Risks and Realities of Working with Alienated Children

• Date: 01 April 2020
• Author: Richard A. Warshak
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12481
• Published date: 01 April 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE: PARENT-CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS: CONCEPTS,

CONTROVERSIES, & CONUNDRUMS

PROFESSIONAL ROLES

RISKS AND REALITIES OF WORKING WITH ALIENATED CHILDREN

Richard A. Warshak

Involvement in custody cases that include accusations of parentalalienation—whether as an evaluator, expert witness, lawyer,judge,

therapist, provider of a specialized intervention, or researcher—incurs both professional and personal risks. Some risks relate to false

negative or false positive identificationsof parental alienation that can lead to regulatory agency complaints and public condemnation

by the parent who feels wronged by the case outcome. Other risks stem from providingservices in an emerging area of practice and

working with children who overtlyoppose repairing the relationship with their rejected parent. These risks include: unfounded accusa-

tions of mistreating children; negatively biasedcommentary and sensationalist attacks in the media and in social media, professional

conferences and journals, and in courtroom testimony; harassment, vilification,and invasion of privacy; threats of violence and public

humiliation; shunning and rumor spreading bycolleagues; and complaints to regulatory agencies. This article examines circumstances,

beliefs, and dynamics that give rise to these risks, suggests precautions to reduce the risk of false accusations against professionals, and

offers recommendations for dealing with regulatory agencies. Criticisms that a court or service provider has mistreated a child merit

careful scrutiny in the context of the case evidence and empirical data. While some i nterventions for alienated children raise legitimate

concerns, others have beenmaligned by anecdotal complaints that studies show do not represent the experienceof most par ticipants.

Practitioner’sKey Points:

Professional risks in an emerging area of practice can be mitigated by using approaches informed by concepts

derived from empirical research, professional knowledge, and professional experience, and by adhering to applicable

professional standards and guidelines.

Biases, superficial understanding of the complexity of parental alienation issues and dynamics, and inexperience can

lead to inappropriate generalizations about the nature, roots, and remedies of parent-child relationship problems, and

result in false positive and false negative errors regarding parental alienation.

When faced with accusations of misconduct, practitioners should inform the regulatory agency of case evidence and

court findings of prior false accusations and malicious complaints, ask the agency to evaluate whether complaints

against the professional reflect similar dynamics to those identified during the litigation, and stress the importance of

the rejected parent’sobser vationsof how the professional treated the children.

Accusations of mistreatment of children who participate in specialized interventions for alienated children should be

evaluated in the context of empirical data on the interventions.

Outcome research on Family Bridges and Overcoming Barriers found high levels of satisfaction among child and

adult participants and do not support assertions that these specialized services harm children.

Keywords: Parental Alienation; Custody Reversal; High-Conflict Divorce; Reunification.

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.

—Jonathan Swift

1

“When presenting an innovative approach to helping children caught up in custody disputes, some

misunderstanding and resistance to new ideas is to be expected. These problems intensify when the

media reports on these issues.”

2

In 2010, one of my articles in Family Court Review led with that

Correspondence: doc@warshak.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 432–455

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

statement. Ten years later, misunderstanding and resistance remain strong, expressed in ways that

create risks—sometimes grave—to legal and mental health professionals involved in cases that raise

issues of a child’s alienation from a parent. Some risks are endemic to custody litigation, occupa-

tional hazards of participating in a process in which at least one stakeholder is likely to suffer

crushing disappointment, often rage, at the outcome of the case. This article highlights professional

and personal risks of being involved in custody cases that include accusations of parental alienation.

The article begins with a discussion of risks related to opinions expressed by custody evaluators,

expert witnesses, child representatives (e.g., amicus attorneys and guardians ad litem), and judges.

When the opinions are well grounded, professionals have a strong defense against board and bar

complaints. However, when the opinions are unreliable—for instance, an expert witness’qualifica-

tions or methods are insufficient to substantiate the opinions—the professional is vulnerable to dis-

ciplinary action from a regulatory board. Unreliable opinions about parental alienation can reflect

false negative or false positive errors.

The balance of this article concerns risks related to working with alienated children. Some risks

stem from providing services in an emerging area of practice. To manage and reduce such risks,

professionals should provide information necessary for courts and parents to make informed deci-

sions. The necessary information includes descriptions of relevant alternative options for cases with

alienated children and information about the potential costs, benefits, and likely outcomes of vari-

ous approaches. Also, service providers should cease providing services when it is reasonably clear

that their approach is not producing sufficient results.

Other risks stem from providing services to alienated children who say they do not want to

reclaim a relationship with their rejected parent. These risks include: false accusations of mis-

treating children; negatively biased commentary and sensationalist attacks in print, broadcasts,

social media, professional conferences, journals, and in courtroom testimony; harassment, character

assassination, and invasion of privacy; threats of violence and public humiliation; shunning and

rumor spreading by colleagues; and complaints to regulatory agencies. This article examines cir-

cumstances, beliefs, and dynamics that give rise to such risks, including dynamics resembling those

that drive false allegations about parents; the article concludes by suggesting precautions to reduce

the risk of false accusations, and offers recommendatio ns for dealing with regulatory agencies.

Parents who have lost or defended against the loss of custody, older alienated children, mental

health professionals, and journali sts criticize professionals involved in family law cases, profes-

sionals who provide interventions

3

for alienated children, and those who study and write about

these interventions. These critics oppose court decisions that place children in the custody of a par-

ent whom they claim to hate or fear, and oppose interventions that courts and parents require alien-

ated children to attend. The critics argue that it is wrong and harmful for a court to rule against a

child’s state d custodial preference to avoid a parent, and that professionals who offer their services

to assist the family’s adjustment to the court orders are complicit in the court’s wrongdoing and vio-

late professional ethics. Further, some critics cite anecdotes and theory to argue that interventions

designed to help children cooperate with custody arrangements and overcome their alienation

instead harm children. This article analyzes such arguments in the context of professional knowl-

edge about two interventions for alienated children that have been the subject of significant research

and attention: Family Bridges and Overcoming Barriers. The article concludes that empirical data

refute criticisms about some interventions that have been maligned with anecdotes, false accusa-

tions, and flawed theoretical speculations, but other interventions raise legitimate concerns.

I. FALSE NEGATIVE AND FALSE POSITIVE ERRORS

Custody evaluators and judges sometimes reach wrong conclusions about whether a child is

alienated from a parent and about the genesis of a child’s rejection of a parent.

4

Warshak/RISKS AND REALITIES OF WORKING WITH ALIENATED CHILDREN 433