent express to the children empathy for their complaints, and gradually desensitize the children to their aversion to the parent. Simultaneously, the therapist fails to appreciate the power of the aligned parent to undermine treatment progress.

Because the children’s alienation is not primarily the result of the rejected parent’s behavior, the more that the process validates the children’s complaints as legitimate reasons for their animosity and avoidance of normal contact, the deeper becomes the chasm between the parent and the children. Evaluators and therapists should avoid unwarranted assumptions about the roots of a child’s rejection of a parent. Instead they should remain neutral and attentive to all factors that contribute to a child’s alienation. In cases where the child’s negative attitudes are traced primarily to the behavior and influence of the parent with whom the child is aligned, professionals and the court should be aware of the literature that stresses the importance of an alienated child’s contact with the rejected parent (Fidler & Bala, 2010; Garber, 2015; Warshak, 2003a).”

4. Alienation Is a Child’s Transient, Short-Lived Response to the Parents’ Separation

Practitioners do not recognize that maltreated children and parents need time and space to recover and heal. Victims need separation from perpetrators to gain strength, build confidence and autonomy. Practitioners believe relationships must be forced, even where levels of maltreatment are high. Detachment is a precursor to alienation; a child must not be permitted to distinguish themselves from the maltreating parent. Another outcrop of this particular ideology is that historically primary parents should not retain their position of care because children will attach and prefer that parent. This particular train of thought results in numerous full-time mothers losing custody merely because a strong bond exists.

“Parents and those who advise them often mistake the incipient signs of a child’s pathological alienation as a temporary reaction to the anxiety stirred by the parents’ separation. In some cases this reflects the belief, or wishful thinking, that children who resist being with a parent eventually initiate reconciliation. Some do. But many do not. Therapists who predict that a child’s resistance to spending time with a parent will evaporate in the near future are apt to focus therapy on helping the child cope with unpleasant feelings aroused by the parents’ breakup. In such cases therapists may encourage parents to passively accept their children’s reluctance or refusal to spend time with them, and often advise a “cooling off period” in which the rejected parent temporarily relinquishes active efforts to reestablish regular contact with the children (Darnall & Steinberg, 2008b).

Therapists who recognize that they may be seeing the early signs of chronic alienation are apt to encourage more normal parent–child contacts while working on uncovering the roots of the child’s discomfort. Such encouragement protects against crucial losses; missing out on even two formative years of parent–child contact means an accumulation of lost experiences that can never be recovered. The emotional and financial costs exacted by severe alienation, and the obstacles to its alleviation, highlight the importance of directing resources and efforts to early screening, identification, and protection of children at risk and to preventing the entrenchment of severe alienation (Jaffe, Ashbourne, & Mamo, 2010; Warshak, 2010c, 2013, in press).

Consulting psychologists should advise lawyers to encourage clients to maintain contact with their children despite the children’s scorn, except in situations that raise concern over the safety of the parent or child. Lawyers should move quickly for sanctions when orders for parent–child contacts are violated…Evaluators should attend to indications that a parent is inappropriately drawing the children into an alliance against the other parent, or engaging in behavior that carries a high likelihood of undermining the children’s respect and affection for the other parent. Similarly, evaluators should attend to early signs that a child is succumbing to such pressures by forming an unhealthy alignment with a parent and by unreasonably resisting or refusing to spend time with the other parent.

To halt potential alienation, Warshak advises practitioners apply interventions developed by AFCC. Warshak again warns the supreme mistreatment is alienation, so therefore alienating (favored, aligned) parents must lose all custody and only see their child in supervised visits.

