Danielle Pollack, Policy Manager at the National Family Violence Law Center, indefatigably proffers herself as a protector of women. She perpetuates this myth on her websites and in her lobbying of legislators to pass laws renouncing parental alienation.
Pollack conversely does exactly the opposite of protecting women. The truth is that Pollack has turned her back on alienated mothers.
Here you will hear alienated mothers’ view of Pollack and her minions. You will hear alienated mothers’ desperate, ignored and rejected, appeal for assistance from Pollack and her minions.
Danielle Pollack’s Hypocrisy
Without a shred of credible evidence, Pollack falsely claims that whenever parental alienation is alleged in a child custody case, the mother’s rights are vitiated. There is no credible evidence for this fantastic claim.
Pollack’s “remedy” in the search of a problem is to deny – carte blanche – the concept of parental alienation. This exacerbates harm to alienated mothers, who are already at a greater disadvantage to fathers in the legal proceedings due the inequality of wages and income in the business world.
Dearth of Quality Evidence for the Claim that Parental Alienation Disadvantages and Discriminates Against Mothers
Daniel Pollack and her minions falsely claim that parental alienation was manufactured by child psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, to “discredit mothers’ and children’s abuse claims against fathers.”
Dr. Gardner did not ever use parental alienation for this purpose – which is why those who make this claim fail to reference a single statement by Dr. Gardner to this effect. Dr. Gardner was an avid protector of children.
That is why Dr. Gardner was so concerned about the harm children suffer from parental alienation.
Parental alienation has never been used by parental alienation specialists to uncritically discredit allegations of abuse by alienating mothers, alienating fathers, and alienated children.
No specialist in alienation would make a finding for alienation if abusive behavior by the rejected parent is confirmed by the scientific method to make clinical findings.
By definition, a case cannot be one of alienation if the rejected parent is abusive or seriously neglectful.
Daniel Pollack and her minions also assert fabricated claim that mother’s are discriminated against and are disadvantaged in court proceedings when alienation is alleged. The authors falsely assert that mothers are “disbelieved and lose custody even more often when they are alleging child physical or sexual abuse.”
The “evidence” that Pollack and her minions rely upon for the fabricated claim of parental alienation’s discrimination against mothers is based upon one questionable study by Joan Meir.
The study has not been replicated and has been debunked for manipulation of data on several levels. See the critiques below by child psychiatrist, William Bernet, and research psychologist, Jennifer Harman of Meir’s study.
Also see the critiques below of Joan Mercer’s “studies” of her unsubstantiated claims that alienation disadvantages and discriminates against mothers.
Parental Alienation is an Equal Opportunity Victimizer
Parental alienation is an equal opportunity victimizer. Alienated mothers comprise 50% of my caseload and of many of my colleagues’ caseloads.
Alienated mothers, themselves, are victims of domestic violence by proxy. They are being routinely physically battered by their sons – and sometimes by their daughters – at the behest of alienating fathers.
Alienated mothers feel abandoned by the groups that intervene to protect women from DV.
What Alienated Mothers Want From Domestic Violence Professionals
Alienated mothers wish for their sons to get the desperate help they need to relinquish their antisocial, battering behaviors and have the expectation for becoming law-abiding, socially responsible adults.
Alienated mothers are desperately attempting to save their physically violent sons from themselves and from the influence by their alienating fathers.
Alienated mothers fear that if their sons do not get preventive help in their youth, they will grow up to be the next generating of perpetrators of DV in their intimate relationships.
Alienated Mothers’ Cry for Help for Their Abusive Sons & Daughters
The concerns of alienated mothers are screaming for remedy.
By denying the very real existence of parental alienation, a generation of potential adult DV perpetrators is being promoted and produced – however unintended – by the very professionals committed to end DV. These include the authors of this primer.
It is incomprehensible to me that so many of these professionals, who have made the protection of women their life’s work, yet ignore the potential conflagration of minor boys – and even daughters – becoming adult DV perpetrators.
Prevention of the perpetuation of DV begins with recognition that parental alienation is real, is abusive of mothers as well as of fathers, and is most of all abusive of alienated children for whom DV behaviors are being normalized by their alienating parents.
In the absence of reason and evidence in support of their arguments, Pollack and her minions proffer their falsehoods about alienation by primarily relying upon two logical fallacies: appeal to emotion (who is not motivated to protect and defend children?) and ipse dixit (it’s true because I said so).
Pollack and her minions are enabling the ongoing child abuse of alienated children by their alienating parents. Pollack and her minions are irresponsible, insensitive, and impervious to the needs and protection of alienated children.
Ackerman, N. W. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York: Basic Books.
Ackerman, N. W. (1961). The emergence of family psychotherapy on the present scene. In M. I. Stein (Ed.), Contemporary psychotherapies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ackerman, N. W., & Franklin, P. (1965). Family dynamics and the reversibility of delusional formation: A case study in family therapy. In I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. Famo (Eds.), Intensive family therapy (Ch. 6.). New York: Harper and Row.
Ackerman, N. W. (1966). Treating the troubled family. New York: Basic Books.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (5th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
Andolfi, M., Angelo, C., Menghi, P.,& Nicolo‑Corigliano, A. (1983). Behind the family mask. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Andolfi, M., Angelo, C., & Nichilo, M. (1989). The myth of atlas. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Baker, A., Bernet, W., Miller, S., Adebayo, T. (2019). “The Assessment of the Attitudes and Behaviors about Physically Abused Children: A Survey of Mental Health Professionals.” Journal of Child and Family Studies.
Bernet, W. (Ed.) (2010). Parental Alienation, DSM-5, and ICD-11. Springfield, Il: Thomas.
Bernet, W., Lorandos, D., Sauber, R. (Eds.) (2013). Parental Alienation: The handbook for mental health and legal professionals. Springfield, Il: Thomas.
Lorandos, D., & Bernet, W. (2020). (Eds.) Parental alienation: Science and law. Springfield, Il.: Thomas.
Bowen, M. (1971). The use of family theory in clinical practice. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families: A family therapy reader. New York: Grune & Stratton, 159–192.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Bruck, M. & Ceci, S. (1999). “The Suggestibility of Children’s Memory.” Annual Reviews of Psychology. (50): 419-439.
Bruck, M., Ceci, S., & Hembrooke, H. (2002). “The Nature of Children’s True and False Narratives,” Developmental Review. (22): 520-554.
Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (2013). Children Held Hostage: Identifying brainwashed children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions (Second ed.). U.S.A.: American Bar Association.
Gardner, R. A. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome (2nd ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.Gardner, R. A. (2001). Therapeutic interventions for children with parental alienation syndrome. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gottlieb, L. (2012). The Parental Alienation Syndrome. Springfield, Ill: Thomas.
Gottlieb, L. (2013). “The Application of Structural Family Therapy to the Treatment of Parental Alienation.” In A. J. L. Baker & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Working With Alienated Children and Families: A Clinical Guidebook. New York: Routledge, 209-231.
Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), The interactional viewNew York: Basic Books, 37–44.
Hoffman. L. (1981). Foundations of Family Therapy. Basic Books.
Joshi, A. (2012). Litigating Parental Alienation. American Bar Association: Family Law Section.
Loftus, E. (2000). “The Dangers of Memory.” Academia.edu. Online 105-117.
Lorandos, D. & Bernet, W. (2020). Parental Alienation: Science and the Law. Chicago, Il: Thomas.
Maloney v. Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603–604. (New York).
Miller, S. G. (2013). Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making in Cases of Child Alignment: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Issues. In A. J. L. Baker & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Working With Alienated Children and Families: A Clinical Guidebook. New York: Routledge, 8-46.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., Baker, L., & Rosman, B. (1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia nervosa in context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Nichols, M. (1993). Family healing. New York: The Free Press.
Minuchin, S., Lee, W., & Simon, G. (1996). Mastering family therapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Minuchin, S., Nichols, M., & Lee, W. (2007). Assessing families and couples: From symptom to system. New York: Pearson.
Reay, K. M. (2015). Family Reflections: A Promising Therapeutic Program Designed to Treat Severely Alienated Children and Their Family System. The American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 1-11.
Rosen, J. (2013). “The Child’s Attorney and the Alienated Child: Approaches to
Resolving the Ethical Dilemma of Diminished Capacity.” Family Court Review, 51(2) 330-343.
Warshak, R. (2018). “Reclaiming Parent–Child Relationships: Outcomes of Family Bridges with Alienated Children.” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. Published online: 11 Oct 2018.
Warshak, R. (2020). “Parent-Child Contact Problems: Concepts, Controversies, & Conundrums.” Family Court Review. MA: Wiley, Vol. 58(2), 432–455
Danielle Pollack was at it again – obsessed with her meritless mission to deny the child- abusive family phenomenon of parental alienation. She put on a fallacious, self-serving spectacle during a NPR radio interview on February 6, 2025.
Pollack cannot help herself but to propagate discredited, bizarre tales about child psychiatrist, Richard Gardner.
Pollack cannot help herself but to engage in a deceitful mission analogous to the delusional mission of Don Quixote by attacking the labels of – not the substance of – parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and parental alienation (PA).
Here I will expose Pollack’s lies, which she tenaciously refuses to surrender despite overwhelming evidence for the reality of parental alienation and the acuity of Dr. Gardner.
What is Parental Alienation?
Parental alienation is an observable, child-abusive family phenomenon. In this phenomenon, a parent unjustifiably brainwashes her or his child against the other parent and coercively manipulates the child to reject that parent.
The brainwashing/manipulating parent is known as the alienating parent, and the rejected parent is known as the alienated parent.
The alienating parent’s behaviors are “unjustifiable” because the alienated parent does not present a risk to their child. The alienating parent prevents contact between the alienated parent and their child for selfish, hurt, and/or vindictive reasons.
The alienated parent does nothing that would cause an uninfluenced child to override the child’s powerful instinct for survival to have and need a parent.
Rejection of a parent is anti-instinctual behavior – so anti-instinctual that even severely physically abused children do not reject their abusive parents. To the contrary, severely physically abused children seek attachment-enhancing behaviors to their abusive parents.
Alienated children must therefore must therefore be severely coercively manipulated by their alienating parent in order to override their instinctual need and love for the other parent.
Danielle Pollack – Out of Touch With Reality & Promulgating Falsehoods
Pollack and her minions have lost touch with reality and are knowingly and deliberately promulgating falsehoods about parental alienation.
Pollack and her minions accomplish this by focusing on parental alienation’s current “label” – which is merely a theoretical term intended for common identification purposes only.
Pollack and her minions deceptively sidestep the phenomenon of or the family dynamics occurring in parental alienation because it is supported by overwhelming psychiatric and scientific evidence.
Notice they never provide their description of parental alienation. It is easy to attack what one does not define!
There is overwhelming recognition of the phenomenon of parental alienation in psychotherapy/family therapy history and in custody jurisprudence – history that is consciously ignored by Pollack and her minions.
The Phenomenon of Parental Alienation in Family Psychotherapy History
The phenomenon of parental alienation has been recognized in the psychiatric community at least as early as the 1950s. The phenomenon was then labeled “triangulation” by the child psychiatrists who founded the family therapy movement.
Triangulation spawned the birth of the family therapy movement in the 1950s when its founding child psychiatrists determined that the psychosis in their child patients had been caused by the family phenomenon they subsequently labeled “triangulation.”
The Phenomenon of Parental Alienation in Judicial History
The dynamics occurring in the phenomenon of parental alienation go back more than 200 years. (Bernet, 2010 Parental Alienation, the DSM-5, and the ICD11; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020, Parental Alienation: Science and Law).
Demosthenes Lorandos(2020):
“This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible. Thirty-four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value in the litigation.
Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibility in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with recommendations for future research.” (abstract introduction)
The Specious Anti-Syndrome Claim About Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)
The erroneous anti-syndrome claim about PAS that is popularly perpetuated is based upon Kelly and Johnston (2001) deceptively distorted DSM syndrome definition.
They made this distorted definition in their article entitled, “The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome.”
Here is the true DSM syndrome definition:
“A grouping of signs and symptoms, based on their frequent co-occurrence that may[italics ours] suggest a common underlying pathogenesis, course, familial pattern, or treatment selection.” (p.830)
Here is Kelly and Johnston’s distorted DSM syndrome definition:
“Because there is no “commonly recognized, or empirically verified pathogenesis, course, familial pattern, or treatment selection” of the problem of PAS, it cannot be properly considered a diagnostic syndrome of the American Psychiatric Association.” (p. 249)
What Kelly and Johnston claim to be the necessary criteria of the DSM syndrome definition is false—so utterly false that it meaningfully misrepresents the definition of a syndrome. Each factor subsequent to the word “may” is clearly optional – but Kelly and Johnston erroneously claim the factors are required criteria.
