ALIENATION
OR JUST BAD BEHAVIOR?
© Jonathan D. Gordon, Esq. 2015
Jonathan D. Gordon, Ph.D., J.D.
I frequently come across
parents in Family Court who allege Parental
Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This, for
some, may become a mantra in cases when there is really no alienation, but
rather, a parent wants to either (a) portray him/herself as a victim, or (b) wants
to put the other parent on the defensive for the purposes of litigation,
ongoing harassment, or just plain hostility.
Sometimes a parent will purposely and methodically denigrate the other
parent to a child, may sabotage parenting time with the other parent, and may
do great damage to the child doing so.
We are talking about an otherwise fit alternate parent who is being
marginalized (or eliminated) by the concerted efforts of the residential
parent. This essay is not at all meant
to be a review of the current literature, but rather to air the issues commonly
encountered in Family Court, related to alienation.
Parental alienation, when it
is real, can be considered to be a form of child abuse—it is a cruel kind of emotional
abuse. It robs a child of a parent. It is difficult, however, to prove in court
because PAS has no conclusive research to support it as a psychological
syndrome. Even the 5th
edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5)[i] does not list this as a
diagnosis. Rather, it refers to Parental Relationship Distress in a
separate category (“V-Code”) of conditions that are not mental disorders,
but that may be a source of distress or concern for treatment purposes. (Id.,
p. 715-16).
It is easier, however, and
more tangible to show a court that the other parent (usually the primary
residential/custodial parent) is acting badly to sabotage the non-residential
parent’s relationship with a child. It
is easier to prove bad behavior than to prove a syndrome which requires
scientific testimony. In Court, expert
testimony has to be based on good scientific underpinnings, helpful to the
Court, and based on methodology and data that are generally accepted within the
scientific community, or the Judge will not let it be admitted into
evidence. In a recent unpublished case[ii], the New Jersey Appellate
Division stated that PAS is a “novel” concept that was not yet established as
being scientifically reliable or generally accepted, although it did not
preclude the possibility that this could happen in the future.
Regardless of the controversy
regarding the scientific efficacy of the PAS concept, there is still the
question of how the Court should handle various scenarios when it is clear that
one parent is actively sabotaging a child’s relationship with the other parent. A Court can appoint a forensic mental health
practitioner to assess what exactly is going on, if it is not already clear.
The Court needs also to know the effects on the child. For example, does the child still have any
relationship with the alienated parent?
Does the child have any mental health issues as a result of the parental
behavior? The bottom line is the
inappropriate and damaging behavior of one parent, designed to marginalize or
remove the other parent from the life of the child. A Court can discern if this is happening also
if the residential parent is purposely scheduling appointments or activities
for the child during the other parent’s parenting time. Or, perhaps that parent purposely does not
make the child available for parenting time, tells the child inappropriate
things about the other parent, denigrates that parent and creates a fiction of
dangerousness to the child that does not exist.
In extreme cases, some parents make false allegations of sexual abuse
about the other parent.
How about the parent who
brings about this alienation by his/her own behavior toward the child or to the
other parent (often in front of the child)?
Another term often used to describe these effects is estrangement, although estrangement is
often used synonymously with alienation. Regardless, there are plenty of children who
want nothing to do with the other parent (the “alienated” parent) because of
their having been subjected to abuse, witnessing domestic violence, severe
neglect, or something as simple as chronically being disappointed by that
parent. Years of broken promises, lies,
failures to show up, lack of loving, nurturant behavior toward a child can
result in estrangement. For that parent
to subsequently complain about the child not wanting contact, or refusing to
take the parent’s phone calls is disingenuous.
The Court has numerous
remedies for alleged alienating behavior on the part of a parent. The Court can impose monetary sanctions,
impose other sanctions such as limiting the time the residential parent has
with that child, or even transfer custody entirely to the alienated
parent. A Court can impose supervised
parenting time for the alienating parent to ensure that nothing bad is said to
the child about the other parent.
Reintroduction therapy or other therapeutic interventions can be set up. Either way, much of this often will come only
after many months or years of active alienation by the parent who is acting
badly. The child may be permanently
damaged by the time that the intervention is put into place and the
estrangement/alienation may be irreversible by then. See my previous blog post on Permanent Damage (January 19, 2015) for
a further discussion about this.
So any way you slice it, a
parent who intentionally works at alienating a child from the other parent (an
otherwise fit parent) is doing something bad, mean and selfish. It has nothing to do with what is in the
child’s best interests. As I mentioned
above, the exceptions include a child who is necessarily distanced due to a
history of child abuse, sexual assault/molestation, witnessing domestic
violence, being treated badly by the parent in general. Sometimes a parent simply brings it upon
themselves. To play the victim later in court, to make the other parent and the
child jump through the hoops of forensic evaluations and the expense of trials
and arguments in court, is more abuse. It can sometimes amount to harassment
through litigation, and continues putting the child through seemingly endless
interviews and observations. The Judge
needs some time to figure out what is in the child’s best interests, via
assessments and testimony. The Court
starts from the premise of joint legal custody and co-parenting. Anything less has to be justified, based on evidence. Ultimately, if the parents cannot work
together for the best interests of their child, if the parents continue to hate
each other and to compete over their child for their own selfish reasons, then
the Judge will step in and take over the decision making. Both parents may leave court disappointed. They will also leave court with much less
money in their wallets, money that they could have spent on their child’s
future, rather than on trying to obliterate the other parent at the expense of
their child’s mental health.
Good luck, and please post a comment about your experiences.
Copyright © Jonathan D. Gordon, Esq. 2015
Please note, this blog is for information purposes only. It is not legal or psychological advice and it does not create an attorney/client or psychologist/patient relationship. If you have a question about a specific matter you should seek out an attorney or mental health expert to assist you.
Web Site: www.jdgordonlaw.com
Tweet Me: @jdgordonlaw
No comments:
Post a Comment