Alienation Dynamics

There is an extensive literature on the clinical-forensic assessment of alienation dynamics in families. What is not well known is the scientific basis of the concept of alienation, its assessment, and its treatment and prognosis. The majority of peer-reviewed literature that describes the presence and sources of alienation are based upon clinical experience and expert opinions. Examination of the majority of scholarship on the subject of alienation is based upon clinical opinions and professional impressions.

Clinical observations, professional impressions, and clinical judgments are valuable and important building blocks for an evolving field of study. Clinical observations may provide behavioral data upon which may be built initial ideas about factors operating within a family. Professional impressions and clinical judgments may develop into testable hypotheses. However, it is important to recognize that clinical observations, professional impressions, and clinical judgments do not constitute empirical evidence.

There is professional consensus that in some high-conflict families, parents may engage in behaviors that undermine and/or interfere with a child's relationship with the other parent. A parent who undermines and/or interferes with a child's relationship with a parent may be engaged in a form of emotional abuse that is harmful to children and their long-term development.

A Scientific Basis for Showing Alienation?

While alienation dynamics is among the most common allegations in child custody litigation, there are in fact no reliable empirically based estimates of the prevalence or incidence of alienating behavior, either in the general population, or among separating and/or divorcing families.

At present, there are few empirical studies of alienation dynamics, while there are at least two competing hypotheses to explain a child's resistance and/or reluctance to spend time with a parent. One hypothesis is that a child's rejection or resistance to contact that parent is the result of the other parent's alienation of the child. A rival hypothesis is that a child's rejection or reluctance to contact a parent is the result of a fact-based reason such as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. Justified estrangement, as it is called by some alienation experts, may explain a child's resistance and/or reluctance to spend time with a parent. Yet there are no reliable and valid instruments able to distinguish justified estrangement from alienation. The evaluator is left to conduct a comprehensive examination of the family system by gathering historical and current data about the development and possible changes in family relationships over time.

Many evaluators who conduct child custody evaluations report that alienation occurs along a continuum, from mild to severe. There is no consensus definition for any of the placements along the continuum. Richard A. Gardner, one of the first proponents of the theory of parental alienation syndrome, offered a working definition of mild, moderate, and severe alienation, but did not develop an empirically based measure to classify alienating behavior or to establish an empirical system to reliably distinguish mild alienating behavior from other placements along the continuum.

There is virtually no research examining how to reliably distinguish alienation from other types of strained parent-child relationships. Generally, the concept of alienation refers, in part, to an intention by a parent to undermine a child's view of the other parent. There are other reasons why parent-child relationships may become strained other than those based upon a parent's intent to undermine the child's relationship with the other parent. To date, the best method available for distinguishing alienation from other reasons for a strained parent/child relationship is based upon clinical data gathered from a comprehensive examination of historical relationships within the family and current family behavior and dynamics.

Further, there is no consensus definition of “alienation” found in the peer-reviewed literature. An alienated child has been defined as one who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable and often irrational negative feelings and beliefs, such as anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear of a parent. Another definition is that an alienated child displays negative reactions that are significantly disproportionate to the child's actual experiences with that parent. A third definition is that an alienated child shows strident rejection of one parent, generally accompanied by strong resistance or refusal to having contact with a parent after separation or divorce.

Which Parental Behaviors Are We Talking About?

Mothers, fathers, children, young adults, counselors, evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been able to describe specific behaviors that may be perpetrated by one parent and have the capacity to interfere with a child's relationship with the other parent. There are, however, no reliable means developed to assess these specific behaviors.

Researchers are trying to determine what, if any, cluster of behaviors constitute alienation. Some behaviors may cluster together to create for the child a sense of fear toward a parent, while other behaviors may cluster together and contribute to a child's sense of anger toward a parent. A review of literature reveals no reliable means of assessing these specific clusters.

Said differently, there is insufficient empirical data to support the view that alienation is made up of a set of specific clusters or factors of behavior. Gardner argued that eight specific factors contributed to Parental Alienation Syndrome; however there continues to be a lack of consensus about the usefulness of the “syndrome” component of Parental Alienation Syndrome, with most current literature moving away from Gardner's hypothesized eight factors.

Since there is no consensus definition of alienation or of the behaviors that are associated with alienating dynamics, it stands to reason that there are, as of yet, no instruments available to measure alienation in a clinical or forensic setting. Simply put, there is insufficient information in the peer-reviewed literature to provide a differential diagnosis, differentiating alienation from other forms of parent-child relationship dysfunction. There are empirical studies that have shown efforts to assess for and identify the presence or absence of alienation dynamics. None of the instruments in the empirical literature possess adequate reliability and validity to be used in clinical or forensic evaluations.