“When a case raises concerns that a child, with a parent’s encouragement, support, or acceptance, may refuse contact with the other parent without adequate justification, the court may consider several options implemented in a tiered, stepwise manner and preferably on a fast track (Salem, 2009). A first step is parent and child education programs. In cases where parent education has proved insufficient to modify alienating behaviors and interrupt the decline of a parent–child relationship courts often appoint a mental health professional to work with the family…The literature presents several models and strategies for working with families in which school-age children are alienated, but lacks rigorous outcome data (Carter, 2011; Eddy, 2009; Freeman, Abel, Cooper-Smith, & Stein, 2004; Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Johnston & Goldman, 2010; Sullivan, Ward, & Deutsch, 2010). The court may try to motivate alienating parents to modify their behavior by putting them on notice that if the child’s relationship with the other parent continues to deteriorate, and the court finds that the aligned parent’s behavior is largely responsible for the problem, the court will entertain options that provide more time for the child to be in the care of the alienated parent. In some cases the court hears testimony that raises concerns that a child is being severely mistreated, such as in cases where a parent, intent on erasing the other parent from the child’s life, punishes the child for expressing any desire to see the other parent. Such cases may rise to the level where the judge believes that the child is being psychologically abused and the judge feels obliged to protect the child from further abuse by requiring supervision or monitoring of the child’s contacts with the alienating parent.”

5. Rejecting a Parent Is a Short-Term Healthy Coping Mechanism

Warshak doubles down on his advice to refuse the child time to recover. A fit parent is not allowed to encourage healing.

“A corollary to the view that alienation is transient is that it reflects healthy behavior on the part of a child struggling to come to grips with a family transition and turmoil (Drozd & Olesen, 2004). The assumption is that children want to regulate access to their parents to accomplish two goals: (a) Exercise control in a situation where they are helpless to stop their world from unraveling, and (b) relieve themselves of torn loyalties by siding with one parent against the other, and reduce discomfort with this position by devaluing and avoiding contact with the rejected parent. No doubt such motives play a part in the genesis of parental alienation for some children. But is this behavior healthy and in the children’s best interests? …In their reports and testimony child custody evaluators and educative experts should emphasize that early intervention and rapid enforcement of court ordered parent– child contacts can help prevent a child’s avoidance of a parent from hardening into a long-term estranged relationship, especially when the avoidance is encouraged and supported by the other parent (Fidler, Bala, Birnbaum, & Kavassalis, 2008, p. 257; Warshak, in press). Courts should recognize that enforcing the court-ordered parenting plan can alleviate the burden of children who feel that they have to choose between their parents or show loyalty to one parent by rejecting the other.

6. Young Children Living With an Alienating Parent Need No Intervention

Warshak teaches permitting young children to live with their primary parent will encourage alienation. A manager should be appointed by the court, and custody may need to be changed.

“The need for intervention may sometimes be less apparent in families with young children who live with a parent who teaches them to fear or hate the other parent. Toddlers and preschoolers may fulfill a parent’s expectations by acting fearful and resistant during scheduled transfers to the other parent’s care (Fidler et al., 2008, p. 243; Lund, 1995). If the child’s overt, albeit temporary, feelings are indulged, and the child’s protests allowed to abort the planned exchange, the protests are likely to emerge and become more intense at each subsequent attempt to implement the parenting time plan. If instead the child is given the opportunity to spend time with the denigrated parent outside the orbit of the alienating parent, the fearful and angry behavior quickly evaporates (Fidler et al., 2008, p. 242; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Lund, 1995; Warshak, 2010b; Weir, 2011)… alienating behaviors may approach or reach levels of psychological abuse and children may need protection from the abusive parent.

Without help to change, the family environment places these children at risk to develop a fragmented identity with the characteristics and consequences of irrational alienation and of parental absence (Roseby & Johnston, 1998). Children who live in an environment that consistently encourages them to view a parent in a negative light need assistance to maintain a positive relationship with that parent. Such assistance may be to give the child more time with the parent who is at risk for becoming the alienated parent. Or, the court may appoint professionals to help the parents modify behaviors that contribute to a child’s problem and to monitor compliance with court orders. An added benefit of involving a professional with the family, either in the role of parenting coordinator, guardian ad litem, or therapist, is that the professional’s observations may subsequently assist the court in evaluating the merits of conflicting accounts offered by parents in litigation (Fidler et al., 2008, p. 265).”

7. Alienated Adolescents’ Stated Preferences Should Dominate Custody Decisions

Warshak advocates for intervention for teenagers, too. This fallacy tangent is notable because Warshak remarks upon his role as expert witness, and pushes for recalcitrant teens being treated as outlaws.