Who Is the True Child Psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, MD
Pollack and her minions defame and dismiss the highly revered child psychiatrist, Richard Gardner. Dr. Gardner was board certified in adult psychiatry, child psychiatry, and forensic psychiatry. He served as prestigious head of the Department of Medicine at Columbia University.
Dr. Gardner wrote numerous books and articles on child development, child therapy, and child custody. At least 23 of his articles on parental alienation syndrome were published in peer-reviewed journals.
Dr. Gardner was a fierce protector of children, which is why he advocated for the reliance upon science to rule in or rule out allegations of child physical and sexual abuse.
And it was exactly because of the profound harm to children from sexual abuse by a parent that Gardner was so concerned with accurate diagnosis.
Dr. Gardner was keenly aware that, if a child falsely believes having been sexually abused by a parent, the child will suffer from the same risk factors for PTSD and other psychiatric conditions as if the abuse had actually occurred.
Note, for example, that when anyone falsely accuses Dr. Gardner of supporting pedophilia, they never provide a single quote from Gardner to support this egregiously false claim. Never is Gardner’s actual works quoted when he is criticized.
It is easy to criticize someone when their references are paraphrases and distortions instead of direct quotes within the context of the message.
Conclusion
The child-abusive family dynamics occurring the phenomenon of parental alienation – irrespective of its various labels over time – are consciously denied by Pollack and her minions. They deny the very real family dynamics of parental alienation for self-serving, self-interested, biased purposes.
The best interest of the child requires that focus on labels be rejected so that alienated children can receive timely and effective intervention for the child abuse being inflicted upon them by the alienating parent.
Danielle Pollack of The National Family Violence Law Center is a self-declared “expert” on family matters with a focus on child custody and family violence. To the contrary of being an expert, Pollack is not qualified to render credible opinions regarding these issues.
This article will expose Pollack to be an unqualified, deceptive, and biased bad actor whose negligent behavior is harming and exploiting alienated children and alienated parents – but particularly alienated mothers.
In support of my opinions, I will discuss examples of Pollack’s disinformation about alienation, child abuse, and domestic violence.
Who Is the Real Danielle Pollack?
Daniel Pollack is merely a layperson in the matters for which she claims expertise. She lacks academic degrees, credentials, or licenses in any mental health discipline or in the law.
Despite her dearth of qualifications, Pollack incredulously portrays herself as possessing superior knowledge and credible opinions about family matters. She portrays her opinions as more righteous and correct than those contradictory opinions of credentialed professionals. These credentialed professionals have been qualified by the Courts to be experts on family matters.
The family matters in which my colleagues and I have been qualified to render expert opinions include, but are not limited to, family violence, child abuse, and parental alienation. This is an inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Pollack pompously maligns qualified experts in parental alienation with ad-hominem attacks. Her ad-hominem attacks lack merit, but she mischievously promulgates them because there is no credible evidence for her opinions.
Danielle Pollack Exploits Domestic Violence and Child Abuse In Order to Deny Parental Alienation
Pollack has been on a malicious and mischievous mission to deny the child abusive family phenomenon of parental alienation. Her goal is to abolish parental alienation claims from being introduced and adjudicated in child custody proceedings.
Pollack has shamelessly and dangerously weaponized domestic violence in support of her mission against alienation. She alleges that all claims of parental alienation should be dismissed because perpetrators of domestic violence (DV) play the alienation card in order to be exonerated from their crimes.
It is true that some perpetrators of DV – both men and women – do play the alienation defense card in the attempt to be exonerated from their heinous crimes. But this does not justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Pollack’s meritless and dangerous argument is based upon the logical fallacy known as “appeal to the consequent.” Appeal to the consequent requires the rejection of a credible opinion merely because it has or may have negative consequences.
If the logical fallacy of “appeal to the consequent” guided medical treatment, then chemotherapy would be rejected because of the negative consequences of hair loss and nausea.
Pollack’s exploitation of domestic violence in order to deny – carte blanche – every claim of parental alienation, questions the validity and legitimacy of true domestic violence incidents. That is, the opposite side of the coin of “carte blanche rejection of parental alienation claims” is “carte blanche rejection of DV claims.”
Pollack is placing true victims of DV at great risk for further harm. This is because Pollack’s shameless and dangerous exploitation of DV in order to deny parental alienation thereby casts doubt about legitimate DV claims.
Pollack also claims that false allegations of parental alienation are used by abusive fathers against protective mothers who claim they are justifiably withholding their children from abusive fathers. Pollack makes this claim without offering a shred of neutral quality evidence.
There is an exquisite solution, however, to the above described conundrum. The solution supports the protection of both women and children: the solution is the reliance upon science. Science provides the method for identifying when DV is present – just as science provides the method for identifying parental alienation when it is present. This is an inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Danielle Pollack Exploits Murdered Children in Her Mission to Deny Parental Alienation
Pollack has maliciously, speciously, and insensitively injected parental alienation into cases of murdered children – when parental alienation had played no such role. Pollack’s scheme exploited these children’s murders and their surviving parents for the purpose of manipulating state legislatures to pass laws banning claims of parental alienation in custody cases.
Kayden Mancuso is one example of Pollack’s egregious, self-serving exploitation of murdered children. Pollack engineered the California state legislature to pass Kayden’s Law. Pollack falsely represented to the legislature that, but for the recognition of parental alienation, Kayden would not have been murdered. Parental alienation had played no role in Kayden’s tragic murder.
Kayden’s Law as passed in California reprehensibly and erroneously denies the overwhelming psychiatric and scientific recognition of parental alienation. Kayden’s Law further hand-straps judges from ordering treatment interventions for alienation that have been peer-reviewed for their safety and for greater than 95% effectiveness in reconnecting children with a safe and loving parent.
Among many catastrophic effects from Kayden’s and similar laws is that alienated children now have a much more difficult – if not impossible – chance of receiving safe and effective therapy and from being rescued from their abusive alienating parents.
The fact is, parental alienation had never been alleged in Kayden’s abominable murder. Nor has parental alienation been alleged in any similar laws that seek to prevent claims of parental alienation from being adjudicated in child custody cases. This is an inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Examples of Danielle Pollack’s Dissemination of Disinformation About Parental Alienation
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is unknowingly erroneous. Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is knowingly erroneous and is intended to deceive and mislead. Danielle Pollack engages in disinformation.
Misinformation Promulgated by Pollack About the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Child Sexual Abuse Allegations
Pollack attempts to convey that false child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations in custody cases are exceedingly rare.
Pollack cites from an outdated 2005 study national study by Trocome and Balla that “Only 12% of all child abuse allegations made by a custodial parent were deemed intentionally fabricated; only 6% of child sexual abuse allegations.”
Pollack deceptively cites a statistic that must meet the impossibly high standard of proof for “intentional.” This standard is exceptionally hard to prove – even by the most skilled, experienced lawyers and researchers. This is because “intent” is a mental state; and because humans cannot read minds, intent is one of the most difficult things to prove.
Pollack’s primary deception is related to the difficulty in proving “intent.” Because “intent” is a product of person’s mental state, it is unlikely that any particular alienation case involving false abuse allegations can be verified by direct evidence. Alienating parents do not transparently admit their “intent” to make false abuse allegations.
Validating “intent” in an alienation case typically relies upon circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that can only infer the existence of another fact.
Circumstantial evidence rarely meets the legal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the standard to prove intent. This standard is the highest legal standard and means virtual certainty. So it is no wonder that the statistic cited by Pollack of only 12% for “intentionally fabricated” is skewed against the prevalence of false abuse claims and is thereby misleading. This is an inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
The second issue with Pollack’s alleged statistics – for which she does not cite the page or context – is that the statistics are derived from a single, outdated study that has not been replicated nor validated.
Actual Incidents of Child Sex Abuse in Custody Cases & Prevalence of False Sex Abuse Allegations
Were Pollack an objective, truth-seeking actor, she would have cited an additional study. It is a comprehensive, neutral, 2017 study that summarized the research of multiple studies on the prevalence of child sexual abuse incidents in custody cases and of false allegations of sexual abuse. This compilation of research studies was undertaken by child psychiatrist, George E. Davis, of the Children’s Law Institute. Dr. Davis’ findings dispute the statistics cited by Pollack. Dr. Davis found:
While less than 2% of contested custody cases involve sexual abuse, false allegations may be as high as 35% in this specific context. (p. 29)
The specific context involved of the false sex abuse allegations was “conflicted caretakers, adversarial legal proceeding, positive and negative consequences – coaching.” (p. 29)
The reader should note the <2% statistic of child sex abuse incidents occurring in custody cases. From the way Pollack and her minions report, one would think that sex abuse incidents – primarily by fathers – run rampart in custody cases and should require virtually all of the Court’s attention. Davis’s study is just another study that represents an inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Indisputably, every case of child sex abuse by a parent must be properly and timely investigated and remediated. Child sex abuse – especially by a parent – is a heinous crime that forever mars a child’s functioning and prognosis in life across the board.
And that is exactly why false sexual abuse allegations committed by a parent must receive the exactly same response as do true incidents of child sexual abuse by a parent. If a child believes a false sexual abuse allegation by a parent, the child will suffer the same risks for PTSD and other severe psychiatric symptoms as if the abuse had actually occurred.
But Pollack and her minions never express concern for nor address false sexual allegations by the alienating parent – whose prevalence of as much as 35% is far more than the prevalence of <2% for actual incidents of sexual abuse by a parent. This is another inconvenient truth for Pollack and minions.
Statistics on Mothers Committing Child Sexual Abuse
Pollack ignores the research affirming that mothers commit child sex abuse. Some studies even found that mothers are the greater perpetrator of sex abuse than are fathers. According to a 2021 study that compared the rate of male versus female perpetrators of child sexual abuse, published in Child Abuse and Neglect, the following results were found:
Within the group of female perpetrators, biological mothers accounted for a larger share than biological fathers in the group of male perpetrators. Among the bystanders, the biological mother was named most frequently (24.6 %).
The general population underestimates the involvement of biological mothers in child sexual abuse. The results confirm that female perpetrators account for a rather small but substantial proportion of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse.
Furthermore, the results indicate that mothers play a role in sexual abuse – either as perpetrators or as bystanders – that has been underestimated so far. It is therefore necessary to sensitize professionals and the public to the topic of female perpetrators and especially to the role of mothers in child sex abuse.
The study concluded:
In research and literature, little attention has been paid to the role of women, especially mothers, in child sexual abuse.
This is another inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Statistics on Mothers v. Fathers Committing Child Abuse and Maltreatment
If one were to accept the opinions of Pollack and her minions regarding child abuse and maltreatment, one could easily be manipulated to believe that fathers are the primary – if not the exclusive – perpetrator of child abuse. Not true.
Pollack chooses to ignore numerous research studies that found that mothers have a much higher incidence of committing child abuse and maltreatment than do fathers.
For example, a 2022 study published by Statista found that 191,000 children had been abused by their mothers while 125,000 had been abused by their fathers.
This is another inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine regarding the incidence of parental child abuse, the following was found:
Importantly, most such individuals who perpetrated child maltreatment were parents (77.2%), with 37.6% of the cases involving mothers acting alone and 23.6% fathers acting alone. Another fifth of the cases (20.7%) involved both mothers and fathers acting together to co-perpetrate child maltreatment.
This is another inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Several social, cultural, and financial factors account for why mothers are more vulnerable than are fathers to committing child abuse. And these injustices demand long-overdue remediation.
But in the best interests of children, we cannot put our heads in the sand like an ostrich, blind ourselves to the fact that some mothers – as well as some fathers – commit child abuse, and not remediate child abuse engaged in by mothers as well as by fathers.
Alienated Mothers Feel Abandoned by Daniel Pollack
Alienated mothers feel abandoned by DV groups – to include Pollack’s – that intervene to protect women from DV but fail to assist alienated mothers, who are being physically assaulted by their sons at the behest of alienating fathers.
Parental alienation is an equal opportunity victimizer. Alienated mothers comprise 50% of my caseload and of many of my colleagues’ caseloads. Just another inconvenient truth for Pollack and her minions.
Alienated mothers, themselves, are victims of domestic violence by proxy. They are being routinely physically battered by their sons – and sometimes by their daughters – at the behest of alienating fathers.
Alienated mothers wish for their sons to get the desperate help they need to relinquish their antisocial, battering behaviors and instead have the expectation for becoming law-abiding, socially responsible adults.
Alienated mothers are desperately attempting to save their physically violent sons from themselves and from the influence by their abusive alienating fathers.