Some researchers have examined whether alienated children are more emotionally compromised or challenged compared with their non-alienated peers. The findings are mixed on this question. Some scholars posit that one parent is responsible for alienating the child who is uniquely susceptible to such influence. Others suggest a more complex set of interactions among family members as contributing to family alienation dynamics. Findings generally support more complex models when assigning responsibility for the existence of alienation when it is found to be present.

Although not yet reflecting a consensus, there is an emerging understanding represented in the alienation literature that both parents contribute to the problem. Children may also contribute to the problem. The separation and divorce context may contribute to the problem. Family and relationship history may contribute to the problem. Extended family, friends, and others outside the family system may contribute to the problem. Each contributing factor has a potentially profound impact on the way that the issue of alienation is adjudicated in a child custody battle.

Several studies have examined the long-term outcomes and residential effects of alienation. Research findings are inconclusive. Spontaneous reunifications occur with some frequency, with and without therapeutic assistance. Some alienated children push away from the alienating parent toward the rejected parent as they get older. This has been called the “boomerang effect.”

Tentative findings have shown that some children who have been identified as more severely alienated were more resistant to treatment. Other studies have shown that in severe cases of alienation that resulted in change of custody, the reversal of custody may reduce alienation. The problem with these results is that almost all studies employed the weakest research design. The treatment studies have very small samples sizes. None used standardized assessment techniques. People in the studies tended to be those recruited from the researcher's clinical caseload. Few, if any, had controls on other variables that may affect results, such as custody arrangement, contact with parent, or the child's maturation.

Some studies have attempted to examine the long-term effects of alienation on children's adjustment. Most studies are so methodologically flawed that reliable results and useful interpretation of those results are not attainable.

What all this adds up to is that support for the scientific usefulness of “alienation syndrome” is tenuous at best, because there are significant methodological flaws in research examining etiology, prevalence, definition, characteristics, and interventions.

Guidance for Examination of Expert Testimony

Having described the lack of scientific basis for the concept of alienation dynamics, one might think that challenging testimony about alienation would be a simple task. For example, in a Frye state, the argument could be put forward that there is no professional consensus about alienation, and no consensus about its etiology, definition, characteristics, and interventions. The lack of professional consensus among the relevant community might result is an effective challenge to admissibility of alienation evidence. In a Daubert state, the argument could be put forth that there is virtually no scientific basis to the concept of alienation. There is no consensus about an underlying theory of science. If one argues that a particular alienation model ' for example, the Johnston and Kelly “child alienation model” ' is an example of a underlying theory of science, then the argument is based upon the lack of reliable methods to assess factors associated with the theory.

But do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? We suspect not. Most who are involved in custody litigation in which there are allegations of alienation within a family believe that they know it when they see it (with apologies to Justice Potter Stewart) even if the scientific basis of alienation has yet to be demonstrated. How, then, to conduct a useful examination of allegations of alienation dynamics when presented by a child custody evaluator who has completed an assessment or by a retained expert hired to analyze the evaluator's report?

To begin with, the evaluator should acknowledge that alienation is a set of behaviors, not a syndrome. The scope of the evaluator's work should reflect a comprehensive assessment of factors that may impede or facilitate parent-child contact. Attorneys would do well to attack the lack of scientific acceptability of any evaluator who claims alienation is a syndrome and/or fails to comprehensively assess the aforementioned factors. The job of the attorney is to educate the court on critical nuances of alienation, and thus move fact finders away from what are often widely held and incorrect assumptions in regard to alienation.

Educating the Fact-Finder

The evaluator should provide descriptions of behavior. Attorneys must attack the evaluation that omits these necessary descriptions.

Behavioral descriptions are more useful to courts than providing only labels or diagnostic terms. Attorneys, as always, must be prepared to attack the lack of underlying demonstrable facts in an evaluator's report and to demonstrate to a finder of fact the lack of supporting evidence for such an evaluator's conclusion regarding alienation. The evaluator should provide specific examples of parent-child interaction and specific examples of statements from a parent, a child, or other person involved in the child's care. When interviewing the child, the evaluator needs to explore the underlying reasoning of the child's statements.

