Resistance: What Does It Mean and Who’s To Blame: Part I
January 13, 2021 by Kelley A. Baker, PhD, LPC, Forensic Consulting Services
One of the hallmark signs of an alienated child is their black and white descriptions of their parents, usually referred to as “lack of ambivalence.” Having lost the freedom to have real relationships with both of their parents, they emphatically describe one all good parent and one all bad parent. These kids are stuck in a binary world where the rich complexity of human experience and relationships are forfeited to survive the untenable loyalty bind created by a parent. For a severely alienated child, one parent must be idealized and protected (often referred to as the favored parent) and the other demonized and rejected. This was illustrated in one of my recent interviews:
Dr. B: “Tell me some things you like about your mom?”
Client: “Nothing.”
Dr. B: “Tell me some positive memories you have with your mom?”
Client: “I don’t have any.”
Dr. B: “I have seen some videos of you with your mom and it seemed like you were having a good time.”
Client: “I was faking it.”
Dr. B: “Tell me some things you like about your dad?”
Client: “Everything.”
Dr. B: Tell me some things you would like to change about your dad, or things you wished he did differently.”
Client: “Nothing.”
The client in this example was a teenager and had been living primarily with his mom for the previous four years. The unlikelihood that a teenager would not have one good memory of their life with a parent highlights one of the primary differences in the presentation of an alienated child versus a child who resists contact for legitimate reasons. While this example was taken from a recent interview, the script can be found almost verbatim in interviews with alienated children over the last 20 years of my work. The black and white, all or nothing descriptions of their feelings is a unique feature in alienation that is not prevalent in interviews with children who are resistant to seeing a parent because of abuse.
Professional discourse and disagreements on the topic of parental alienation has, at times, mirrored this polarization, reducing discussions to the most simplistic argument of whether alienation even exists. In my opinion, the push and pull between opposing professional groups only weakened our chances to effect change and achieve our common goal of protecting a child’s right to be loved and protected by their family. Much like the alienated child’s distorted view of their parents, this polarization between professional paradigms often led to a myopic view of the topic that decreased opportunities for connection and creative problem solving. The recent International Council on Shared Parenting conference was a brilliant example of how professional discourse can include many different voices and create opportunity for deeper understanding. The conference stands as a leading example of how to build bridges between domestic violence advocates and parental alienation experts, whose primary interests are to protect children and parent-child relationships.
In Parts I and II of this article, I focus on two things that help me understand whether a child is justly or unjustly rejecting a parent. These two tools by no means represent the full range of activities required to assess a family, but they have been particularly helpful to me when I am trying to understand the reasons for a child’s resistance to a parent during divorce and separation. (1) Differentiation involves distinguishing between PA reactions seen in children and PA behaviors/strategies used by parents and then understanding the context in which those behaviors occur. (2) Intervention refers to offering the parents solutions that could decrease problematic behaviors, as the behaviors are identified as opposed to waiting until the conclusion of the assessment. (Note: intervention is not typically possible during a formal custody evaluation due to professional guidelines and rules. However, it is an option under many guardian ad litem statutes.)
Examples of PA behaviors or strategies used by parents are badmouthing, limiting the child’s time with a parent, interfering in the parent’s time with the child, making a child choose between their parents, undermining the other parent, instilling fear and/or anger in the child toward the parent, restricting the other parent’s access to important information about the child, and giving the child adult information. Some examples of PA reactions in a child are refusing contact with a parent, fear and/or anger toward a parent for reasons that have been unsubstantiated or are disproportionate to the events described by the child, exhibiting unusually cruel and hateful treatment toward a parent with no remorse or guilt, rejection of the parent’s extended family, badmouthing the parent to teachers, counselors, and other professionals (campaign of denigration), using the same terminology and phrases used by the favored parent to describe the other parent (borrowed scenarios), defensively protecting the favored parent against any blame (reflexive support), and describing each parent as either all good or all bad (lack of ambivalence).
The importance of context is often notable in the beginning stages of divorce when parents separate and are initially learning to parent children from two separate households. This period requires a steep learning curve for most parents, who up until this time, have divided the day-to-day responsibilities of childrearing and work. After separation, parents must learn to individually manage all the parenting duties and meet professional responsibilities when the children are in their care. An example of a behavior that could be an alienating strategy and is also a common mistake made by newly separated and divorced parents is scheduling children’s activities during the other parent’s time. Historically, one parent may have managed all the extracurricular activities – choosing the activity, registering the children, communicating with coaches, buying equipment, and taking the children to the activity. After the separation, emails for the new season will be sent to the parent who has historically managed the enrollment process because their email address is the one linked to the child’s name. Consequently, enrollment is submitted without thought of getting agreement from the other parent or ensuring that the other parent is willing and able to take the child during their time. Was this an attempt to control and/or limit the other parent’s time with the child or was it an honest mistake?
In Part II of this article, I discuss interventions to address parental alienation and the ways in which a parent’s response to these interventions provides a further diagnostic tool for determining whether the conduct is truly a part of a strategy of parental alienation or, instead, a problem of miscommunication.
__________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Baker graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 2002 with a doctorate degree in Developmental, Social, and Personality Psychology and a master’s degree in Program Evaluation. She also holds a master’s degree in Counseling and Guidance and an undergraduate degree in Psychology. Dr. Baker is a forensic consultant in the Austin area of central Texas, serving primarily as guardian ad litem and providing expert testimony on topics related to high conflict divorce. Her professional career has included teaching as an adjunct professor of undergraduate and graduate psychology and counseling courses and providing continuing education and training to mental health and legal professionals. She has presented trainings for local and state Bar Associations, the Association of Family Conciliatory Courts (AFCC), Simply Parent, The European Association of Parental Alienation Professionals (EAPAP), and a Legislative Education Session at the Texas state capital. For more information, visit www.kelleybakerphd.co.
The information in this article relied heavily on the teachings and publications of Karen and Nick Woodall, William Bernet, Richard Warshak, Amy Baker, Linda Gottlieb, and Richard Gardner.