The concerns of alienated mothers are screaming for help and remedy from the DV community.
Because Pollack and her minions deny the reality of parental alienation and are thereby turning their backs on alienated boys who are physically assaulting their alienated mothers, the DV community is contributing to the rise of a generation of potential adult DV perpetrators.
It is incomprehensible to me that Pollack and her minions ignore the potential conflagration of minor boys – and even daughters – becoming adult DV perpetrators. Their denials of this very real family dynamic is irresponsible, unforgivable, and reprehensible.
Prevention of the perpetuation of DV begins with recognition that parental alienation is real, is abusive of mothers as well as of fathers, and is most of all abusive of alienated children for whom DV behaviors are being normalized by their alienating parents – of both genders.
Danielle Pollack’s Disinformation Regarding Parental Alienation and the United Nations
Pollack and her minions dishonorably, maliciously, and falsely implies that the United Nations accepted a report with the following egregious disinformation about parental alienation:
“The report demonstrates how the discredited and unscientific pseudo-concept of parental alienation is used in family law proceedings by abusers as a tool to continue their abuse and coercion and to undermine and discredit allegations of domestic violence made by mothers who are trying to keep their children safe. It also shows how the standard of the best interest of the child is violated by imposing contact between a child and one or both parents and by prioritizing it, even where there is evidence of domestic violence. Predominantly as a result of the lack of training and gender bias and of access to legal support, the custody of children may be awarded to perpetrators of violence, despite evidence of a history of domestic and/or sexual abuse.
This report was submitted to the HRC for the perspective of the author only. The HRC does not accept or reject papers. Pollack and her minions give the impression that the UN accepted the report
If you read the cited reference below from Pollack’s website, National Safe Parents, notice that after all the hoopla and misinformation that Pollack quotes from the presented – but not accepted – report, Pollack fails to report that the report was not accepted by the United Nations.
Just another inconvenient truth that Pollack and her minions deceptively ignore.
Danielle Pollack Ignores the Overwhelming Scientific and Psychiatric Recognition of Parental Alienation
As with all of Pollack’s publicizing of knowingly false information about parental alienation, she ignores the overwhelming evidence for the scientific and psychiatric communities’ acceptance of parental alienation.
In order not to overwhelm the reader, I cite here one, definitive reference, that acknowledges parental alienation as a form of child psychological abuse. It is the basic textbook for the practice of psychiatry: Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry.
I have provided links below to several articles written by my colleague, Loretta Maase, LPC, and me on parental alienation’s extensive recognition by numerous, repetitive peer-reviewed research studies.
To the contrary of overwhelming research and the clinical and psychiatric literature, Pollack cites a few debunked, non-replicated studies by Mercer and Meir that dispute the phenomenon of parental alienation. These studies and their critiques can be found under the resource link on my website.
Pollack and her minions are experts at employing the logical fallacy known as “appeal to emotion.” Who among their targeted groups – legislators and professionals who intervene in child custody – do not wish to avidly protect children?
Who among their targeted groups are not emotionally moved by stories of murdered children – for which Pollack and her minions falsely claim alienation to have been responsible for the children’s deaths?
Beyond their manipulative, emotional misinformation, Pollack and her minions fail to provide a shred of evidence for claims that parental alienation is junk science, that there is a rampart misuse of parental alienation to harm mothers, or that parental alienation results in giving custody of children to abusive fathers.
For those who are concerned with the protection of children – as I am, having worked to help and protect 5000 children for more than 1/2 century – we must demand that Pollack’s exploitation of children be immediately halted.
The National Center to Advance Peace recently published a paper entitled, “Parental Alienation Primer for Advocates.” The primer is a discreditable attack on the phenomenon of parental alienation and the reunification programs relied upon by the Courts for remedy.
Virtually all opinions and recommendations in the primer should be immediately dismissed due to lack of merit. The lack of merit includes misinformation and disinformation that is based upon factual errors; logical fallacies; and uncorroborated, biased beliefs.
If the discreditable recommendations in this primer are implemented, the result will perpetuate the profound harm to alienated children from parental alienation.
Here you will read the discreditable bases for the authors’ opinions and how alienated children will be profoundly harmed if the authors’ recommendations are implemented.
Definition of Relevant Terms
Factual errors: A falsehood – something that is justnot true.
Logical fallacies: An error in reasoning designed to deceive.
Belief system: A psychological state in which opinions may not be formed by reason or critical thinking. (A belief requires neutral corroboration before it can claim merit).
Bias: A typically unfair prejudice that is for or against something.
The Authors Lack Credentials and Training in Parental Alienation
The authors of this primer lack training, education, and experience in parental alienation and in the Court-ordered reunification programs they criticize. They are not qualified to offer credible opinions on these matters.
The authors would be unable – and have been unable – to pass the rigid voir dire examination on parental alienation that my colleagues and I have passed multiple times. Unlike my colleagues and I, the authors and their cited authorities would not be deemed by the Court to be expert witnesses on these matters.
The authors have not provided documentation that they are licensed mental health clinicians in any mental health discipline – let alone in the specialized discipline of family therapy.
The authors have further not provided documentation of the highly specialized training, education, and experience needed to become a specialist in the sub-specialty of parental alienation within the specialized discipline of family therapy.
Unqualified critics should not be given credibility for their opinions about parental alienation. The authors of this paper appear to be engaging in unethical behavior by practicing outside of their area in expertise in that they are offering opinions about parental alienation.
The Authors Lack First-Hand Experience With Alienated Parents & Alienated Children
None of the authors, to my knowledge, have interviewed a single alienated child among the overwhelming number who had had successful reunifications in the treatment programs these authors criticize.
None of the authors have, themselves, assessed or treated an alienated child – let alone a sufficient number to have acquired pattern recognition for an alienated child.
These authors are therefore unqualified to criticize therapists who have been deemed by the Courts to have acquired the status of “specialists” in alienation and in these successful reunification programs.
The authors have not interviewed for their perspective any alienated parents who had participated in the reunification programs they criticize.
These alienated parents would have reported very positive opinions of and satisfactory experiences with the reunification programs in which they had participated.
The authors have therefore also violated the clinical axiom to consider the “total clinical picture” – which means to evaluate the clinical condition in its historical context. This axiom is essential to making accurate clinical findings.
The authors have not reported the findings of the Courts regarding the alienation cases that the Courts had referred to reunification programs.
The Courts’ findings were that the alienating parent was an abusive parent and the alienated parent was a safe, protective parent. This is another example of “confirmation bias.”
In rendering the opinions in this primer, the authors have committed “confirmation bias” and have violated the mandatory clinical axiom to “consider the total clinical picture.”
The authors rely upon the discredited, scant research by Meir and Mercer. Meir and Mercer are also not licensed clinicians and have not had first-hand interactions and experiences with alienated parents and with the many alienated children who successfully reunited with their alienated parent in one of the Court-ordered reunification programs.
Attacking the Signifier Does Not Discredit the Signified
The arguments that the authors make in this paper are calculated, self-serving attempts to deceive. A key example of the deception is to erroneously equate the “signified” with the “signifier” and then attack the “signifier.” The “signifier” and the “signified” are not the same.
The authors have committed the “straw man fallacy,” by presenting a distorted version of the argument and then attack that version instead of the original.
The “signifier” is a theoretical concept- a symbol, label, or sign that denotes something. What a signifier denotes is the “signified” – something that is concrete or observable – such an object, behavior, phenomenon, etc.
Labels (signifiers) change over time while the phenomenon denoted (the signified) remains the same.
Consider, for example, the mental health disorder labeled “post-traumatic stress disorder” (PTSD). This disorder was born out of the experiences of Civil War soldiers who had become traumatized on the battlefield.
This disorder, however, was not labeled PTSD until 100+ years later, when it was accepted into the into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1980.
Before acceptance into the DSM labeled “PTSD”, it had gone by various prior signifiers. These various signifiers were “homesickness” “nostalgia,” “battle fatigue,” “soldier’s heart,” “irritable heart,” and more.
The label (or signifier) history of the phenomenon of parental alienation (the signified) is analogous to the history of PTSD labels (or signifiers). For more than 200 years, the phenomenon of parental alienation has been recognized in both psychotherapy and jurisprudence – by various other signifiers.
The relationship between the signifier and signified is an arbitrary relationship: there is no logical connection between them. Signifiers merely serve to establish a common terminology for identification purposes.
The phenomenon now labeled parental alienation could be changed to “meatballs and spaghetti” as long as that label becomes a commonly accepted signifier for the phenomenon of parental alienation.
Note that the authors of the primer do not provide a definition of parental alienation as it is defined in the scientific or clinical literature. Nor do the authors provide a reasonably accurate and complete definition of parental alienation.
This is intentional on their part. It is easy to criticize what one does not define with generally recognized terminology. Here, the authors have committed the logical fallacy known as the “straw man fallacy.”
The Phenomenon of Parental Alienation in Family Psychotherapy
The phenomenon of parental alienation has been recognized in the psychiatric community at least as early as the 1950s. The phenomenon (the signified) was then labeled “triangulation” (the signifier) by the child psychiatrists who founded the family therapy movement.
Triangulation spawned the birth of the family therapy movement in the 1950s when its founding child psychiatrists determined that the psychosis in their child patients had been caused by the family phenomenon they subsequently labeled “triangulation.”
Salvador Minuchin, Child Psychiatrist – The Preemptive Founder of the Family Therapy Movement – on Triangulation
Dr. Minuchin (1978)
“In triangulation and parent-child coalitions, the spouse dyad is frankly split in opposition or in conflict, and the child is openly pressed to ally with one parent against the other. In triangulation, the child is put in such a position that she cannot express herself without siding with one parent against the other. In a parent-child coalition, the child tends to move into a stable coalition with one parent against the other.” (p. 33)
Dr. Minuchin (1972):
“The rigid triangle can also take the form of a stable coalition. One of the parents joins with the child in a rigidly bounded cross-generational coalition against the other parent….Whenever the child sides with one, he is automatically defined as attacking the other.”
Harm to Children From Triangulation
Dr. Minuchin (1981):
“When they must function as autonomous entities, they may face a serious crisis. When the children reach late adolescence and must begin to separate from the family, psychotic breaks and psychosomatic illness can occur.” (P. 142.)
Murray Bowen, Child Psychiatrist, on Harm to Children From Triangulation
Dr. Murray Bowen was a colleague of Dr. Minuchin’s and a co-founder of the family therapy movement. Dr. Bowen was extremely concerned with how family triangulation causes psychosis in children. Dr. Bowen therefore hospitalized a child’s entire nuclear family whenever he hospitalized his child patient.
Dr. Bowen (1978):
“As patterns repeat and repeat in a triangle, the people come to have fixed roles in relation to each other. The best example of this is the father-mother-child triangle. Patterns vary, but one of the most common is the basic tension between the parents….
The mother wins over the child, who moves another step closer toward chronic functional impairment. The pattern is described as the family projection process. Families replay the same triangular game over and over for years, as though the winner were in doubt, but the final result is always the same.”
Jay Haley, Family Therapist, on the “Perverse Triangle” and Its Harm to Children
Family therapist, Jay Haley, trained with Dr. Minuchin and was a co-founder of the family therapy movement. He is recognized for describing the severe pathology produced in children from family triangulation.
Jay Haley (1990):
“The people responding to each other in the triangle are not peers, but one of them is of a different generation from the other two… In the process of their interaction together, the person of one generation forms a coalition with the person of the other generation against his peer.
By “coalition” is meant a process of joint action which is against the third person… The coalition between the two persons is denied. That is, there is certain behavior which indicates a coalition which, when it is queried, will be denied as a coalition…
In essence, the perverse triangle is one in which the separation of generations is breached in a covert way. When this occurs as a repetitive pattern, the system will be pathological…
A parent-child coalition not only undermines the authority of the other parent but makes the authority of the favoring parent dependent upon support from the child.” (pp. 31-48)
Some of the Pre-Eminent Founders of the Family Therapy Movement – Beginning in 1950
Salvador Minuchin
Nathan Ackerman
Gregory Bateson
Don Jackson
Milton Erickson
Carl Whitaker
Murray Bowen
Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy
Jay Halely
Virginia Satir
Maurizio Andolfi
Cloe Madanes
Marcella De Nichillo
The Palo Alto Group
The Milan School
Lynn Hoffman
Parental Alienation in Judicial History
The dynamics occurring in the phenomenon of parental alienation go back more than 200 years. (Bernet, 2010 Parental Alienation, the DSM-5, and the ICD11; Lorandos & Bernet, 2020, Parental Alienation: Science and Law).