Remember, resistance to visit is important, but not determinative. Reluctance to spend time with a parent may result from different sources. The evaluator needs to investigate all reasonable rival hypotheses to explain a child's resistance to or reluctance to spend time with a parent. And attorneys must be prepared to test, probe, and challenge each hypothesis related to possible instances of alienation. Examining evaluators through questioning about the lack of rival hypotheses and impeaching evaluators about the lack of information regarding lack of rival hypotheses is critical to the work of custody attorneys.

Alienation does not often happen overnight. Alienating behaviors often occur as a result of contributions over time by each family member. The evaluator must examine the relationship history throughout the marriage, including examination of each child's relationship with each parent throughout the marriage and in the current context. Custody counsel must be prepared to question and challenge an evaluator about the lack of detailed family history investigations in his/her evaluation. The lack of said detail in an evaluator's report can and must be laid bare by counsel.

To best understand the course of relationship development within a family, it is helpful to map out a timeline of events. Beginning with each child's birth, it is important to understand how decisions were made with regard to early care taking, especially issues throughout the marriage around gatekeeping (one parent's exertion of excessive control over the other parent's relationship with the child).

Mental-health treatment options may occur at various levels. Individual therapy may be useful, and the evaluator needs to have looked at how individual therapy may affect the larger family system. Similarly, if a family therapy approach is taken, the evaluator needs to consider how the family intervention may affect individual members of the family.

Before jumping to the conclusion that a change of custody is needed, the evaluator needs first to consider less intrusive interventions. Again, custody counsel, after questioning evaluators on the lack of specific, detailed examples of behaviors and/or the lack of thorough family histories, must be prepared to challenge the analysis behind the evaluator's recommended intervention. Once an intervention is agreed upon, it is important to provide reliable methods to assess the intervention.

Finally, follow-up assessment and intervention may by critically important. It is easy for families to return to their previous functioning without continuous re-direction from mental health professionals.

Jonathan Gould, Ph.D, ABPP, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a board-certified forensic psychologist specializing in family law matters at the Charlotte Psychotherapy & Consultation Group, Charlotte, NC. He can be reached at [email protected]. Jeff Riebel is a partner in the DeLacey Riebel Family Law Group, San Francisco.

Alienation dynamics that are purported to operate within a separating and divorcing family are among the most common allegations in child custody litigation. In this article, we discuss the scientific basis of the concept of “alienation” and provide a road map for direct and cross-examination of expert witness testimony.

Alienation dynamics may be known by many different labels: Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental alienation, child alienation, Malicious Mother Syndrome, just to name a few. We refer to alienation dynamics as a useful term to describe activities that occur within a family system in which all family members contribute to the alienation dynamic in some way.

The Concept of Alienation

There is an extensive literature on the clinical-forensic assessment of alienation dynamics in families. What is not well known is the scientific basis of the concept of alienation, its assessment, and its treatment and prognosis. The majority of peer-reviewed literature that describes the presence and sources of alienation are based upon clinical experience and expert opinions. Examination of the majority of scholarship on the subject of alienation is based upon clinical opinions and professional impressions.

Clinical observations, professional impressions, and clinical judgments are valuable and important building blocks for an evolving field of study. Clinical observations may provide behavioral data upon which may be built initial ideas about factors operating within a family. Professional impressions and clinical judgments may develop into testable hypotheses. However, it is important to recognize that clinical observations, professional impressions, and clinical judgments do not constitute empirical evidence.

There is professional consensus that in some high-conflict families, parents may engage in behaviors that undermine and/or interfere with a child's relationship with the other parent. A parent who undermines and/or interferes with a child's relationship with a parent may be engaged in a form of emotional abuse that is harmful to children and their long-term development.

A Scientific Basis for Showing Alienation?

While alienation dynamics is among the most common allegations in child custody litigation, there are in fact no reliable empirically based estimates of the prevalence or incidence of alienating behavior, either in the general population, or among separating and/or divorcing families.

At present, there are few empirical studies of alienation dynamics, while there are at least two competing hypotheses to explain a child's resistance and/or reluctance to spend time with a parent. One hypothesis is that a child's rejection or resistance to contact that parent is the result of the other parent's alienation of the child. A rival hypothesis is that a child's rejection or reluctance to contact a parent is the result of a fact-based reason such as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. Justified estrangement, as it is called by some alienation experts, may explain a child's resistance and/or reluctance to spend time with a parent. Yet there are no reliable and valid instruments able to distinguish justified estrangement from alienation. The evaluator is left to conduct a comprehensive examination of the family system by gathering historical and current data about the development and possible changes in family relationships over time.

