there should now be a bigger push for professionals to recognise parental alienation as a mental health issue.
It all appears on its face to be good news, but is it?
The only answer I ever got from anyone in the official sector (in the US) about what was being done with my children, was “you need to get a lawyer.”
Not much of an answer, when a civil attorney will steadfastly refuse to endeavor into any sort of criminal complaint such as allegations of wrongful abduction (a felony, but only if anyone will touch it to prosecute it, which they won’t) or court-order violations (to which an attorney will reply that this is a judge’s job and not theirs) or child abuse itself (“where’s your evidence?” starts to be an expensive question when it is a private attorney and not a prosecutor advancing the allegations).
So under current conditions, what custody attorneys who represent alienated fathers do for a living, is play ball. They have lunch meetings, at the clients’ expense, with their golf and fraternity buddies on the other side, and cut deals. Their deals, to benefit them and their careers, not you nor your children.
But what you are talking about here, is getting the formidable and terrifying machinery of the official mental health sector involved. In principle, it might sound appealing, but in practice I fear this may end up throwing more kids into foster care and juvenile facilities than ever. The bureaucratic mindset finds its problem-solving mechanisms only within official programs and methodologies, which are no more geared toward any true “best interest of the child” than the current “you need to get a lawyer” system is. Far less so, it is my own inclination to believe.
Aside from questions of the usage of a “common language” between us on either side of The Pond, I often find that people in the UK who write about these things simply assume by default that creating different government programs to correct or replace the existing ones, is where the answers lie. My own perspective is that the machinery of the state itself, IS the problem, and cannot possibly be entrusted with acting in anyone’s interests but its own.
None of the above has me offering you any better way, but I do find your faith in the public sector to better determine the futures of children on the strength of some legalistic re-editing of a medical handbook, more than a little Kafkaesque in its implicit and near-inevitable outcomes.