Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

• Author: Matthew J. Sullivan,Janet R. Johnston
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12472
• Date: 01 April 2020
• Published date: 01 April 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE: PARENT-CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS: CONCEPTS,

CONTROVERSIES, & CONUNDRUMS

CONCEPTS AND CONTEXTS

PARENTAL ALIENATION: IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND FOR A

MORE DIFFERENTIATED THEORY

Janet R. Johnston and Matthew J. Sullivan

The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy

about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this

paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have,

over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA- from children who make false allegations

of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon

children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts,

we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the prob-

lem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting

on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child’s rejecting stance. By con-

trast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children’s rejection of a parent,

informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi-factor models are complex and difficult to

argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused predic-

tion models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Several socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the prevalence, focal concerns and

ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.

Persistent erroneousassumption that an alienatingparent is primarily the source of a child’s resistance/rejection of a par-

ent (called the dominantSingle-Factor theory of PA) is problematic in applying PA constructs in research andpractice.

Four principal factors (illustrating a refined multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified as goals for

preventive–interventions and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across different kinds of interven-

tions resist/refuse cases in practice.

Keywords: Alienation; Estrangement; High-Conflict Divorce; Intimate Partner Violence; Parent–Child Contact Problems;

Parental Alienation;Resistance-Refusal Dynamics.

I. WORKING DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF PAPER

1

“‘Parental Alienation’is the process, and the result, of psychological manipulation of a child

into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility toward a parent and/or other family mem-

bers.”(Wikipedia).

This common conception of “parental alienation”[PA] appears to be thriving alongside continu-

ing controversy among researchers, professional organizations, family justice practitioners,

advocates and parents as to the legitimate existence of the phenomena (Bernet, Boch-Galhau,

Corresponding: sullydoc@aol.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 270–292

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Baker, & Morrison, 2010; Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Fidler & Bala, 2010; Johnston, 2003; Meier,

2009, 2019; Milchman, Geffner, & Meier, 2020; Nielsen, 2018; Walker & Shapiro, 2010; Warshak,

2010b, 2016). Despite ongoing disagreement about the quality of social science research on the

subject,

2

disparities in acceptance of PA across interdisciplinary boundaries and professional

organizations,

3

and challenges to the admissibility and use of PA in court proceedings,

4

more than

three decades after its introduction (Gardner, 1998, 2002), the concept of PA continues to be

embraced by widening public, professional and international audiences (Bernet, 2020; Lorandos,

2020). At the same time strong proponents and strong opponents of the ideas remain stalemated

over the value of PA. Frustration mounts and confusion reigns when professional articles repeat

their rhetoric, lauding or condemning PA concepts and interventions. It is particularly disconcerting

and discouraging to encounter the extent of “scholar advocacy bias,”co-mingling with valid reports

of the research in what are supposedly critical reviews of PA studies and clinical theorizing from

both sides of the polarized divide

5

. Meanwhile popular conceptions of PA are widely disseminated

by way of infomercials and personal narratives in the public domain through books, magazines and

social media. Together, they have spawned an unregulated cottage industry of programs and ser-

vices by persons with varying credentials and potential conflicts of interest (Warshak, 2020).

Commonly-used conceptions of PA that refer loosely or inconsistently to PA as a unitary cause,

the process, and/or the result of a child’s unjustified rejection of a parent tend to confuse and over-

simplify what are essentially diverse and complex dynamics. Their use can potentially mislead the

court, fuel mutual blaming between parents and stigmatize the children with an unwarranted psychi-

atric label. For this reason, some critical reviewers have urged professionals to avoid the use of PA

terms altogether, and to instead employ behavioral descriptors of the problem by referring to “par-

ent-child contact problems,”“strained parent-child relationships”and to children who “reject a par-

ent”or “resist/ refuse visitation”(Saini, Johnston, Fidler, & Bala, 2016). This advice appears to

have been heeded only in part. Changing nomenclature does not solve the basic problem. Advocates

in court tend to ignore more carefully crafted, differentiated use of PA concepts in order to build

their case. Avoiding use of PA terms entirely risks giving free reign to persons, authorized by court

orders but not constrained by professional standards, to use the terminology loosely to intervene

with vulnerable children and their families, potentially with ineffective or harmful consequences.

Furthermore, discarding PA terminology entirely risks throwing out the good with the bad, and not

discerning the significant contributions that PA ideas make to the field. The fact is that well-

informed consultants, counselors, family court practitioners, researchers and advocates are using

PA constructs responsibly to respond to complex and vexing problems. A perusal of the Family

Court Review April, 2020 special issue on children resisting contact with a parent (Fidler & Bala,

2020) illustrates the increasingly nuanced conceptual, multi-level clinical thinking about this matter.

A. THE NATURE OF THE PHENOMENA

For the newcomer to the family justice field (which includes many judges), PA seems a logical,

and easily comprehensible explanation for otherwise inexplicable negative attitudes, beliefs and

behaviors of children toward one of their parents. The scenario of a stridently angry child or an anx-

ious, avoidant child, reciting unjustified or exaggerated convictions about, and refusing contact with

a parent, is one that resonates with the experience of family justice professionals across national

borders. In the wake of a bitter divorce, it is deceptively easy to assume that a child is simply par-

roting the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of a spiteful former partner. For this reason, PA as a phe-

nomenon has a compelling and intuitive appeal that is not likely to disappear.

It is common for separating individuals to review and revise the failed relationship and reach new

“insights”about themselves and their former partner. High-conflict individuals rewrite their personal

history in their minds- and crystalize their anger, disappointment, grief, and humiliation- to derive par-

ticularly negative, polarized, even dehumanized views of the former partner. These accounts are con-

solidated as narratives and family legends when shared in some manner with others, including

Johnston and Sullivan/PARENTAL ALIENATION 271