“Many child custody evaluators and courts place more weight on a teenager’s preference to sever contact with a parent than on similar preferences of younger children (Gould, 1998). In any given case, one of two rationales underpins the deference given to adolescent’s stated wishes. In some cases decision makers emphasize that adolescents have the cognitive capacity to form mature judgments that are independent of their favored parent’s influence and manipulations…

I have been involved in several cases in which the judge initially accepted the custody evaluator’s conclusion that an adolescent’s alienation was irrational, until the judge spoke with the child. The teenager was able to convince the judge either that the choice to reject the parent was reasonable, or that the judge could trust the teenager to reunite with the parent in the future without being compelled to do so by court order. In each case, after the litigation was over, the child remained estranged from the parent. Despite their more mature cognitive capacities compared with younger children, adolescents are suggestible, highly vulnerable to external influence, and highly susceptible to immature judgments and behavior (Loftus, 2003; Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich, 2009; Steinberg & Scott, 2003). These limitations are well known in the fields of adolescent development and neuropsychology, and account in part for the consensus view of psychologists that juveniles merit different treatment by the legal system than adults receive (American Psychological Association, 2004)…the preferences of adolescents merit cautious scrutiny, rather than automatic endorsement..

A judge who understood that a 13-year-old’s decision to sever his relationship with his father reflected impaired judgment nevertheless acquiesced to the boy’s demands because, “He is now of an age where, even if he may be too immature to appreciate what is best for him, he cannot be physically forced to remain where he does not want to be” (Korwin v. Potworowski, 2006, ¶ 145). This judge is not alone. Other judges, child representatives, parenting coordinators, psychotherapists, and parents often report feeling stymied when adolescents refuse to cooperate with the court-ordered parenting time schedule (DeJong & Davies, 2012; Johnston, Walters, & Friedlander, 2001). These children can be so convincing about their resolve to have their way with respect to avoiding a parent that they convince the court that they are beyond its authority. They induce a sense of helplessness in judges.

Adults need not feel helpless in the face of oppositional behavior from alienated teens. Two studies have reported that most children’s protests evaporate when reunited with a rejected parent (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Warshak, 2010b) and this is illustrated anecdotally by high profile cases (Warshak, in press). Instead of appeasing children’s demands, the court can order an intervention to assist children in adjusting to court orders that place them with their rejected parent (Warshak, 2010b). Adolescents comply with many rules and expectations that are not of their own choosing. It is an error to assume that they do not benefit from an assertion of authority on the part of the court and their parents…Children of any age need to understand that they are not above the law or beyond its reach. Child custody evaluators and educative experts should inform the court about the benefits and drawbacks of various means of giving adolescents a voice in a custody dispute ..The parents and the child should understand that failure to comply with court orders will not be overlooked and will not result in the court capitulating to the overt demands of the adolescent.”

8. Children Who Irrationally Reject a Parent But Thrive in Other Respects Need No Intervention

Happy, well-adjusted children are not safe from Warshak’s crew of practitioners and slate of interventions.

“Some custody evaluators and decision makers oppose interventions for alienated children if the parent–child conflict is an exception to a child’s apparent good adjustment in other spheres, such as in school and with peers. These professionals believe that children who are doing well in other aspects of life should be empowered to make decisions regarding contact with a parent. Professionals who advocate this position express concerns that interventions for resistant youth, such as court-ordered outpatient therapy, may disrupt the children’s psychological stability, are likely to prove unsuccessful, and will leave children feeling angrier toward the court or the rejected parent (Johnston & Goldman, 2010). Other professionals counsel a hands-off policy toward these children until we have more studies that document long-term damage of growing up irrationally alienated from a parent.”

Warshak teaches not helping these children will lead to psychological damage and an inability to sustain relationships.

“…risks compromising children’s future psychological development and interpersonal relationships…The psychological processes that accompany irrational rejection and cruel treatment of a parent bleed into other relationships. These processes include global thinking about others as allies or enemies, contempt for those who see things differently, feelings of entitlement in personal relationships, and avoidance of conflict. When conflicts arise with friends, alienated children who have been empowered to reject a parent are apt to do the same with friends; they avoid conflicts by abruptly ending friendships rather than practicing skills to manage conflict and sustain relationships (Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Johnston et al., 2001).”