Demosthenes Lorandos(2020):
“This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible. Thirty-four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value in the litigation.
Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibility in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with recommendations for future research.” (abstract introduction)
“In the thirty-four years since the term PAS was first introduced and then later reformulated, trial and appellate courts across the United States have found the construct PA to be material, probative, relevant to their tasks, admissible, and worthy of discussion, as they have grappled with emotionally abusive parents and damaged children.
Review of the thousands of opinions located by the query reveals that courts understand that there is a distinction between “[w]hen one parent says negative and disparaging things about the other parent to the child,” and when an aggressor parent “engage[s] in behavior designed to sabotage the child’s relationship with the victim parent.
“Hundreds of opinions illustrating courts confronting “unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent,” appellate courts in the United States are having an increase in PA cases and, for the most part, identify the gender of the alienating parent.” (p, 330).
The Phenomenon of Parental Alienation Has Gone by Many Signifiers
The various signifiers for parental alienation are found in the clinical and legal literature and on the books in all 50 states. These signifiers include but are not limited to:
Restrictive gatekeeping
Unjustified gatekeeping
Selfish gatekeeping
One parent undermining the relationship between the other parent and their child absent a protective reason
Violating Court orders for the other parent’s parenting time and parental rights and making the child complicit
Failure to support the child’s relationship with the other parent absent a protective reason
Child psychological abuse – in the DSM-5-TR
Child affected by parental relationship distress – in the DSM-5-TR
Parent-child relationship problem – in the DSM-5-TR
High emotion level in the family – in the DSM-5-TR
domestic violence of child by alienating parent.
domestic violence by proxy of child by alienating parent.
Child or adolescent antisocial behavior – in the DSM-5-TR
Grounds for transfer of custody e. g. Young v. Young: 212 A.D.2d 114; 628 N.Y.S.2d 957
Not in the child’s best interest – Maloney v. Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603–604 (New York)
No one can credibly argue that, in the entire history of custody jurisprudence, not a single case involved a parent who had unjustifiably turned the child against the other parent. Indeed, the authors of this article acknowledge that the dynamic currently signified with the label of “parental alienation” does occur.
The Authors’ Hypocritical Contradiction Undermines Their Argument Denying the Existence of Parental Alienation
The authors state:
“While some parents do engage in such behavior [PA theoretically describes a situation where one parent negatively manipulates or influences the child against- or “alienates” them from- the other parent] there is little evidence that it actually changes children’s attitudes toward the other parent nor that this alone causes long-term harms.”
Ignoring the Evidence for the Suggestibility of Children and Programming by an Alienating Parent
In the above statement, the authors of this primer acknowledge that PA does occur at least in some cases. Now the authors are faced with their own self-contradictory comment that undermines their denial of parental alienation.
The authors attempt to rehabilitate their contradictory belief system about the existence of alienation by engaging in outright falsehoods.
The authors’ lame effort to rehabilitate their contradictory comments about alienation ignores the wealth of research and clinical literature documenting how easily parents can turn their children against the other parent.
I cite here just one research study about the “brainwashing” effectiveness of alienating parents to gain their children’s allegiance to defame and dismiss the other parent. This study is found in a 2017 book published by the American Bar Association.
This book, entitled Children Held Hostage: Identifying Brainwashed Children, Presenting a Case and Crafting Solutions, makes the case that the “programming/brainwashing” in alienation is analogous to the programming/brainwashing in a cult.
The authors, psychologist, Stanley Clawar; and clinical social worker, Brynne Rivlin, followed, for 30 years, 1000 children of contentious parental conflict – 700 cases being custody disputes.
The authors found that some degree of “brainwashing/programming” by one parent against the other parent occurred in 86% of the cases – that is 860 children out of 1000!
This barely scratches the surface on the suggestibility of children and successful programming by alienating parents. I have listed some of these references at the end of this article.
The Authors’ Indifference to Child Abuse
The authors’ final point in their statement above is shocking for their cavalier dismissal of alienation because “nor that this alone causes long-term harms” [to children].
To dismiss alienation because it may merely contribute to “long-term harms” to children utterly misses the standards for child protection. For those who claim to be concerned about children, such as the authors of this primer, PA must be recognized for child abuse that it is.
The rhetorical, pointless debate as to whether the phenomenon of alienation exists, how often it occurs, and the degree of the child abuse that it causes, is a distraction from the court’s attention to the issue that really matters.
The issue that really matters to the Court is to determine if parental alienation is occurring in the matter at bar, and, if so, how to implement timely and effective remedy.
The focus for the court in a case when alienation is alleged should be whether the evidence in the case rules in alienation as the cause of the child’s rejection of a parent.
The Specious Anti-Syndrome Claim About PAS
The erroneous anti-syndrome claim about PAS that is popularly perpetuated is based upon Kelly and Johnston (2001) deceptively distorted DSM syndrome definition.
They made this distorted definition in their article entitled, “The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome.”
Here is the true DSM syndrome definition:
“A grouping of signs and symptoms, based on their frequent co-occurrence that may[italics ours] suggest a common underlying pathogenesis, course, familial pattern, or treatment selection.” (p.830)
Here is Kelly and Johnston’s distorted DSM syndrome definition:
“Because there is no “commonly recognized, or empirically verified pathogenesis, course, familial pattern, or treatment selection” of the problem of PAS, it cannot be properly considered a diagnostic syndrome of the American Psychiatric Association.” (p. 249)
What Kelly and Johnston claim to be the necessary criteria of the DSM syndrome definition is false—so utterly false that it meaningfully misrepresents the definition of a syndrome. Each factor subsequent to the word “may” is clearly optional – but Kelly and Johnston erroneously claim the factors are required criteria.
Gardner’s 8 Symptoms of an Alienated Child Meet the DSM and Medical Definition of a Syndrome
The frequency of the co-occurrence of Gardner’s eight manifestations in an alienated child indisputably meet the DSM criteria of a syndrome.
The manifestations do not appear in non-alienated children of divorce. They do not appear in severely physically abused children, who, if any child would reject a parent, it would be severely abused children.
Replicated studies of Gardner’s manifestations confirm their exceedingly low error rate to identify an alienated child and to rule out for non-alienated children of parental separation and divorce.
Cognitive scientist and physician, Steven Miller, MD, rendered the opinion that the manifestations have an error rate of <1%.
Scientific Acceptance of Parental Alienation in the Psychiatric & Scientific Communities
The fallacious claim that the DSM-5 task force rejected the concept of PA is emphatically denied by two child psychiatrists who had contributed to the family relational section of the DSM-5.
These contributors, Marianne Wamboldt, MD, and William Narrow, MD, affirmed the psychiatric community’s acceptance of parental alienation in their 2017 article published in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
This peer-reviewed article entitled, “Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress” (CAPRD), was co-authored by my colleague, child psychiatrist, William Bernet, and affirmed that parental alienation, by this signifier, to be an example of CAPRD.
Consider what these child psychiatrists stated in this article:
“When the DSM-5 was in development, there was a proposal to include parental alienation disorder as a new diagnosis. In response, members of the DSM-5 Task Force never said that they doubted the reality or the importance of parental alienation. However, they concluded that parental alienation did not meet the standard definition of a mental disorder, that is, “the requirement that a disorder exists as an internal condition residing within an individual”. Task Force members said that parental alienation should be considered an example of a relational problem because it involves a disturbance in the child’s relationship with one or both parents.
Children who experience parental alienation almost always fulfill the definition for CAPRD; that is, the child is affected by conflict between the parents, with the result of forming an enmeshed relationship with one parent and rejecting a relationship with the other parent. Depending on the focus of clinical attention, other DSM-5 conditions may be assigned in cases of parental alienation. If the focus of clinical attention is on the impaired relationship between the child and the target parent, the term “paren-child relational problem” may be used. If the focus of clinical attention is on the parent who caused the child’s parental alienation through manipulation and indoctrination, the term “child psychological abuse” may be used.” (p. 575)
These three family relational problems are cited in Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry – the basic textbook of psychiatry. Parental alienation – by that signifier -is listed here under the section entitled “child psychological abuse.”
I have only scratched the surface of parental alienation’s recognition in the scientific and psychiatric communities. Please refer to the reference list for some additional – but hardly all – of these references.
Parental alienation, a family phenomenon, has received wide acceptance in the scientific and psychiatric communities. A contemporaneous example of this acceptance is Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatricy – the basic textbook relied by psychiatrists throughout their practices.
Domestic Violence & Unjustified Reasons for Denying Parental Alienation
Another logical fallacy that the authors of this primer rely upon to deny the phenomenon of alienation is known as “appeal to the consequent.”
The logical fallacy of “appeal to the consequent” means that the truth of a statement or hypothesis is judged on the basis of its potential for negative/undesirable consequences or positive/desirable consequences. Evidence for the statement itself is not considered.
By implementing medical treatment according to the logical fallacy of “appeal to the consequent,” chemotherapy would be banned because its consequences of nausea and hair loss are undesirable.
What consequence do the authors of this primer fear if parental alienation is recognized in the courts?
The consequence they fear is that at least some domestic violence (DV) perpetrators will play the “alienation defense card” as a means to be acquitted of their heinous and unpardonable acts.
The authors claim that fathers who have been accused of abuse will attempt be exonerated by falsely claiming that the mother is engaging in alienation.
I do not doubt that some domestic violence perpetrators do play the DV defense card. I consider DV to be a heinous, unjustifiable behavior under any circumstances. But the appropriate response is to invoke science to rule in DV.
To reject parental alienation carte blanche perpetuates the child abuse being committed by the alienating parent and fails to protect alienated children from further harm.
Professionals who work in parental alienation support all help and accommodations for victims of domestic violence and child abuse allegations that have been determined to be credible by the scientific method to make clinical findings.
But this of course is the rub – establishing the validity of the DV and child abuse allegations. It is not sufficient to rely only upon the self-reporting of alienating mothers who have a vested interest in accusing the fathers of child abuse and DV in order to gain an upper hand in custody proceedings.
It is also not sufficient to rely upon the word of brainwashed alienated children.
False allegations of child abuse and DV occur to a high degree in severe cases of alienation. Sex abuse allegations are also frequently made even though research shows that the prevalence of sex abuse incidents in contentious custody cases are less than 2% while false allegations may be as high as 35%.
The profound harm to children from believing a false sex abuse incident by a parent is equal to the same psychological harm as if the abuse had actually occurred.
This means that these children are subject to the same risk factors for PTSD and other severe psychiatric symptoms as if the abuse had actually occurred.
This is all the more reason that sex abuse allegations must be subjected to verification by the scientific method to make clinical findings.
Alienating parents who make knowingly false child sexual abuse allegations against the other parent, brainwash their children to believe the allegations, and manipulate their children to confirm or create false sex abuse allegations against their alienated parent are inflicting unspeakable child abuse upon their children.
We also challenge the authors of this primer to provide equal support and accommodations for alienated fathers – many of whom are DV victims by their former partners. The DV often includes physical abuse as well as emotional abuse.
It is more widespread than reported as alienated fathers are reluctant, out of embarrassment, to come forth with their victimization.
Science provides the method to rule in domestic violence just as science provides the method to rule in parental alienation. It is not an either-or situation to protect women or to protect children. Science enables us to do both.
Domestic Violence and Domestic Violence by Proxy Committed by Alienating Parents
The authors of the primer are engaging in selective attention regarding incidents of domestic violence and domestic violence by proxy. They are ignoring that these behaviors are being committed by both alienating mothers and alienating fathers in parental alienation cases.
As discussed below, the authors of the primer are ignoring the plight of alienated mothers, who are victims of DV by proxy by their alienated sons. Alienated sons are emotionally and physically assaulting their alienated mothers at the orchestration of their alienating fathers.
It is outside the focus of this article to discuss in detail the DV and DV by proxy being committed by alienating parents. My colleagues and I have written articles and undertaken research studies specifically focused on this topic.
The articles and research are posted on my website and here below.
But just briefly, I point out here that alienating parents must use extreme coercive control behaviors to manipulate their children to override the child’s powerful survival instinct to have and need a parent.
This results in alienated children hurting, defying, emotionally abusing, and rejecting their alienated parent. These behaviors meet the criteria of DV.
When alienating parents manipulate their children to physically assault their alienated parent, this meets the criteria of domestic violence by proxy.
Alienating parents are sowing the seeds of an antisocial personality disorder in their alienated children. I reproduce here the DV power and control wheel occurring in alienation and which mimics the Duluth power and control wheel that DV groups rely upon.
The Authors’ Erroneous Claim of Money-Aggrandizement
The authors’ cruelest erroneous claim is that the professionals who work in parental alienation are indifferentto child abuse and DV and are instead motivated by money.
