"Mother Theresa does not marry Saddam Hussein." Judges and court-appointed psychologists recite this bromide when one parent complains about the other. It is meant to convey a sophisticated, balanced, it-takes-two-to-tango view of divorce-related conflict. The system labels these parents a "high-conflict couple," and assumes that both contribute equally to their disputes. Talk show hosts blithely tell parents to stop fighting as if it is equally within each parent's power to cease fire. And in some cases, it is. Both parents are so busy slinging mud that they do not see, or do not want to see, how much lands on their children.
When celebrity spouses air their dirty laundry in public, oblivious to their kids' confusion and shame, we want to slap them silly, tell both to grow up. But it is wrong to always paint both parents with the same brush.
Nearly every parent is disappointed and angry when the marriage fails. Some parents do a good job of harnessing the emotions unleashed by divorce. Some do not. Most parents understand the importance of keeping kids out of the middle and they do a fairly good job of honoring this responsibility. Some parents, though, are so blinded by rage that they lose sight of their children's need to love and be loved by both parents. These parents enlist children as allies in a battle against the other parent. Through persistent bad-mouthing, lies, exaggerations, overlooking positives, and drum-beating negatives, they manipulate their children to reject the other parent in the same way a politician paints a unfavorable picture to alienate voters from the opponent.
Children who absorb the lesson of hatred suffer what is known as parental alienation. They pull away from a formerly loved mother or father, and often an entire extended family, leaving the rejected relatives puzzled over what they might have said or done that caused a total rupture in relations. Some hurt parents lose their temper with a child who either refuses to communicate or does so only with utter contempt. Before assigning equal blame to the rejected parent we need to differentiate between a pattern of mistreatment and isolated lapses of judgment, between a cause of the alienation and a desperate, helpless, ultimately inadequate response.
Naturally, it is wrong to assume that all children who reject a formerly loved parent do so exclusively under influence of the favored parent. Children may reject a parent who deserves to be shunned (although many of the abused children with whom I have worked cling tightly to their abusers). Elements in the family situation (for instance, a remarriage), in the child's own personality, and in early responses to alienation may contribute to the problem. Alienation can become entrenched when we give a child the power to dictate the terms of contact with a parent. Or, the problem can be nipped in the bud when the court makes it clear that a child's irrational avoidance of a parent, with the other parent's blessing, will not be tolerated.
Also, not every child exposed to divorce poison succumbs. With diplomatic finesse, some maintain warm feelings toward both parents despite pressures to take sides. Some children reject the parent who pressures for alignment. Many strands make up the tapestry of parent-child relations. In the interests of avoiding a simplistic approach to nuanced issues, though, we should not overlook or excuse the cruelty of teaching children to hate those who love them.
Society has awakened to the widespread prevalence and damage of physical and sexual abuse of children. We are still asleep when it comes to acknowledging the emotional abuse of children by parents who demand, as a badge of loyalty, that children disrespect, dismiss, and disown their other parent.
Dr. Richard Warshak is the author of Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing (HarperCollins), and Welcome Back, Pluto: Understanding, Preventing, and Overcoming Parental Alienation. You may find him at www.warshak.com and his blog, Plutoverse.
Follow Richard Warshak on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichardWarshak
A) Most highly contested divorces involve families with a history of abuse.
B) Abusive men who batter their spouses are likely to batter their kids.
C) Abusive men are more likely to request custody.
D) Kids don’t like being beaten, sexually abused, neglected, or systematically emotionally coerced and battered, even by a parent.
Your “divorce poison,” sir, is abuse. Parenthood does not confer a right to harm, and kids who develop a healthy adaptive resistance toward those who abuse them are not pathological. Your suggestion that “alienation can become entrenched when we give a child the power to dictate the terms of contact with a parent,” mocks a child’s right to protection from abuse. Let me be clear: batterers tend to be rigid, authoritarian, neglectful parents and not all abuse leaves a mark.
The references below substantiate my assertions:
As a report by the American Psychological Association pointed out, fathers who batter their children's mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children too (APA, 1996).
According to a report by the APA an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother (APA, 1996). A report by the American Judges Foundation, reported that 70% of the time an abuser who requests custody is able to convince the court to give it to him.
Yes, men can abuse but it is not something that only men are capable of. It shouldn't be father v. mother situation. A father can love a child just as much as a mother.
At question in your comment, I believe, is your insistence that a child’s behavior might indicate the presence of a pathological alienation characterized by the lack of a justifiable cause. Abuse, I submit, is a justifiable cause. When alienation is the result of abuse it is identified as adaptive. My argument that abuse is overwhelmingly represented in custody disputes lends credence that much of the alienation exhibited is adaptive. I will eagerly accept your suggestion that I read more about the causes of alienation, but I will choose to select material that is established in a framework of scientific validity.
A) Most highly contested divorces involve families with a history of abuse.
B) Abusive men who batter their spouses are likely to batter their kids.
C) Abusive men are more likely to request custody.