In the following assertions, Warshak twists healthy parents into diabolical, over-dependent parasites. Ironically, many abusive parents do pay alienation experts to win custody to gain control over children who then become responsible for that parents physical and emotional needs — truth ignored by Warshak and his cohorts.

“Alienated children’s relationship with their favored parent may seem ideal because of the absence of conflict and frustration. This harmony comes at the cost of normal parent–child relationships. In a shift from the usual roles in a family, some alienated children feel responsible for their favored parent’s emotional well-being (Warshak, 1992). They comfort distressed parents, serve as confidantes, and reassure parents of their allegiance (Friedlander & Walters, 2010). Alienated children often sacrifice age-appropriate independent functioning to gratify favored parents’ needs to keep the children close at hand and dependent. Mental health professionals describe such parents as infantilizing their children, and refer to the overly close parent– child relationships that emerge from such parenting as enmeshed (Ellis & Boyan, 2010; Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Garber, 2011; Kelly, 2010). The extent to which a parent infantilizes a child is less evident in the child’s early years.

As the child gets older, the failure to achieve normal degrees of separation and independence becomes more obvious, as in the case of a teenager who continues to sleep with a parent or avoids attending summer camp. Some children feel that the price they must pay to court the favored parent’s affection, and avoid that parent’s anger, is to reject the other parent (Friedlander & Walters, 2010). They conceal positive feelings for and experiences with the rejected parent and feel inhibited about giving and receiving love from that parent. This limits the genuine closeness between the favored parent and children because the children hide important aspects of themselves from the parent. Alienated children comply with adults’ expectations when these do not clash with the children’s strong preferences. But when their wishes conflict with limits imposed by others, they act entitled to have their desires prevail. Thus, children who are described as model citizens in their schools and communities openly defy judges and fail to cooperate with court-ordered parenting time schedules (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Warshak, 2010b). The children speak and act as if they were above the law and immune from external controls on their behavior.”

“…The rationale for interventions with families in which a child unreasonably rejects a parent goes beyond helping the family avoid the tragedies of a child losing a parent and a parent losing a child. These children need help to overcome cognitive, emotional, and behavioral impairments that accompany their alienation, and their parents need help to cope effectively with the children’s behavior and to support the children’s healthier functioning (Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Kelly, 2010; Warshak, 2010b, 2013, in press). In its description of the diagnostic category “Parent-Child Relational Problem,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) gives these examples of impaired cognitive functioning, which certainly describe the alienated child’s relationship to the rejected parent: “negative attributions of the other’s intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement” (p. 715). The damage to critical thinking is evident in cases where children align with one parent’s view of reality in spite of conflicting objective evidence and the unanimous judgment of numerous professionals and the judge. In several cases a mentally ill parent has convinced a child that the police, lawyers on both sides of the case, therapists, and the judge conspired against the parent during custody litigation.”

9. Severely Alienated Children Are Best Treated With Traditional Therapy Techniques While Living Primarily With Their Favored Parent

Warshak hammers on his claim that even children deemed to have legitimate fears of a parent are to be treated with a change of custody and complete isolation from their primary parent. Traditional therapy doesn’t work — the child must reside solely with the feared parent.

10. Separating Children From an Alienating Parent Is Traumatic

Children taken from their primary parent and forced into sole custody with a non-historical, unfit and maltreating parent are heavily traumatized. This is a fact that Warshak and his cohorts refuse to acknowledge. Instead, Warshak preaches the opposite, claims research created by himself and others warrants his “no trauma” conclusion. The truth is family court practitioners purposely traumatize children with custody switches in order to break their spirits, and make them malleable.

“Despite repeated reports that alienation abates when children are required to spend time with the parent they claim to hate or fear, some experts predict dire consequences to children if the court fails to endorse their strong preferences to avoid a parent. Usually such predictions are vulnerable to reliability challenges because the experts cite undocumented anecdotes, irrelevant research, and discredited interpretations of attachment theory. No peer-reviewed study has documented harm to severely alienated children from the reversal of custody. No study has reported that adults, who as children complied with expectations to repair a damaged relationship with a parent, later regretted having been obliged to do so.