The basis for the erroneous claims that my colleagues and I are motivated solely by money is the ad hominem logical fallacy – which is engaging in character assassination when your argument lacks evidence.
Like all professionals, we are compensated commensurately our work. Compensation is for the extensive education and experience that is required first for our degrees and then for our licenses.
Compensation is also for ongoing years of study, training, experience, collaboration with other specialists. Compensation is for the preparation of the continuing education credits regarding parental alienation that we provide to judges, lawyers, mental health practitioners, and other professionals who intervene in child welfare.
The authors have committed the logical fallacies of “ad hominem attacks” and “appeal to emotion.”
Dearth of Quality Evidence for the Claim that Parental Alienation Disadvantages and Discriminates Against Mothers
The authors of this primer assert the factual error that parental alienation was manufactured by child psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, to “discredit mothers’ and children’s abuse claims against fathers.”
Dr. Gardner did not ever use parental alienation for this purpose – which is why those who make this claim fail to reference a single statement by Dr. Gardner to this effect. Dr. Gardner was an avid protector of children.
That is why he was so concerned about the harm children suffer from parental alienation.
Parental alienation has never been used by parental alienation specialists to uncritically discredit allegations of abuse by alienating mothers, alienating fathers, and alienated children.
No specialist in alienation would make a finding for alienation if abusive behavior by the rejected parent is confirmed by the scientific method to make clinical findings.
By definition, a case cannot be one of alienation if the rejected parent is abusive or seriously neglectful.
The authors also assert the factual error that mother’s are discriminated against and are disadvantaged in court proceedings when alienation is alleged. The authors falsely assert that mothers are “disbelieved and lose custody even more often when they are alleging child physical or sexual abuse.”
The “evidence” that the authors of this primer provide for their claim of parental alienation’s discrimination against mothers is based upon one questionable study by Joan Meir.
The study has not been replicated and has been debunked for manipulation of data on several levels. See the critiques below by child psychiatrist, William Bernet, and research psychologist, Jennifer Harman of Meir’s study.
Also see the critiques below of Joan Mercer’s “studies” of her unsubstantiated claims that alienation disadvantages and discriminates against mothers.
The “Red Herring” & “Appeal to Emotion” & “Appeal to Intuition” Logical Fallacies
The authors claim that domestic violence is not properly recognized or addressed when parental alienation is alleged in cases. They erroneously claim that judges and professionals do not appreciate or recognize the horrific harm to children who are caught up in these abusive family dynamics.
The real issue is not the allegations themselves, it’s the validity of the allegations.
The authors are diverting attention from the key issue that is in play when DV and child abuse are alleged.
By diverting the Court’s attention from validity of the allegation to merely the unproven allegation itself, the authors are engaging in the “red herring,” “appeal to emotion,” and “appeal to intuition” logical fallacies.
These logical fallacy are a deceptive diversion from the real issue. The real issue is how to scientifically assess for merit the allegations of child abuse and DV – that are, to repeat, frequently falsely alleged in alienation cases.
The authors are typically violating the clinical axiom to “use proper reasoning,” which requires that intuitive reasoning be corroborated with analytical reasoning.
DV workers typically fail to verify the mother’s self-reporting with neutral, corroborative evidence. In other words, the mother’s reporting is intuitively accepted, prima facia, that she is reporting truthfully and accurately.
This is also the approach to the reporting of brainwashed children – accept their prima facia reporting without neutral corroboration.
The authors fail to consider the clinical literature and the evidence-based practices of specialists in alienation that affirm the exceedingly high rate of false DV and child abuse allegations made by severely alienating parents.
Parental Alienation is an Equal Opportunity Victimizer
Parental alienation is an equal opportunity victimizer. Alienated mothers comprise 50% of my caseload and of many of my colleagues’ caseloads.
Alienated mothers, themselves, are victims of domestic violence by proxy. They are being routinely physically battered by their sons – and sometimes by their daughters – at the behest of alienating fathers.
Alienated mothers feel abandoned by the groups that intervene to protect women from DV.
What Alienated Mothers Want From Domestic Violence Professionals
Alienated mothers wish for their sons to get the desperate help they need to relinquish their antisocial, battering behaviors and have the expectation for becoming law-abiding, socially responsible adults.
Alienated mothers are desperately attempting to save their physically violent sons from themselves and from the influence by their alienating fathers.
Alienated mothers fear that if their sons do not get preventive help in their youth, they will grow up to be the next generating of perpetrators of DV in their intimate relationships.
Alienated Mothers’ Cry for Help for Their Abusive Sons & Daughters
The concerns of alienated mothers are screaming for remedy.
By denying the very real existence of parental alienation, a generation of potential adult DV perpetrators is being promoted and produced – however unintended – by the very professionals committed to end DV. These include the authors of this primer.
It is incomprehensible to me that so many of these professionals, who have made the protection of women their life’s work, yet ignore the potential conflagration of minor boys – and even daughters – becoming adult DV perpetrators.
Prevention of the perpetuation of DV begins with recognition that parental alienation is real, is abusive of mothers as well as of fathers, and is most of all abusive of alienated children for whom DV behaviors are being normalized by their alienating parents.
My colleagues and I agree with the authors of the primer that there is an urgent need for widespread and comprehensive training in domestic violence among all professionals who intervene in child welfare.
The professionals who must partake in DV training include those who are working in DV prevention and treatment programs as well as the authors of this primer.
They are equally lacking in a sufficientunderstanding of DV just as many professionals in the judicial and mental health systems are so lacking.
Tragically for alienated children, the domestic violence and domestic violence by proxy inflicted upon children by their alienating parents are largely unrecognized or ignored by DV groups and the authors of this primer.
Sadly for an entire generation of children, the DV groups and the authors of this primer are turning a blind eye to the horrific plight of alienated children.
Alienated children are being proficiently trained and educated by their alienating parents to become adult DV perpetrators.
What makes the DV and DV by proxy so exceedingly harmful to children is that alienating parents are planting the seeds in their children of an antisocial personality disorder.
An antisocial personality disorder is a very serious, untreatable disorder that can become characterological as early as adolescence.
The authors of this primer provide utterly false and deceptive information about reunification programs – beginning with the made-up name of “reunification camps.” The authors make utterly false claims that the programs are abusive of children and are ineffective.
The reunification programs that are relied upon by the courts to protect children and remedy the harm from alienation have undergone peer-reviewed research studies.
Studies have found these reunifications programs to be safe and more than 95% effective in reuniting child with an unjustifiably rejected parent.
The fraction of the unsuccessful reunifications is because alienating parents had violated the Court-ordered no-contact period with their children.
The authors of this primer do not report the positive findings of these research studies on reunification programs.
Reunification programs work with only one family at time in a family or family-like setting. The children participate in enjoyable activities commensurate with their ages.
The no-contact period between alienating parents and their children is ordered by the Court and is a protective removal from parents whom the court found to be abusive.
The courts determine the length of the no-contact period and whether to extend it.
As with any other case of child abuse, the Court restores contact if and when the alienating parent relinquishes the child-abusive behaviors.
The authors of this primer do not have first-hand knowledge about the reunification programs they criticize. None of the therapists have been interviewed about their interventions.
None of the alienated parents have been interviewed for their perspective on the therapy they had received. None of the overwhelming majority of alienated children who successfully reunited with their unreasonably rejected parent have been interviewed.
The authors make their criticisms of reunification programs based upon hearsay reporting twice and thrice removed and in the absence of first-hand credible information.
The authors of this primer have provided no evidence for their egregiously erroneous claims about parental alienation and the Court-ordered reunification programs designed to heal alienated children.
On the other hand, overwhelming research and the clinical literature confirm profound harm to children from parental alienation – for a lifetime. The recommendations in this primer should be rejected.
Serious attention by the mental health and judicial communities must be given to protecting children from becoming alienated and helping the estimated 250,000 children who are currently being alienated.
Ackerman, N. W. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York: Basic Books.
Ackerman, N. W. (1961). The emergence of family psychotherapy on the present scene. In M. I. Stein (Ed.), Contemporary psychotherapies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ackerman, N. W., & Franklin, P. (1965). Family dynamics and the reversibility of delusional formation: A case study in family therapy. In I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. Famo (Eds.), Intensive family therapy (Ch. 6.). New York: Harper and Row.
Ackerman, N. W. (1966). Treating the troubled family. New York: Basic Books.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental Disorders (5th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
Andolfi, M., Angelo, C., Menghi, P.,& Nicolo‑Corigliano, A. (1983). Behind the family mask. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Andolfi, M., Angelo, C., & Nichilo, M. (1989). The myth of atlas. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Baker, A., Bernet, W., Miller, S., Adebayo, T. (2019). “The Assessment of the Attitudes and Behaviors about Physically Abused Children: A Survey of Mental Health Professionals.” Journal of Child and Family Studies.
Bernet, W. (Ed.) (2010). Parental Alienation, DSM-5, and ICD-11. Springfield, Il: Thomas.
Bernet, W., Lorandos, D., Sauber, R. (Eds.) (2013). Parental Alienation: The handbook for mental health and legal professionals. Springfield, Il: Thomas.
Lorandos, D., & Bernet, W. (2020). (Eds.) Parental alienation: Science and law. Springfield, Il.: Thomas.
Bowen, M. (1971). The use of family theory in clinical practice. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families: A family therapy reader. New York: Grune & Stratton, 159–192.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Bruck, M. & Ceci, S. (1999). “The Suggestibility of Children’s Memory.” Annual Reviews of Psychology. (50): 419-439.
Bruck, M., Ceci, S., & Hembrooke, H. (2002). “The Nature of Children’s True and False Narratives,” Developmental Review. (22): 520-554.
Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (2013). Children Held Hostage: Identifying brainwashed children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions (Second ed.). U.S.A.: American Bar Association.
Gardner, R. A. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome (2nd ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.Gardner, R. A. (2001). Therapeutic interventions for children with parental alienation syndrome. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gottlieb, L. (2012). The Parental Alienation Syndrome. Springfield, Ill: Thomas.
Gottlieb, L. (2013). “The Application of Structural Family Therapy to the Treatment of Parental Alienation.” In A. J. L. Baker & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Working With Alienated Children and Families: A Clinical Guidebook. New York: Routledge, 209-231.
Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), The interactional viewNew York: Basic Books, 37–44.
Hoffman. L. (1981). Foundations of Family Therapy. Basic Books.
Joshi, A. (2012). Litigating Parental Alienation. American Bar Association: Family Law Section.
Loftus, E. (2000). “The Dangers of Memory.” Academia.edu. Online 105-117.
Lorandos, D. & Bernet, W. (2020). Parental Alienation: Science and the Law. Chicago, Il: Thomas.
Maloney v. Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603–604. (New York).
Miller, S. G. (2013). Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making in Cases of Child Alignment: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Issues. In A. J. L. Baker & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Working With Alienated Children and Families: A Clinical Guidebook. New York: Routledge, 8-46.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., Baker, L., & Rosman, B. (1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia nervosa in context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Minuchin, S., & Nichols, M. (1993). Family healing. New York: The Free Press.
Minuchin, S., Lee, W., & Simon, G. (1996). Mastering family therapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Minuchin, S., Nichols, M., & Lee, W. (2007). Assessing families and couples: From symptom to system. New York: Pearson.
Reay, K. M. (2015). Family Reflections: A Promising Therapeutic Program Designed to Treat Severely Alienated Children and Their Family System. The American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 1-11.
Rosen, J. (2013). “The Child’s Attorney and the Alienated Child: Approaches to
Resolving the Ethical Dilemma of Diminished Capacity.” Family Court Review, 51(2) 330-343.
Warshak, R. (2018). “Reclaiming Parent–Child Relationships: Outcomes of Family Bridges with Alienated Children.” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. Published online: 11 Oct 2018.
Warshak, R. (2020). “Parent-Child Contact Problems: Concepts, Controversies, & Conundrums.” Family Court Review. MA: Wiley, Vol. 58(2), 432–455
The psychiatric and mental health communities have deemed alienating behaviors to be psychologically abusive to children. Child psychological abuse compromises alienated children’s functioning in all domains – psychological, emotional, cognitive, interpersonal, and behavioral.
Self-harming and psychosomatic symptoms are examples of alienated children’s compromised behavioral functioning. These behaviors include, but are not limited to:
Eating disorders.
Drug addiction.
Suicide attempts.
Self-cutting.
Here you will learn how family therapy re-frames the cause and nature of alienated children’s psychosomatic symptoms and self-harming behaviors.
I will begin by referencing the research and clinical literature of the child psychiatrists who founded the family therapy movement in the 1950s by reframing the child’s symptoms.
