Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums Of “Alienation:” Lessons Learned In A Decade And Reflections On Challenges Ahead

• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020
• Author: Barbara Jo Fidler,Nicholas Bala
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12488

SPECIAL ISSUE: PARENT-CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS: CONCEPTS,

CONTROVERSIES, & CONUNDRUMS

CONCLUSION

CONCEPTS, CONTROVERSIES AND CONUNDRUMS OF

“ALIENATION:”LESSONS LEARNED IN A DECADE AND

REFLECTIONS ON CHALLENGES AHEAD

Barbara Jo Fidler and Nicholas Bala

Therehavebeensignificant advances in understandings and practice related parent–child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing

consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others. It is widely acknowledged that PCCP cases are most fruitfully

understood from a multi-factorial perspective. While some cases may be totally the “fault”of one parent (a parent perpetrating vio-

lence or abuse, or a parent exhibiting alienating behavior), in many situations both parents bear some responsibility: focusing on a

single cause is rarely helpful. Most professionals and researchers agree that the challenge in practice is to distinguish between false

positives and false negatives for both alienation (or unjustified rejection) and realistic estrangement (justified rejection). There is con-

tinuing controversy over whether the concept of “alienation”should be used, especially in court proceedings, and a related disagree-

ment about the extent to which family courts are now failing to respond adequately to cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) or

child abuse when alienation is also raised. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active

perspective-taking will contribute to effective professional involvement. Increased parent education and prevention can play an impor-

tant role, although for the more severe PCCP cases the family courts system will continue to play a critical role. While more research

must be done, given the complexity of issues, conclusive findings are unlikely in the near future. Legislators and family justice pro-

fessionals must make decisions based on a thorough analysis of each family’s circumstances in the context of our present knowledge,

taking account of the limits of the law. They will often face the conundrum of making decisions in the face of uncertainty.

Key Points For The Family Court Community:

There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related to parent-child contact problems

(PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others.

It is widely acknowledged that PCCPs cases are best understood and addressed by relying on a multi-factorial per-

spective, a family-systems approach and coordinated professional services.

Attention to false positives and false negatives for both alienation (unjustified rejection) and for realistic estrangement (justified

rejection) is necessary. For either of these types of contact problems and for cases involving elements of both, it may be in the

child’s best interest to remedy the strained parent-child relationship and for the child to maintain contact with both parents.

Legal and mental health professionals involved in decision making, forensic and clinical assessments, and psycho-

educational and clinical interventions face challenges in fact finding and correcting for ubiquitous cognitive biases.

Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active dialogue with openness to differ-

ent perspectives will contribute to effective professional involvement and positive outcomes for families.

Increased parent education and prevention can play an important role, although for the more severe PCCP cases the

family court system will continue to play a critical role in early intervention, case management, decision making and

monitoring some cases post judgment.

More research on screening and assessment tools and to differentiate different types of PCCPs and on appropriate

interventions is needed. Given the complexity of PCCPs, conclusive research findings are unlikely. Family justice

professionals must make decisions and tailor interventions based on an analysis of each family’s circumstances using

our present knowledge, while recognizing the limits of legal interventions and resource constraints. Often, families

and professionals will face the conundrum of making decisions in the face of uncertainty.

Keywords: High Conflict Separation; Parent–Child Contact Problem; Parental Alienation; Resist-Refuse Dynamics.

Corresponding: drbarbarafidler@sympatico.ca

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 576–603

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

I. INTRODUCTION

As noted in our Introduction, this is the third Special Issue of the Family Court Review in

the last 20 years on “alienation”and other parent–child contact problems (PCCPs). The return

to the topic reflects the challenging nature of the subject, the continuing and often bitter contro-

versy in families, and the media and professional literature about PCCP. The dynamics of this

professional struggle mirror the very high conflict dynamics observed in the families we are

attempting to assist. There has been an increase in the reported number of these often hotly

contested cases. Professionals, researchers, the courts, and policy makers continue to struggle

with how to deal with these complex, high conflict parenting cases in ways that promote the

best interests of children. While there has been a very significant increase in writing and

research, and some emerging progress in developing better interventions for PCCP cases over

the past decade, there is still much that is uncertain or contested. Given the uncertainty in the

field in general as well as about the facts of specific cases, those responsible for making deci-

sions often face real conundrums, and many parents and children involved in these cases are

still not well served by the family justice system or by the professionals and the available inter-

ventions offered by courts and mental health professionals.

In this article, we draw on some of the themes and ideas developed in this Special Issue, and

add some of our own insights and reflections. We consider the progress and changes over the

past decade, but mainly focus on present knowledge and thoughts about future directions.

While the central issues addressed are broadly similar to those we discussed in our overview

paper for the 2010 Special Issue, our knowledge has increased and our thinking has evolved.

However, we recogni ze the contin ued uncert ainty and ch allenges, b oth for the field and for indi-

vidual cases.

This article is not intended as a summary of the preceding papers, each of which makes

important, complex, and often nuanced arguments. Rather, we identify and discuss some of the

developing areas of consensus and some areas of the continuing controversy. We start with a

discussion of concepts and frameworks for analysis of these cases, raising concerns about the

use of “single cause”explanations for PCCP cases. We then consider early responses and pre-

vention work with parents to promote de-escalation in PCCP cases, and to promote children

having good relationships with both parents. Next, we discuss the challenges of fact finding, in

particular the issue of ubiquitous cognitive biases and the role these play in custody evaluations,

judicial fact finding, the delivery of interventions and professional exchanges and development.

We then consider the growing knowledge about interventions and the value of a broader sys-

temic perspective, including a family systems approach, as well as the limits to what is known

about interventions. Important developments include the need for interventions to address child

and parent trauma responses and chronic stress, and to encourage more systematic approaches

to assessment and intervention. We then discuss the role of the courts, and the challenges faced

by judges and lawyers, as well the importance of collaboration between mental health and fam-

ily justice professionals to develop and implement effective interventions tailored to the needs

of the specific family. Then we return to the controversy of whether “alienation”is a useful,

meaningful construct, especially in the context of the involvement of mental health profes-

sionals in family court proceedings. While recognizing both its limitations and its utility, we

support continued use of the concept, and urge further dialogue with critics of the concept of

alienation, especially those concerned about its effect on intimate partner violence (IPV) and

abuse cases. Our last topic is research; we strongly support efforts at more and better research

while recognizing that, given the unavoidable challenges of conducting good research in this

field, and the limited resources available, there will be limits to what can be learned in the fore-

seeable future, and decision-makers, practitioners, and families will have to proceed in the face

of uncertainty. While each of the topics is considered discretely, they are all interrelated. Like

the PCCP cases that are dealt with by the courts and professionals, there are complex, dynamic

interrelationships between all of the issues.

Fidler and Bala/CONCEPTS, CONTROVERSIES AND CONUNDRUMS 577