Many evaluators who conduct child custody evaluations report that alienation occurs along a continuum, from mild to severe. There is no consensus definition for any of the placements along the continuum. Richard A. Gardner, one of the first proponents of the theory of parental alienation syndrome, offered a working definition of mild, moderate, and severe alienation, but did not develop an empirically based measure to classify alienating behavior or to establish an empirical system to reliably distinguish mild alienating behavior from other placements along the continuum.

There is virtually no research examining how to reliably distinguish alienation from other types of strained parent-child relationships. Generally, the concept of alienation refers, in part, to an intention by a parent to undermine a child's view of the other parent. There are other reasons why parent-child relationships may become strained other than those based upon a parent's intent to undermine the child's relationship with the other parent. To date, the best method available for distinguishing alienation from other reasons for a strained parent/child relationship is based upon clinical data gathered from a comprehensive examination of historical relationships within the family and current family behavior and dynamics.

Further, there is no consensus definition of “alienation” found in the peer-reviewed literature. An alienated child has been defined as one who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable and often irrational negative feelings and beliefs, such as anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear of a parent. Another definition is that an alienated child displays negative reactions that are significantly disproportionate to the child's actual experiences with that parent. A third definition is that an alienated child shows strident rejection of one parent, generally accompanied by strong resistance or refusal to having contact with a parent after separation or divorce.

Which Parental Behaviors Are We Talking About?

Mothers, fathers, children, young adults, counselors, evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been able to describe specific behaviors that may be perpetrated by one parent and have the capacity to interfere with a child's relationship with the other parent. There are, however, no reliable means developed to assess these specific behaviors.

Researchers are trying to determine what, if any, cluster of behaviors constitute alienation. Some behaviors may cluster together to create for the child a sense of fear toward a parent, while other behaviors may cluster together and contribute to a child's sense of anger toward a parent. A review of literature reveals no reliable means of assessing these specific clusters.

Said differently, there is insufficient empirical data to support the view that alienation is made up of a set of specific clusters or factors of behavior. Gardner argued that eight specific factors contributed to Parental Alienation Syndrome; however there continues to be a lack of consensus about the usefulness of the “syndrome” component of Parental Alienation Syndrome, with most current literature moving away from Gardner's hypothesized eight factors.

Since there is no consensus definition of alienation or of the behaviors that are associated with alienating dynamics, it stands to reason that there are, as of yet, no instruments available to measure alienation in a clinical or forensic setting. Simply put, there is insufficient information in the peer-reviewed literature to provide a differential diagnosis, differentiating alienation from other forms of parent-child relationship dysfunction. There are empirical studies that have shown efforts to assess for and identify the presence or absence of alienation dynamics. None of the instruments in the empirical literature possess adequate reliability and validity to be used in clinical or forensic evaluations.

Some researchers have examined whether alienated children are more emotionally compromised or challenged compared with their non-alienated peers. The findings are mixed on this question. Some scholars posit that one parent is responsible for alienating the child who is uniquely susceptible to such influence. Others suggest a more complex set of interactions among family members as contributing to family alienation dynamics. Findings generally support more complex models when assigning responsibility for the existence of alienation when it is found to be present.

Although not yet reflecting a consensus, there is an emerging understanding represented in the alienation literature that both parents contribute to the problem. Children may also contribute to the problem. The separation and divorce context may contribute to the problem. Family and relationship history may contribute to the problem. Extended family, friends, and others outside the family system may contribute to the problem. Each contributing factor has a potentially profound impact on the way that the issue of alienation is adjudicated in a child custody battle.

Several studies have examined the long-term outcomes and residential effects of alienation. Research findings are inconclusive. Spontaneous reunifications occur with some frequency, with and without therapeutic assistance. Some alienated children push away from the alienating parent toward the rejected parent as they get older. This has been called the “boomerang effect.”

Tentative findings have shown that some children who have been identified as more severely alienated were more resistant to treatment. Other studies have shown that in severe cases of alienation that resulted in change of custody, the reversal of custody may reduce alienation. The problem with these results is that almost all studies employed the weakest research design. The treatment studies have very small samples sizes. None used standardized assessment techniques. People in the studies tended to be those recruited from the researcher's clinical caseload. Few, if any, had controls on other variables that may affect results, such as custody arrangement, contact with parent, or the child's maturation.

Some studies have attempted to examine the long-term effects of alienation on children's adjustment. Most studies are so methodologically flawed that reliable results and useful interpretation of those results are not attainable.

What all this adds up to is that support for the scientific usefulness of “alienation syndrome” is tenuous at best, because there are significant methodological flaws in research examining etiology, prevalence, definition, characteristics, and interventions.