Emphasis will be placed on the work of child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin, the preeminent founder of the family therapy movement and my mentor. Dr. Minuchin specialized in psychosomatic disorders.
I will further discuss several alienation case examples from my practice revealing how alienating parents had caused their child’s psychosomatic and self-harming symptoms.
The Rise of Psychosomatic Symptoms & Self-Harming Behaviors in Alienated Children
Virtually all of the 800 alienated children with whom I had worked were functioning well within normal or exceptional limits prior to the onset to the alienation. I noted a pattern however, among many of these alienated children of suddenly manifesting serious psychiatric symptoms after the alienation had initiated.
For those professionals who did not specialize in alienation, these children’s prior normal functioning did not raise the obvious questions. For me, the obvious question requiring an immediate answer was, “What had caused normal or high functioning children to so suddenly and surprising deteriorate to the point of developing life-threatening behaviors and psychosomatic symptoms?”
When alienated children suddenly develop life-threatening behaviors and psychosomatic symptoms, reason informs that alienating parents are the most probable cause. After all, alienating parents typically grab almost exclusive, if not exclusive, caretaking of the children. This reasonable causal connection demands investigation to determine if the alienating parent is the sudden and surprise causation.
Despite the alienating parent being the logical suspect as the cause of their children’s psychiatric – psychosomatic symptoms and behaviors, alienating parents are rarely suspected of being the cause.
Family therapy points us in the direction of determining the true cause.
Family Therapy’s Reframe of Psychosomatic & Self-Harming Symptoms in Children
Child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin, describes how family therapy reframes – thereby re-assesses -the cause of psychiatric and psychosomatic symptoms in children. The reframing points the way to effective remedy. Diagnosis dictates treatment thereby requiring diagnosis to be accurate – all the time.
Dr. Minuchin states:
“In the systems paradigm, every part of a system is seen as organizing and being organized by other parts. An individual’s behavior is simultaneously both caused and causative.
The systems model postulates that certain types of family organization are closely related to the development and maintenance of psychosomatic syndromes in children, and that the child’s psychosomatic symptoms in turn play an important role in maintaining the family homeostasis.
Anorexia nervosa is defined not only by the behavior of one family member, but also by the interrelationship of all family members…The psychological unit is not the individual. It is the individual in his significant social contests.
Nowhere is the truth of this modern challenge demonstrated more clearly than in the studies of psychosomatic medicine. It seems to violate common sense that the contraction of a child’s bronchiole is regulated by sequences of transactions between other family members.
Or the a diabetic patient’s ketoacidosis is affected by the way his parents request his allegiance.
Or that a n anorectic’s not eating is controlled by the way the anorectic and her parents transact the issues of control.”
Nevertheless, our findings clearly indicate that, when significant family interactional patterns are changed, significant changes in the symptoms of psychosomatic illness also occur [in other words, symptom reduction]
Instead of observing and studying the anorectic child alone, we look at the feedback processes by which the family members and the anorectic constrain and regulate each other’s behavior.
In therapy, we look at the transactions among family members the sustain the anorectic syndrome, and we work to change those transactions. Anorexia is more than the girl’s not eating. It is the way the family behaves.” (pp. 20-21)
Family therapy reframes the child’s psychosomatic symptoms from internal to the individual child to the family interactional behaviors. Family therapy rejects the idea that the child is the identified patient having an individual, intrapsychic condition.
Family therapy labels the dysfunctional family interactional behaviors as the clinical condition requiring remedy and labels the family system as the identified patient.
The dysfunctional family interactions at play when children manifest psychosomatic and other severe psychiatric symptoms can by summarized by the phenomenon of “family triangulation.”
In family triangulation, one parent – known as the triangulating or favored parent – co-opts the child as an ally in the parental conflict with the other parent – known as the targeted parent.
Triangulation thrusts the psychosomatic child into the untenable, no-win/double bind situation of having to choose the triangulating parent over the targeted parent. Triangulation requires the child to sacrifice the relationship with the targeted parent as a price to pay for maintaining the love and approval of the favored parent.
Next here I discuss what Dr. Minuchin and his colleagues describe as “family triangulation” and the consequential harm to the child.
Salvador Minuchin MD on Harm to Children from Triangulation
Dr. Minuchin views family triangulation, which spawned the birth of the family therapy movement in the 1950s, to be the cause of psychiatric symptoms in children. Dr. Minuchin and his colleagues founded the family therapy movement when they re-framed the psychosis in their child patients from being intrapsychic to being family inter-relational.
Dr. Minuchin (1978):
“In triangulation and parent-child coalitions, the spouse dyad is frankly split in opposition or in conflict, and the child is openly pressed to ally with one parent against the other. In triangulation, the child is put in such a position that she cannot express herself without siding with one parent against the other. In a parent-child coalition, the child tends to move into a stable coalition with one parent against the other.” (p. 33)
Dr. Minuchin (1972):
“The rigid triangle can also take the form of a stable coalition. One of the parents joins with the child in a rigidly bounded cross-generational coalition against the other parent….Whenever the child sides with one, he is automatically defined as attacking the other.
Dr. Minuchin (1981):
When they must function as autonomous entities, they may face a serious crisis. When the children reach late adolescence and must begin to separate from the family, psychotic breaks and psychosomatic illness can occur. (P. 142.)
Jay Haleyon Reframing Psychiatric Symptoms in Triangulation
Haley (1977):
“It is always an oversimplification to describe psychiatric symptoms as if they could be isolated from the general problems of society. The ills of the individual are not really separable from the ills of the social context he creates and inhabits, and one cannot with good conscience pull out the individual from his cultural milieu and label him as sick or well.” (p. 2)
Haley (1990):
“The people responding to each other in the triangle are not peers, but one of them is of a different generation from the other two… In the process of their interaction together, the person of one generation forms a coalition with the person of the other generation against his peer.
By “coalition” is meant a process of joint action which is against the third person… The coalition between the two persons is denied. That is, there is certain behavior which indicates a coalition which, when it is queried, will be denied as a coalition…
In essence, the perverse triangle is one in which the separation of generations is breached in a covert way. When this occurs as a repetitive pattern, the system will be pathological…
A parent-child coalition not only undermines the authority of the other parent but makes the authority of the favoring parent dependent upon support from the child.” (pp. 31-48)
Murray Bowen, MD, on Harm to Children from Triangulation
Dr. Bowen (1978):
“As patterns repeat and repeat in a triangle, the people come to have fixed roles in relation to each other. The best example of this is the father-mother-child triangle. Patterns vary, but one of the most common is the basic tension between the parents….
The mother wins over the child, who moves another step closer toward chronic functional impairment. The pattern is described as the family projection process. Families replay the same triangular game over and over for years, as though the winner were in doubt, but the final result is always the same.
Mauricio Andolfi, MD, on Dysfunctional Relationships from Triangulation
Dr. Andolfi was known for treating the most disturbed children. His patients were schizophrenic, suicidal, or anorectic.
In his 1989 book, The Myth of Atlas: Families and the Therapeutic Story, Dr. Andolfi states, “As with any other relational triangle, coalitions are possible, more or less masked, that produce dysfunctional relationships” (p. 214).
Linda Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW – Alienation Case Examples of Harm to Children from Triangulation
False Face Must Hide What False Heart Doth Know
A 14-year-old girl was referred to me by her psychiatrist upon the girl’s discharge from the psychiatric hospital after a suicidal threat. The girl further had had a history of cutting herself during a period of several years. The psychiatrist had worked with the girl individually during her 10-day hospital stay but was unable to determine the reason or reasons of the girl’s cutting behavior and suicidal ideation.
I required the girl’s parents participate in the daughter’s intake, which they did but reluctantly. The parents had divorced just prior to the girl’s initiation of her cutting behaviors. Prior to the divorce, the girl was meeting developmental milestones, was doing exceedingly well in school, had many peer relationships, and took an interest in numerous extra curricular activities. The girl had had no psychiatric history while the parents were still together.
I asked the parents for their opinions as to why their previously well-functioning daughter precipitously developed her severe psychiatric symptoms. The parents then engaged in an intense blame game, each accusing the other of being the cause. The argument escalated to a level of extreme hostility.
Rescuing her parents from their intensity, the girl distracted them from their marital argument by shouting out, “I know my father did not want me to be born.”
Upon the girl’s decisive verbal eruption, the alienation narrative was unleashed. The mother had been brainwashing the girl for years with utter fabrications that her father did not love her, wanted to abort her, and had not been an involved father for most of her childhood. The Due to being pathologically enmeshed with her mother, the girl absorbed her mother’s feeling of being an unfairly overburdened parent.
Reframe: A successful suicide would have freed the girl from the loyalty conflict that had been imposed upon her by her alienating mother. A completed suicide would have enabled the girl to please both parents. That is, her mother would no longer be overburdened by parental responsibilities, and her father would finally be granted his wish for the girl’s birth was undone. How tragic for the girl that she perceived death to be her only resolution to the triangulation.
I Am My Mother’s Keeper
The parents of a 17-year-old boy applied for individual therapy for their son. They stated the boy was repeatedly truant from school and using weed – before weed was legal in New York. I required them to come in as a family, which included 4 younger siblings.
The intake paperwork that they had submitted prior to the intake session accused the father of committing domestic violence several years previously against the mother. The mother did not file contemporaneous DV reports with the Court or with police; she did not seek medical treatment or therapy for any bodily or emotional harm; she never confided the alleged DV incident in a friend. No details of the DV allegation were provided on the intake form although details were requested.
The father adamantly denied having engaged in any form of abuse against the mother. The very belated DV allegation emerged only after the father threatened the mother with making a CPS report if she did not agree with him to get help for their son, that she had thus far been refusing to do.
The family arrived, and the mother and 5 children moved the office chairs so that they could seat themselves virtually on top of each other. This left the father to sit alone and virtually outside of the group. When a family goes to these lengths to seat themselves in this fashion, it is suggestive of alienation. Family history that I later obtained confirmed my initial tentative suspicion of alienation.
I asked the 17-year-old boy why he brought his family in for therapy. Looking surprised by my question, he responded that he had no idea. I expected this response. I then asked him if he had any idea who in the family might be benefitting from his truancy. Now looking astounded, he, not surprisingly, had no answer to this question. No one in the family could answer this question either.
I then looked to the parents for their ideas about their son’s truancy. The parents began to argue with each other in a verbally abusive manner. The father accused the mother of enabling their son, stating that she drives him to meet his friends when he should be in school, and she further supplies him with funds to buy weed.
The mother responded by acknowledging that she does drive the boy to meet his truant friends because they are “nice boys” who do not use hard drugs. The mother continued to justify her behavior by stating that her son refuses to attend school no matter what; if she did not drive him to meet up with this “nice” group of friends who only did weed, he would hang out locally with not so nice boys who used hard drugs.
The father easily gained the upper hand in the argument with his wife given how ludicrous her reasoning was to justify why she was enabling their son. The mother quickly retreated and fell silent. Coming to his mother’s rescue, the 17-year old boy then jumped to his feet, violated his father’s space, and threatened to kill him with a baseball bat after the session. The mother made no effort to restrain or admonish her son – her ally in her conflicts with her husband, who is the boy’s father.
Reframe: The 17-year old had become his mother’s ally and protector in an alienation drama. In this drama, the mother had convinced the five children that she was a victim of domestic violence by their father. The mother was rewarding the boy with money and taxi service to keep him as her ally. The boy, who had been a straight A student headed to an Ivy League school before the marital conflict, was sacrificing himself to be his mother’s protector. This would have been an impossible role to fill were he to be away, meeting the expectations of an Ivy League curriculum. The boy’s only resolution to this impossible situation was to sacrifice and sabotage himself so that he did not have decline acceptance into an Ivy League school.
The Boy Who Unmasked Falsehood and Brought Truth to Light
A severely alienated 12-year-old boy had been unlawfully held by his alienating mother from contact with his father for more than eight months. The night before the boy and his father were to leave for New York to participate in a Court-ordered Turning Points for Families intervention, the mother brought the boy to the emergency room and had him hospitalized for suicidal threats.
The father went to the hospital with his Court order that had given him sole legal and physical custody of the boy and with a protective separation of the boy from his alienating mother. The mother was escorted away from the boy’s bedside and out of the hospital. The father was escorted to the boy’s bedside. The boy greeted his father with, “Dad, I’m not suicidal. I only threatened suicide because mom told me that if I made that threat, I would not have to get on the plane and go with you to New York.”