On the other hand, studies of adults who were allowed to disown a parent find that they regretted that decision and reported long-term problems with guilt and depression that they attributed to having been allowed to reject one of their parents (Baker, 2005). Some evaluators and expert witnesses cite attachment theory to support predictions of trauma and long-term psychological damage to children who are separated from an alienating parent and placed with their rejected parent (Jaffe et al., 2010). Such predictions are rooted in research with children who experienced prolonged institutional care as a result of being orphaned or separated from their families for other — often severely traumatic — reasons (Ludolph & Dale, 2012). A consensus of leading authorities on attachment and divorce holds that contemporary attachment theory and research do not support generalizing the negative outcomes of traumatized children who lose both parents, to situations where children leave one parent’s home to spend time with their other parent (Warshak, with the endorsement of the researchers and practitioners listed in the Appendix, 2014).

Despite initial protests and demands, once reunited with the rejected parent most children recover the positive feelings that had been dormant since the onset of alienation or that they did not feel free to express. Anchoring the conversation with predictions of lasting trauma and self-destructive behavior can make it seem inhumane to enforce a child’s contact with the rejected parent. When experts anchor their testimony to terms like trauma and attachment — “when a child is described as ‘traumatized’ if he is, instead, only unsettled” — attorneys should challenge the experts to unpack evocative jargon (Zervopoulos, 2013, p. 180). The lack of empirical support for such pessimistic predictions can be contrasted with the benefits of removing a child from the daily care of a disturbed parent whose behavior is considered psychologically abusive (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Rand, 2011) and placing the child with a parent whom the court finds to be better able to meet the child’s needs, especially the need to love and respect two parents.

Separating children from an alienating parent is one among several possible dispositions of a case involving alienated children (Warshak, 2010b, 2013, in press). Warshak (in press) describes 10 reasons why courts may find it to be in children’s best interests to temporarily suspend their contact with their favored parent while the children reunite with the rejected parent. This will not always be the best option. But it should not be dismissed based merely on the fallacy that a child will be traumatized if expected to have contact with a good parent whom the child irrationally claims to hate or fear. Recommendations to place a child with the rejected parent and temporarily suspend contact with the favored parent should include consideration of interventions and resources to ease the family’s adjustment to the court orders. Effective interventions should provide experiences to help uncover the positive bond between child and parent. Norton (2011) draws on developmental psychology and neurobiology to emphasize the importance of providing children and adolescents with experiences that facilitate empathy, connection, and wellness: “These experiences can help them to create a new narrative about their lives, one that is more cohesive, more hopeful, and allows them to begin to see themselves in a new place” (p. 2).

Family Bridges (Warshak, 2010b) is one intervention that specializes in assisting with the transition by providing face-saving, transformative experiences that help children recover their affection for their rejected parent. A 4-day workshop helps children develop compassion for both parents and prepares the children and the parent who received custody to live together by teaching respect for multiple perspectives, and skills in critical thinking, communication, and conflict management. When a court orders a child to spend time with a rejected parent despite the child’s adamant objections, some commentators regard it as a severely harsh solution even when the child has help to adjust to the transition. Given the damage to children who remain alienated from a parent, such a disposition may be seen as far less harsh or extreme than a decision that consigns a child to lose a parent and extended family under the toxic influence of the other parent who failed to recognize and support the child’s need for two parents.

Experts who opine that a child’s alienation must be a realistic reaction to the rejected parent’s behavior because pathological parental alienation is a bogus concept should rethink their position in the light of an extensive literature…. The court may implement several steps as needed, including parent education, court-ordered treatment, and contingencies to motivate an alienating parent to modify destructive behavior…Evaluators can assist the court’s proper disposition of a case by identifying the cognitive, emotional, and behavior problems that accompany irrational aversion to a parent, as well as the potential long-term negative consequences of remaining alienated from a parent.