Guidance for Examination of Expert Testimony

Having described the lack of scientific basis for the concept of alienation dynamics, one might think that challenging testimony about alienation would be a simple task. For example, in a Frye state, the argument could be put forward that there is no professional consensus about alienation, and no consensus about its etiology, definition, characteristics, and interventions. The lack of professional consensus among the relevant community might result is an effective challenge to admissibility of alienation evidence. In a Daubert state, the argument could be put forth that there is virtually no scientific basis to the concept of alienation. There is no consensus about an underlying theory of science. If one argues that a particular alienation model ' for example, the Johnston and Kelly “child alienation model” ' is an example of a underlying theory of science, then the argument is based upon the lack of reliable methods to assess factors associated with the theory.

But do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? We suspect not. Most who are involved in custody litigation in which there are allegations of alienation within a family believe that they know it when they see it (with apologies to Justice Potter Stewart) even if the scientific basis of alienation has yet to be demonstrated. How, then, to conduct a useful examination of allegations of alienation dynamics when presented by a child custody evaluator who has completed an assessment or by a retained expert hired to analyze the evaluator's report?

To begin with, the evaluator should acknowledge that alienation is a set of behaviors, not a syndrome. The scope of the evaluator's work should reflect a comprehensive assessment of factors that may impede or facilitate parent-child contact. Attorneys would do well to attack the lack of scientific acceptability of any evaluator who claims alienation is a syndrome and/or fails to comprehensively assess the aforementioned factors. The job of the attorney is to educate the court on critical nuances of alienation, and thus move fact finders away from what are often widely held and incorrect assumptions in regard to alienation.

Educating the Fact-Finder

The evaluator should provide descriptions of behavior. Attorneys must attack the evaluation that omits these necessary descriptions.

Behavioral descriptions are more useful to courts than providing only labels or diagnostic terms. Attorneys, as always, must be prepared to attack the lack of underlying demonstrable facts in an evaluator's report and to demonstrate to a finder of fact the lack of supporting evidence for such an evaluator's conclusion regarding alienation. The evaluator should provide specific examples of parent-child interaction and specific examples of statements from a parent, a child, or other person involved in the child's care. When interviewing the child, the evaluator needs to explore the underlying reasoning of the child's statements.

Remember, resistance to visit is important, but not determinative. Reluctance to spend time with a parent may result from different sources. The evaluator needs to investigate all reasonable rival hypotheses to explain a child's resistance to or reluctance to spend time with a parent. And attorneys must be prepared to test, probe, and challenge each hypothesis related to possible instances of alienation. Examining evaluators through questioning about the lack of rival hypotheses and impeaching evaluators about the lack of information regarding lack of rival hypotheses is critical to the work of custody attorneys.

Alienation does not often happen overnight. Alienating behaviors often occur as a result of contributions over time by each family member. The evaluator must examine the relationship history throughout the marriage, including examination of each child's relationship with each parent throughout the marriage and in the current context. Custody counsel must be prepared to question and challenge an evaluator about the lack of detailed family history investigations in his/her evaluation. The lack of said detail in an evaluator's report can and must be laid bare by counsel.

To best understand the course of relationship development within a family, it is helpful to map out a timeline of events. Beginning with each child's birth, it is important to understand how decisions were made with regard to early care taking, especially issues throughout the marriage around gatekeeping (one parent's exertion of excessive control over the other parent's relationship with the child).

Mental-health treatment options may occur at various levels. Individual therapy may be useful, and the evaluator needs to have looked at how individual therapy may affect the larger family system. Similarly, if a family therapy approach is taken, the evaluator needs to consider how the family intervention may affect individual members of the family.

Before jumping to the conclusion that a change of custody is needed, the evaluator needs first to consider less intrusive interventions. Again, custody counsel, after questioning evaluators on the lack of specific, detailed examples of behaviors and/or the lack of thorough family histories, must be prepared to challenge the analysis behind the evaluator's recommended intervention. Once an intervention is agreed upon, it is important to provide reliable methods to assess the intervention.

Finally, follow-up assessment and intervention may by critically important. It is easy for families to return to their previous functioning without continuous re-direction from mental health professionals.

Jonathan Gould, Ph.D, ABPP, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a board-certified forensic psychologist specializing in family law matters at the Charlotte Psychotherapy & Consultation Group, Charlotte, NC. He can be reached at [email protected]. Jeff Riebel is a partner in the DeLacey Riebel Family Law Group, San Francisco.