Outcome: The hospital promptly discharged the boy to his father with follow up treatment at Turning Points for Families. They had a successful reunification. Ten years later, the boy has just graduated from college, has a loving relationship with his father, and is in a healthy intimate relationship. His mother, however, has not forgiven him for reuniting with his father. She has sadly estranged herself from her son, who is now a healthy, happy young man.
Catastrophic Delays in Reunification for Severely Alienated Children
Tragically for children, social media platforms have become a means for alienating parents to share with each other their “successful” strategies for thwarting Court-orders for reunification interventions.
Manipulating severely alienated children to make threats of suicide has become a customary strategy used by alienating parents to thwart reunification interventions. These children were then psychiatrically hospitalized for a fictitious diagnosis.
This coercive tactic, more often than not, has thwarted the Court-ordered reunification intervention from taking place.
Even more catastrophic for alienated children, their hospital psychiatrists unnecessarily placed them on psychotropic medications to treat this falsified suicidal threat. These medications have the highest black-box warning for children under the age of 18 years.
Fortunately, when a Turning Points for Families eventually occurred for these children, every one of them were subsequently weaned off these medications by their psychiatrist upon returning home with their alienated parent.
The real child abuse in parental alienation is the coercive manipulation of alienated children by their alienating parents to make false suicidal threats resulting in unnecessary psychiatric hospitalization and administration of black-box psychotropic medications.
Unregulated social media platforms have served as exceedingly successful means for spreading misinformation and disinformation about parental alienation. The deceptive and false claims distract attention and remedy from the profound harm to children from parental alienation. The harm adversely effects children for a lifetime across all domains of functioning.
Note that those who spread these deceptive and false claims never dispute the 70-year history of family therapy that determined family triangulation – another label for parental alienation – causes severe psychosomatic and self-harming behaviors in the triangulated child.
It is estimated that 250,000 children each year suffer from parental alienation. That is unacceptable when we know the cause and we have the remedy for safe and effective remediation.
The psychiatric and mental health communities have deemed alienating behaviors to be profoundly abusive to children.
Of upmost concern about alienating behaviors is that they are examples of antisocial behaviors. Severely alienating parents are sowing in their children the seeds of an antisocial personality disorder and possibly other personality disorders as well.
Here you will learn:
The criteria & characteristics of a general personality disorder.
The criteria & characteristics of an antisocial personality disorder.
Examples of alienating behaviors that meet the criteria for antisocial behavior.
Examples of alienated children’s antisocial behaviors.
What parents are expected to teach their children so that their children become socially responsible citizens.
What You Need to Know About A General Personality Disorder
Definition & Criteria
Personality disorders are marked by long-term, unhealthy and inflexible patterns of thoughts, feelings, behaviors. These are dispositional traits and are therefore highly resistant to treatment and remedy.
A general personality disorder is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5-TR) as follows:
“An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture” that is marked by the following characteristics:
Inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.
Leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Stable and of long duration.
Can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.
This pattern must be manifested in at least two of the following areas.
Cognition.
Affectivity.
Interpersonal functioning.
impulse control.
Alienated children are adversely affected in all four of these areas as a result of their alienating parent’s influence and coercive control of them.
Cognition issues of Alienated Children
Believing that their alienated parent wants to hurt them.
Confusing love for hate.
Confusing affection for sexual abuse.
Confusing appropriate limit setting for emotional abuse.
Perceiving their parents in black and white terms – one parent being all good and the other parent being all bad; one parent offers them everything they need and the other parent has nothing to offer them.
Affectivity Issues of Alienated Children
Feeling deeply Insecure and unlovable from having their alienated parent driven from their lives.
Having serious issues with trust due to the loss of an irreplaceable person.
Having been coercively controlled by their alienating parent to hate the loving other parent.
Having to override the powerful instinct to have and need a parent and thereby reject that parent.
Feeling no remorse or guilt for emotionally and even physically abusing a parent.
Being terrified that survival depends exclusively upon the unpredictable and unstable alienating parent.
Being terrified that their alienated parent will harm them is some way.
Being terrified that their alienated parent will kidnap them or keep them forever from their alienating parent.
Being unable to separate/individuate from their alienating parent.
Interpersonal Impairments of Alienated Children
Using emotional cutoffs to resolve interpersonal problems.
Perceiving their alienated parent’s interest them as a boundary violation.
Perceiving their alienated parent’s appearance at their parent teacher conferences, activities, games, tournaments, etc. as stalking or not respecting their children’s wishes.
Exuding a sense of entitlement.
Exuding over-empowerment in relationship to their alienated parent.
Exuding over-empowerment in relationship to the reunification therapist.
Limited or non-existent peer relationships.
Teenage boys emotionally and physically abusing their alienated mother’s – domestic violence by proxy at the behest of their alienating fathers.
Impulse control Issues of Alienated Children
Rejecting their alienated parent.
Disengaging from their alienated parent.
Defying their alienated parent’s supervision.
Cursing their alienated parent.
Running away from their alienated parent.
Emotionally abusing their alienated parent.
Physically assaulting their alienated parent.
Interacting aggressively with peers.
Defying teachers and other authority figures.
Disrespecting the reunification therapist.
Sudden suicidal threats, ideation, or attempts.
Sudden self-harming behaviors such as cutting, eating disorders, drug & alcohol abuse.
What You Need to Know About an Antisocial Personality Disorder
Definition and Criteria
According to The DSM-5, an antisocial personality disorder is defined as:
“A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following”:
Failure to confirm to laws and social norms (repeatedly breaking laws).
Deceitfulness (repeated lying or conning others for personal profit or pleasure).
Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
Irritability and aggressiveness (repeated physical fights or assaults).
Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
Consistent irresponsibility (repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations).
Lack of remorse (being indifferent to having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another).
Alienating Behaviors Meet the Criteria of Antisocial Behaviors
Having of a functioning, intact, and unencumbered conscience is fundamental to the ability to comply with one’s societal norms, expectations and behaviors.
Regrettably, the nurturing and development of a maturely functioning conscience does not occur instinctively nor automatically. It is therefore a primary job of parents to nurture their child’s conscience, model socially appropriate behaviors, and teach their children how to become law-abiding, socially appropriate citizens.
Teaching children to behave in a socially appropriate manner is a parental function required by child protection. Children who do not know how to behave in a socially appropriate manner have an exceedingly poor prognosis in life.
Alienating behaviors undermine and compromise the nurturing of the child’s conscience. Alienating parents model and encourage behaviors that violate social norms and expectations.
Baker and Fine’s 17 alienating behaviors are examples of how alienating parents model for their children behaviors that undermine our society’s expectations and norms. Other alienating behaviors are examples of how alienating parents make their children complicit in violating society’s expectations and norms.
Alienating behaviors are examples of a flagrant disregard of empathy for both the alienated and the child. Alienating parents are insensitive and indifferent to their children’s need and love for their alienated parent. Alienating parents are insensitive and indifferent to the alienating parent’s need to have their children meaningfully in their lives.
Alienating parent do not act to protect their children. They do the just the opposite of assuring their children’s favorable prognosis in life. They fail to teach their children how to become law abiding citizens and to behave in a socially appropriate manner.
Violating the alienated parent’s Court-ordered parenting time.
Involving their children in the violation of the court order for the alienated parent’s parenting time.
Filing motions with knowingly false information in order to gain an upper hand in the custody proceedings and to retaliate against the alienated parent for some perceived transgression.
Making knowingly false child abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence allegations against the alienated parent.
Coercing their children to initiate or confirm knowingly false child abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence allegations against the alienated parent.
Badmouthing the alienated parent to the child, the Court, and professionals with frivolous, distorted, and fabricated claims.
Modeling disrespect of the alienated parent.
Encouraging, sanctioning, and rewarding their child’s maltreatment and defiance of the alienated parent.
Excluding alienated parents who has joint legal custody from decision-making for their children – particularly in the important areas of education, health, extracurricular activities, religious observance, etc.
Asking the child to spy on the alienated parent.
Asking the child to keep secrets from the alienated parent.
Failure to teach and require their children to behave in socially appropriate manner.
Examples of Alienated Children’s Antisocial Behaviors
The DSM-5-TR added a clinical condition labeled “Child or adolescent antisocial behavior” (Z72.810). It is a precursor to the development of an antisocial personality disorder.
Alienated children engage in antisocial behaviors at the coercion and manipulation of their alienating parents.
I have observed this clinical condition to be manifested to some degree by all 800 alienated children whom I directly treated. I also noted the same clinical condition to some degree in several thousand additional alienated children in cases I had served as an expert witness for the Court or for one of the litigants.
Here is a short list of alienated children’s repetitive antisocial behaviors and cruel comments. These behaviors and comments towards their alienated parent are delivered without a shred of empathy or remorse:
A pattern of ongoing rejection, defiance, emotional abuse, and physical assault of their alienated parent.
A mission devoted to making false child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations against their alienated parent, testifying against their parent, and doing whatever possible to have their alienated parent arrested.
A pattern of behavior of ongoing refusal to have contact with their alienated parent – even when Court-ordered and even when knowing they are violating a Court order.
A pattern of behavior of ongoing refusal to interact with their alienated parent during Court-ordered parenting time. Rejecting gifts, food, tickets to child activities, etc. from their alienated parent.
A pattern of behavior of ongoing refusal to attend or interact with their alienated parent during Court-ordered reunification therapy.
Actively opposing their alienated parent from obtaining knowledge about and participating in their education, health, activities, friends, etc.
Expressing to their alienated parent they hope their alienated parent will die a slow death in a fire.
Expressing to their alienated that they hope that their alienated parent will have a car accident that cripples them to life.
Expressing to their alienated parent that they hope the next time they see them it is at the parent’s funeral.
Expressing to their alienated parent that the parent is not their parent, never had been their parent, and that their stepparent is their parent.
Expressing to their alienated parent that their parent deserved to be beaten because they are boring and a nag.
Expressing to their alienating parent that they are overreacting to their child’s punch in the face as the punch had not been that strong.
Deliberately destroying, breaking, or throwing away their alienated parent’s property.
Aggressive behaviors with their alienated parent and with peers that subject themselves and others to harm.
Here are some of the cruel, hurtful name-calling that alienated children express to their alienated parent:
You’re a narcissist
You’re wacko
You’re a moron
You’re just a sperm donor
You’re boring
You’re miserable
You’re not my parent
You’re crazy
You’re mean
You’re out of your F—-g mind.
You’re a pedophile.
You are a bitch, c–t, fatso, white trash, a piece of shit, and demented.
Parents Must Teach Their Children To Behave in a Socially Appropriate Manner
It is a primary expectation of parents to raise their children to be law-abiding, socially appropriate citizens. These parenting expectations include:
Parents must help their children to develop a mature conscience. Parents do this through continuous advisory discussions with their children and by particularly by modeling socially appropriate behaviors. Behaviors are a far more effective means of teaching and conveying expectations.
Parents must teach their children not to lie, steal, nor intentionally hurt others. Parents must teach their children to respect others – especially the other parent.
Parents must teach their children how to handle their emotions and express their feelings and opinions in a socially appropriate manner.
Parents must teach their children how to appropriately resolve interpersonal conflicts, get their needs met by others, ask for help from others, and offer help to others.
Parents must teach their children to appropriately handle setbacks, adversity, crises, and disappointments.
Parents must teach children how and when to express appreciation, gratitude, and approval of others.
Parents need to teach their children to take cues from others about the effects they are having on others and to make appropriate behavioral changes.
Parents must teach children when to apologize for their mistakes, misunderstandings, violations of others, and for just plain obnoxious behaviors.
Teaching children to live by their cultural norms and exceptions is part of a parent’s child protective responsibilities. Children cannot have a favorable prognosis in life if they do not abide by their society’s norms, behaviors, and expectations.
Parenting is a huge responsibility!
Conclusion
Parents are expected to teach their children to become socially appropriate citizens who abide by their society’s norms, expectations, and behaviors. Modeling, sanctioning, and encouraging antisocial behaviors in their children is a form of child psychological abuse.
Alienating parents are modeling for and encouraging their children to engage in numerous antisocial behaviors. Remedy is required according to the standard of “time is of the essence” along with a commensurate child protective response.
The appropriate protective response to parents who are modeling and encouraging antisocial behaviors in their children is a protective removal of children from such parents.
Parental alienating behaviors are recognized in the psychiatric and scientific communities to be examples of “child abusive behaviors.” Peer-reviewed research and clinical literature document the profound, lifetime harm to alienated children from alienating behaviors.
When alienated children precipitously manifest psychiatric symptoms – as they invariably do – it is reasonable to presume the alienating parent to be the cause. Counterintuitively, however, the alienated parent is erroneously blamed.