Custody evaluators should avoid offering opinions that reflect sensationalist predictions lacking a basis in established scientific and professional knowledge…Based on flawed extrapolations from attachment theory and no empirical evidence, some evaluators and educative experts make alarming predictions about the impact of a court order that separates a child from an alienating parent even when that parent has a toxic relationship with the child…evidence supports dispositions that require irrationally alienated children to spend time with their rejected parent while receiving interventions, and the evidence opposes options that maintain a status quo of children remaining estranged from a parent.”

Warshak ends his soliloquy admitting research is flawed and non-existant.

“Nevertheless additional documentation is needed with more studies of larger samples that compare outcomes of different dispositions using a variety of measures. We need a more robust understanding of the short-term and long-term sequelae for the entire family of various options (such as placing alienated children with the favored parent, with the rejected parent, apart from both parents, or allowing children to decide when and if they will reunite with their rejected parent). Researchers should study the psychological price that children pay for becoming and remaining alienated from a parent, but also any potential costs of requiring children to repair damaged relationships. Studies that identify markers to evaluate the maturity and independence of adolescent’s judgments will assist decision makers in deciding how much weight to place on a child’s stated preferences about custody, as will studies that compare outcomes for adolescents whose demands to avoid a parent were accepted versus rejected. We need better understanding of the factors and circumstances within families that affect the long-term outcome of alternative dispositions and that favor one disposition over another in cases that raise concerns about parental alienation.

The scientific literature allows us to expose the widespread fallacies addressed in this article. Given the limitations of this literature we should not presume more knowledge than we have. Rather than approach our task with humility or with hubris, in previous work I have advocated the virtue of humbition: a fusion of humility and ambition (Warshak, 2007). Humbition allows social scientists to draw on the best available information while exercising appropriate restraint and duly noting the limitations of the current literature.”

CONCLUSION

It is evident that child custody evaluations are not really evaluations, but are meant to be a vehicle to coerce cooperation and to be a gateway to other services.

It is the personal opinion of Doreen Ludwig that the blue ribbon members of the New York Governor’s Commission are more apt to continue to maintain the status quo. The domestic violence members will promote differentiation and screening. All the while lining their pockets with various grant monies. Indeed, committee member Joan Meier received the astonishing amount of $501,791 to promote a study written by Dr. Leora Rosen, that merely attempts to refute one of Warshak’s ten fallacies.

[i] “Motherless America: Confronting Welfare’s Fatherhood Custody Program” Sept. 2015

“Trumpian Abuse: Government & Family Systems that Prop-Up the Male Regime” March 2018

“AFCC net: People, Policy, Practices that Intrude in Child Custody Determinations” Oct. 2020

“Shillackery: How Domestic Violence Sustains Inequality and Maltreatment” to be published 2022.

[ii] “Judicial Branch Family Civil Intake Screen” Salem, Kulak, Deutsch, 2007, Pace Law Review, Vol. 27:741, pg. 744, 745 https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1140&context=plr

[iii] Salem, Sandler, Wolchik, “Taking Stock of Parent Education in the Family Courts: Envisioning a Public Health Model,” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3638966/

[iv] “Parenting Coordination for High Conflict Families” Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, Sydlik, Family Court Review, Vol. 41, 2003 1–17 Coates, C. A., Deutsch, R. , Starnes, H., Sullivan, M. J., & Sydlik, B.L. (2004). Parenting coordination for high conflict families. Family Court Review, 42, 246–262.

[v] https://www.mediate.com/articles/CompleteKelly.cfm

[vi] http://www.kuhlmansolutions.com/

[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTdJK04Q38M&t=6s

[viii] https://jkseminars.com/pdf/AlienatedChildArt.pdf

[ix] https://www.amazon.com/Parenting-Plan-Evaluations-Applied-Research/dp/0199396582

[x] https://www.youngwilliams.com/sites/default/files/pdf-resource/roundtable_on_domestic_violence_child_support_and_parenting_time_orders_binder_of_materials_part_2.pdf

[xi] https://iaals.du.edu/projects/cady-initiative-family-justice-reform

[xii] Files of Doreen Ludwig, available upon request.