If indeed these statements are so, there is good reason to prevent further corruption of the system. While interesting and important, they do not dispatch the issues that Dr. Warshak and others are addressing regarding parents who lose their children when they have undeniably proven that they have been falsely accused of being abusive.
D) Kids don’t like being beaten, sexually abused, neglected, or systematically emotionally coerced and battered, even by a parent.
Certainly no one likes to be beaten, sexually abused, neglected or systematically emotionally coerced and battered...that is what those of us who have been falsely accused realize beyond your imagination.
I do understand that all of us need protection from criminal elements and that is why there is so much passion surrounding this issue of divorce poison. Innocent children and Innocent Parents are being "coerced and battered" by the courts and those who choose to make accusations that are undeniably unfounded. No one wants to be victimized unjustly… but to ultimately harm your children to protect them from nothing real is off base and a very serious form of abuse that will soon be well understood.
Exactly!!!
Anger can be so all consuming, that I am not sure the parent that is doing the alienating is even aware of it some of the time. But, I think my husbands ex is very calculated and knows exactly what she is doing.
It is sad, and my only hope is that as his children get older and mature, that they will see the truth that has been in front of their eyes this whole time.
You described your husband as a good guy and how hard he tries. I wonder how hard his ex-wife is trying? It sounds like she is not too thrilled about the remarriage. Sometimes, remarriage triggers parental alienation. When he got remarried, she knew “it was really over.” Thus certain ex spouses start working on the children in order to “get even."
What some groups and individuals fail to realize, is that there are ex-spouses who do not care and they are not going to change. It is saddening to read that your husband is trying so hard and is treated with scorn. That is the plight of rejected parents. I am thankful for Dr. Warshak's article, it helps clarify that both parents are not always "high-conflict." His book Divorce Poison offers responses and aids parents on how (or if one) should respond when faced with unreasonable rejection. It is an excellent educational tool for professionals as well.
Sincerely
Social Worker, Texas
I would encourage your husband to read this article and the comments.
I'd like to see evidence of this, warshak. i have never read this one before.
"In most of the court cases in which I have been involved where a parent accuses the other of dispensing divorce poison, no one is claiming violence or abuse."
That YOU have been involved in. How can I doubt this? But what about all the rest of the cases?
In mine and many others, the children are slowly "transformed" by the confusion of these claims via interviews by Child Protective Services" and others questioning them, (The children are "not allowed" to be shown the results of these investigations but are likely probed by the parent doing the accusing.) My CPS report indicated that the children knew nothing about any of the BAD things they were asking about their dad. (Did he push you?, Did he call you bad names? Did he ever hit Mommy etc.) Additional fear and confusion are injected into the children when a loving parent is being kept from them based on powerful DV allegations. Finally, weeks later the finished reports were made known to the court and although the findings were UNFOUNDED, the restraining order was not lifted and supervised visitation was ordered. My case file is public record. I do not believe now that my case was that uncommon. DV claims are a powerful tool for a parent bent on fighting for full custody..
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17048003275431117884&q=parental+alienation&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000004&as_ylo=2000
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14961582205297984124&q=Parental+Alienation&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000004&as_ylo=2000#[9]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6475524857747212085&q=+janay+rosenthal&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000004&as_ylo=2000
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14305961839272102098&q=chapman+v+chapman&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000004&as_ylo=2000
There are very specific pathologies that lead people to emotionally corrupt a child to reject a loved one. Furthermore, divorce is a secondary matter, as the factors that lead to child alienation exist prior to a couple's marriage, long before. As a pathology, the factors that lead to alienating behavior in a person exist, regardless of situational dynamics.
I think that this issue is one of pathology and not one of circumstance. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say, “Oh, I have a cousin like that, or I have a brother in law that won’t let us see the kids.”
The point being is that parental alienation is long lasting, and we don’t really know how it’s going to affect the child, but it WILL in some way affect the relationship between the child and BOTH parents.
Hopefully, the child develops some necessary skills in independent and rational thinking. Otherwise, like a brainwashed Hitler Youth, the affinity to the emotionally abusive parent will always trump any attempt at reversing the affects of it.
I believe you are correct when you say there are specific pathologies that lead people to emotionally corrupt a child to reject a loved one. Often these pathologies are overlooked and not addressed due to the clamor of the legal and emotional turmoil that the "mind bending" can generate in a child custody dispute.
While my daughters were being "brainwashed" I was fortunate to have family members who are psychologists and therapists that helped me stay grounded during my 5 year ordeal with parental alienation. Together, we focused on the pathology that may have been behind the outrageous behaviors that were occurring. Currently, the courts are not interested in the reasons for the brainwashing or in getting help for the perpetrators and victims. These cases are labeled as HIGH CONFLICT and are treated as if the individuals are both capable of normal reasoning and fair play. I found it very odd that the court held onto this position despite ordering 2 psychological evaluations with identical findings laying out the root causes of the damaging behavior. I'm sure there are reasons why the courts are not interested in the underlying pathology but I would like to hear your opinion of why this may be the case so often.
