Resistance: What Does It Mean and Who’s To Blame: Part II

January 14, 2021 by Kelley A. Baker, PhD, LPC, Forensic Consulting Services

In Part I of this article, I discussed some of the common behaviors of parental alienation and the typical ways in which children react to these behaviors.

It should be expected that parents will make many communication errors, during the divorce process.  Recommendations for addressing these problems may include asking the parents to take a co-parenting course, using a co-parenting communication tool, setting up a family calendar for posting children’s appointments and activities, or beginning individual or co-parenting counseling.  As guardian ad litem, I make these kinds of recommendations for these types of problematic behaviors, and I may also provide some didactic information to the parent explaining how their actions interfered negatively in the other parent’s relationship/time with the child.  The parent’s response to the information and recommendations provides diagnostic information about a parent’s intentions and propensity for alienation or positive co-parenting and helps to answer the question of whether this was purposeful and malicious behavior (alienation) or an unintended mistake.  Information is also gathered regarding the offended parent’s reaction.  Were they quick and somewhat relentless in their accusations of alienation or were they able to step back and consider the learning curve perspective?  What was the effect on the child, if any? Did the child appear to be stressed because of the incident? If so, what were the signs of that stress? Did they experience anger toward one or the other parent? Did they even want to participate in the activity? This type of differentiation and consideration of the context as well as both parents’ reactions to the guardian’s feedback and recommendations is essential in assessments of alienation claims. 

Strong emotions can also have a negative impact on parental communications and on the children’s relationships with their parents.  Consider a situation where a parent was taken by surprise when their spouse requested a divorce.  The person they thought they would grow old with, now has a separate home and a match.com profile page.  Additionally, the parent who was left is dealing with the loss of everyday contact with their children.  Finding themselves amid profound life change, they are understandably struggling to contain and manage their grief.  The children, however, are being negatively impacted by the parent’s grief.   They are angry at the parent who left. They are saying mean things and showing disrespect to the parent, and they are beginning to resist going to the parent’s new home.  Is this alienation or is it the natural consequences to unexpected life changes and loss? 

The parent who wanted the divorce is accusing the other parent of alienation and listing all the children’s rejecting behaviors as support for their allegations.  Looking at the situation through an alienation lens, I could ascribe the children’s behaviors to an unhealthy enmeshment with the grieving parent caused by parentification (making the child feel emotionally responsible for their sadness) and/or adultification (giving the child adult related details about the situation that cause the child to feel anger and resentment toward the other parent).  If I stopped my assessment at that point, it might warrant greater custodial time being given to the parent, who despite their hasty and unthoughtful exit from the family, appeared more emotionally stable and appeared to have healthier boundaries with children. 

The answer as to whether the grieving parent was an alienating parent who would ultimately damage or destroy the children’s relationship with the other parent, or whether the children were realistically and understandably angry at the parent who they saw as abandoning the family was best answered after assessing the parents’ level of compliance and participation in counseling recommendations.  The grieving parent needed to understand how to process and compartmentalize their grief and help the children transition to a new way of life; the parent who left needed to empathize with the loss experienced by the children and ex-spouse; both parents needed to learn how to support and nurture the other parent’s relationship with the kids.

In this example, the responses to the intervention provided more important information than the identification of the behaviors themselves.  I have seen the above scenario reveal information that the grieving parent could not control the serious boundary violations between themselves and the children, which if left unchecked would likely cause permanent damage to the children’s relationship with the other parent. This resulted in final recommendations and court rulings limiting that parent’s time with the children.  I have also found a similar set of circumstances result in a determination that the children’s rejection and resistance to the parent who left were justified because of the parent’s refusal to obtain counseling or gain insight regarding their extreme self-interest, lack of empathy, and their unwillingness to keep their new dating life separate from their time with the children. 

The important task of watching parental responses to recommendations made during the assessment process was one of the most valuable things I learned, from my training over the years with Karen and Nick Woodall.  They taught me that intervention and assessment go hand in hand.  A severe case of parental alienation will be highlighted by a parent’s refusal/resistance to participate in recommendations aimed at changing their behaviors and improving the children’s relationship with the other parent.  An alienated child will often mirror this resistance to interventions aimed at improving their relationship with the parent they are rejecting.

In conclusion, I hope two-part series demonstrates a few ways that resistance to a parent during divorce can be more accurately defined as “just or unjust,” by an in-depth examination of parent/child behaviors within the context of a complex and rich family narrative.  The behaviors themselves only provide clear diagnostic value when the variables of intention and capacity for change are also assessed.

__________________________________________________________________________

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.