I suggest this is the point of Dr. Warshak's article, "But it is wrong to always paint both parents with the same brush." I agree: the cases are labeled as "high conflict." Not all cases should be. Many believe it "must" "always" take two to tango. Some use a family systems perspective, meaning there is not an "identified patient." Or, said another way, there is no one person is to blame. They deem it unfeasible for one person to "cause" child alienation. They cannot grasp that you may have married an ex-spouse that is mentally ill (disturbed) or simply will not co-parent. Yes, even with the two psychological evaluations they hold persistent that it always takes two. They ignore abundant studies indicating that some people will not play fair and will continue to defy court orders .They dismiss findings, such as Baker (2010) "alienating parents did not respect the court orders." Yet again, Baker & Darnall (2007) found favored parents will not follow court orders and that they purposely vilify their ex-spouses. And, Gordon, Stoffey & Bottinelli (2010), used MMPI-2 and discovered alienating parents had higher T scores compared to the control group. It appears some courts cannot accept that one parent will not change. Thus, they keep ordering classes etc. that are met with colossal failure. If one parent will not change, the best route to prevent additional alienation ( or estrangement) is custody reversal.
Take a look at the links that I'll attach in another reply, that show recent Texas appellate rulings (2005 and greater) that supported the trial courts findings that alienation had occurred. In each case, the findings laid out clearly that alienation was used as at least one factor in awarding custody to the parent who was the target of alienation.
When reading these cases, I note heavily the similarities in the offenders emotional makeup - a parents propensity to alienate by attaching themselves into an unhealthy alliance and relationship with the child, an emotionally abusive alliance. These are abnormal attachments that reveal themselves by going way way beyond a disparaging remark here or a slip up there made in front of the child by litigating parents.
FYI, my ex was diagnosed with Cluster B disorders and traits.
You write, "Judges and court-appointed psychologists recite this bromide when one parent
complains about the other. It is meant to convey a sophisticated, balanced,
it-takes-two-to-tango view of divorce-related conflict. The system labels these parents a
'high-conflict couple' and assumes that both contribute equally to their disputes."
It might help your readers to understand that the kinds of "complaints" which warrant that kind
of judicious response are the kinds of custody cases in which both parents are at fault. As you
know, domestic violence, spousal abuse and/or child abuse cases in which there are clearly
victims and perpetrators should not ever be called "high-conflict", "divorce-related conflict" or
"take-two-to-tango" cases.
Julia Fletcher
Family Court in America
Is there a way to email you directly? I would be very interested in hearing your story of what you had to endure and how you ultimately gained custody of your son. Our situation is truly unbelievable and beyond words to try and explain. We have been harrassed violently by his ex-wife, her new husband and her adult son just by the pure fact that my husband seeks to have a healthy relationship with his young son post divorce?? All posts on this site by people claiming PAS does not exist, have obviously never experienced this. I myself would have probably never believed it either until it became a reality in my life. It is the most horrific thing in life to watch an innocent precious child suffer solely as the result of his own mother's vile and manipulitive intrusion to destory the father-son bond and to make the child hate me as well. My husband has had 5 false allegations of abuse against him by his ex-wife -all dismissed and found unsubstantiated. She is a toxic parenting who is poisoning her own child for "her self-gain". Whether it is a mother or a father, when a parent seeks to destroy a bond between a child and parent without cause, unprovoked, unjustified and without logic - it is a critical and serious issue. My stepson is being destroyed and is headed on a downward spiral. We feel like we are screaming and nobody is listening!
Dr. Warshak used a good example: Mother Theresa (the good) does not usually marry Saddam Hussein (the disturbed). Courts need to realize, sometimes the good will marry the bad. They fail consider that not everyone marries a like minded person. He is saying, it happens. Matrimonial mismatches are a reality.
Clearly, courts do not agree, as evidenced by mandated classes for both parents. We would not call a survivor of domestic violence "a high-conflict" personality. Nor should target parents be perceived as high-conflict. Paradoxically, when target parents try to stop alienation, they too are thrown in the high-conflict group.
Courts convey that target parents should remain silent. Or, if target parents try to "force" (by using the courts) their ex-spouse to co-parent, they are thought of as high-conflict (illogical as they are out of options). Sadly, the end result of silence may be estrangement. Target parents are "darned if they do and darned if they do not."
Social Worker
Thank you for reading my comments and I hope collectively we can make a difference that will one day allow healing to begin for these damaged relationships.
The fervor to protect against domestic violence stemming from the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, complete with gruesome images, has pushed the pendulum too far in the direction of protecting anyone who claims to have been domestically violated. This often has come at the expense of many innocent loving parents who have been falsely accused. No one here disputes; Domestic Violence is a very serious matter that needs to be dealt with seriously, not “carelessly”. Syndrome or not, Parental Alienation and Estrangement are a VERY REAL outgrowths of irresponsible individuals who are guided by fear, greed and irrational thought at the expense of young innocent children. It needs to be “carefully stopped” to prevent years of unnecessary suffering.