The child psychiatrists who founded the family therapy movement in the 1950s coined the label “triangulation” for the dynamic that resulted in their child patients becoming psychotic. These psychiatrists determined that triangulating parents – another label for alienating parents – had caused their children’s psychosis.
Here you will learn:
The 70-year recognition of the parental alienation phenomenon in child psychiatry and in family psychotherapy.
The phenomenon of family triangulation – another label for parental alienation – spawned the birth of the family therapy movement in the 1950s.
The psychiatrists who founded the family therapy movement determined that triangulating parents cause psychosis in their “triangulated children” – another label for “alienated children”.
Clinical errors made by unqualified practitioners result in erroneous finding that alienated parents are the cause of their children’s psychiatric symptoms.
The Labels “Triangulation” and “Parental Alienation” Describe Identical Family Dynamics
Triangulation is another label for parental alienation. The family dynamics and family relationships occurring in each are interchangeable.
70 years of family therapy studies and clinical literature beginning in the 1950s describe dynamics in triangulation that are identical to the dynamics in parental alienation. Many of the terms discussed in both phenomena are exactly the same – such as favored parent, targeted parent, enmeshment, children being the “puppet” of their triangulating or alienating parent.
It is therefore justifiable to conclude that the family dynamics occurring in parental alienation were recognized in the psychiatric community dating back to the 1950s. It is also justifiable to conclude that the characteristics the child psychiatrists described about each parent in the triangulation dynamic are applicable to each parent in the parental alienation dynamic.
What Is Family Triangulation?
The family dynamic labeled “family triangulation” spawned the birth of the family therapy movement in the 1950s. The term “triangulation” was coined by child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin, the pre-eminent founder of family therapy movement, in consultation with other child psychiatrists.
These child psychiatrists initially observed the dynamics occurring in “triangulation” during their child patients’ visits with their families. The reason to observe the family visits arose after the psychiatrists noted that their child patients had improved on the psychiatric wards but regressed after family visits.
The following sequence of interactions were the observed during the family visits:
The parents became embroiled in an unresolved, mean-spirited dispute with each other.
The parent who was subsequently labeled the “favored” or “triangulating” parent co-opted the child into becoming an ally in the parental dispute. The relationship between the triangulating parent and child was labeled “enmeshment.”
Dr. Minuchin coined the word “enmeshment.” He did not precede it with “pathological” because he believed all enmeshed relationships were pathological.
The triangulated child was coerced and manipulated by the triangulating parent to support and contribute to that parent’s denigration and marginalization of the “targeted” other parent. Once aligned, the triangulating parent became the “favored” parent.
The triangulating parent’s co-opting maneuvers had created a no-win, double-bind dilemma for the child.
The child’s only resolution to the dilemma was a choice between two bad options —neither of which would allow the child to preserve a relationship with each parent.
If the child aligned with the triangulating parent, the relationship with the targeted parent became impaired. If the child refused to align, the triangulating parent would reject the child due to “perceived” disloyalty.
Family psychotherapy maintains that insanity or psychosis results from double-bind/no-win situations – like the one created by the triangulating parent for the triangulated child.
Dr. Minuchin and his colleagues deemed “triangulation” to have caused their child patients’ psychosis.
What Family Therapy Psychiatrists Said About the Link Between Triangulation & Child Psychosis
Jay Haley(1977) Describes “The Perverse Triangle”
“The people responding to each other in the triangle are not peers, but one of them is of a different generation from the other two… In the process of their interaction together, the person of one generation forms a coalition with the person of the other generation against his peer.
By “coalition” is meant a process of joint action which is against the third person… The coalition between the two persons is denied. That is, there is certain behavior which indicates a coalition which, when it is queried, will be denied as a coalition…
In essence, the perverse triangle is one in which the separation of generations is breached in a covert way. When this occurs as a repetitive pattern, the system will be pathological…
A parent-child coalition not only undermines the authority of the other parent but makes the authority of the favoring parent dependent upon support from the child.” (pp. 31-48)
Child Psychiatrist Murray BowenDiscusses the Harm to the Child from Triangulation
Dr. Bowen was convinced that his child patients’ psychosis is caused by the triangulation dynamic. When Dr. Bowen hospitalized the child, he consequently hospitalized the child’s entire nuclear family. Dr. Bowen did not believe a child would be able to unilaterally escape from the enmeshed relationship with the triangulating parent.
Dr. Bowen (1971) describes the clinical presentation of the triangled child:
“The problem of the triangled child presents as one of the most difficult problems in family psychotherapy… in the severe triangling or projection of the parental problem to the child, the parents are not able to leave the child out of their feelings, thoughts, and actions…. Life itself is invested in the child.” (P. 190)
Dr. Bowen (1978) describes the harm to the triangulated child from the evolving triangulation process:
“As patterns repeat and repeat in a triangle, the people come to have fixed roles in relation to each other. The best example of this is the father-mother-child triangle. Patterns vary, but one of the most common is the basic tension between the parents….
The mother wins over the child, who moves another step closer toward chronic functional impairment. The pattern is described as the family projection process. Families replay the same triangular game over and over for years, as though the winner were in doubt, but the final result is always the same.
Over the years the child accepts the always-lose outcome more easily, even to volunteering for this position.” (pp. 199-200)
Child Psychiatrist Salvador Minuchin Describes the Severe Symptoms Resulting to the Child from Triangulation
Dr. Minuchin (1978):
“In the first two patterns, triangulation and parent-child coalitions, the spouse dyad is frankly split in opposition or in conflict, and the child is openly pressed to ally with one parent against the other. In triangulation, the child is put in such a position that she cannot express herself without siding with one parent against the other. In a parent-child coalition, the child tends to move into a stable coalition with one parent against the other.” (p. 33)
Dr. Minuchin (1972):
“The rigid triangle can also take the form of a stable coalition. One of the parents joins with the child in a rigidly bounded cross-generational coalition against the other parent….Whenever the child sides with one, he is automatically defined as attacking the other.
In this highly dysfunctional structure, the child is paralyzed. Every movement he makes is defined by one parent as an attack….This triad is the typical transactional pattern, accompanied by other significant family characteristics, in families having children with severe psychosomatic symptoms.” (p. 102)
Dr. Minuchin (1981) metaphorically labeled the triangulated child as the “puppet” of the triangulating parent (p. 135). Dr. Richard Gardner (2001), who first coined the label Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), metaphorically labeled the alienated child as “just-a-parrot (puppet) of the alienating parent (pp. 112-113).
For both Dr. Minuchin and Dr. Gardner, whenever the triangulated/alienated child’s lips move, the words from the triangulating/alienating parent’s mouth are emitted.
Dr. Minuchin describes one of his treatment cases in which the triangulating process had ensnared the child in the role of “puppet” to the triangulating parent:
“The therapist can posit, at this point, that the daughter is supported by the father or grandmother, or is in a collation with both against the mother. By maintaining the focus of the mother-daughter conflict beyond its usual threshold, the therapist highlights the position of the daughter as a puppet in the midst of a complex conflict.” (p 135)
Dr. Minuchin intervenes to expose for the family the triangulation process that is maintaining the child symptoms in the role of “puppet”:
“You are saying to your mommy the kind of things that you know your grandma and your father say to your mother. So you are just the voice of everybody in the family. You don’t have your own voice. You are the puppetof the ventriloquist. Have you ever seen a ventriloquist?
Sit on your mother’s lap…Now tell your mother the way in which she should change, thinking like your grandmother.” (p. 138)
Dr. Minuchin (1981) discusses the potential harm to the child from enmeshment with the triangulating parent:
When they must function as autonomous entities, they may face a serious crisis. When the children reach late adolescence and must begin to separate from the family, psychotic breaks and psychosomatic illness can occur. (P. 142.)
Dr. Minuchin (1978) elaborates on the harm to the child from enmeshment with the triangulating parent:
“Enmeshment refers to an extreme form of proximity and intensity in family interactions. It has implications at all levels: family, subsystem, and individual. In a highly enmeshed, overinvolved family, changes within one family member or in the relationship between two members reverberate throughout the system….
Subsystem boundaries in enmeshed families are poorly differentiated, weak, and easily crossed…. When boundaries are crossed, children may act inappropriately towards parents or siblings. Or a child may join or be enlisted by one parent against the other in decision making.” (p. 30)
Child psychiatrist Nathan Ackerman Describes the Triangulation Process That Created Psychosis in His Child Patient
Dr. Ackerman was mentor to Dr. Minuchin. Here I provide an example of the profound harm to the triangulated child as reflected in Dr. Ackerman’s often-cited “Queendom” case.
In the “Queendom” case, a delusional a girl believed she was living on another planet called “Queendom.” Queendom is inhabited only by women. The family composition included the parents and the overempowered maternal grandmother, who was enmeshed with her daughter, the girls’ mother and wife to the girl’s father.
An alignment of grandmother/mother/daughter disempowered the girl’s father, who became disengaged from his wife and from his daughter. Dr. Ackerman reframed the girl’s delusional fantasy to symbolize the family’s dysfunctional organization, and he characterized the girl’s delusional symptoms as serving the purpose of re-uniting her parents as couple.
Family Psychotherapy & the Triangulated or Alienated Child’s Psychiatric Symptoms
The above cited references are the tip of the iceberg of 70-years of knowledge produced by family therapy research and the clinical literature. The inescapable finding of these 70 years of knowledge is that the favored or triangulating/alienating parent is cause of the children’s psychosis.
Furthermore, there are no peer-reviewed research studies – let alone a 70-year history of knowledge – that found targeted (alienated) parents to be the cause of their children’s psychiatric conditions.
Mistakes That Compromise Parental Alienation Findings by Unqualified Practitioners
The standards of clinical practice require that the scientific method be relied upon to make findings. This requirement is so much more imperative given that alienation cases are exceedingly complex and counterintuitive. As Dr. Miller states:
“Few mental health problems are more difficult to sort out or more resistant to treatment than the triad of a severely alienated child, a severely determined alienating parent, and a severely rejected targeted parent…Cases of severe alienation are likely to be highly counterintuitive. Clinicians who attempt to manage them without adequate skills are likely to find themselves presiding over a cascade of clinical and psychosocial disasters.”
The scientific method to make clinical findings is beyond the scope of this article. I will, however, summarize the commonly violated clinical axioms resulting in erroneous findings in an alienation cases. These violations contribute to why alienated parents are erroneously blamed for having caused their children’s psychiatric symptoms.
Consideration of the “total clinical picture” is the single most important clinical axiom. It is particularly relevant to alienation cases given the complexity and counterintuitive nature of alienation.
The axiom to “consider the clinical picture” means to evaluate the clinical presentation in its historical context. Doing so provides the clinician with a basis of comparison between the clinical picture before and after the manifestation of the patient’s symptom(s). This is known as patient’s “base rate.”
Compliance with this axiom is the reason why physicians ask new patients for their medical history before a diagnosis and treatment can be determined for the presenting clinical problem.
Non-specialists in alienation invariably fail to comply with this clinical axiom. For example, they do not adequately explore the nature and quality of the relationship between the alienated parent and child prior to the onset of the child’s manifestation of psychiatric symptoms.
A red-flag of suspicion should spring up when hundreds of photographs and videos reveal a loving, close, and meaningful relationship between the alienated parent and child up to the moment that the child’s psychiatric symptoms emerged.
In compliance with the clinical axiom to “consider the total clinical picture,” the following questions require an answer:
What is the explanation for why alienated children, who had been functioning normally prior to the onset of the alienation, suddenly develop psychiatric symptoms?
What accounts for the protracted delays between when alienated children manifest psychiatric symptoms and when their alienated parent had allegedly done something to cause the symptoms?
What explains why alienated children and their alienated parent continue to have meaningful contact for a protracted time after that parent had allegedly done something to cause the child to manifest psychiatric symptoms?
Is there a connection between the initiation of adversarial custody proceedings and alienated children’s belated development of psychiatric symptoms?
What role might alienating parents play in the timing to the initiation of custody proceedings of alienated children’s manifestation of psychiatric symptoms?
How is it possible for alienated parents to have been the cause of their children’s psychiatric symptoms in the absence of contact with their children?
Non-specialists in alienation invariably violate the axiom to “consider the total clinical picture” when they blame alienated parents for having caused their child’s psychiatric conditions.
For something to have been the cause of something else, it must have preceded the dependent effect.
When alienated parents are erroneously blamed for having caused their children’s psychiatric symptoms, a contributing factor is the failure to have undertaken a causal analysis to establish that. Alienated parents are incredulously blamed even in situations in which they have not had contact with their children for many months, if not for years.
In other circumstances, the alienated parent’s alleged causal behavior for the child’s psychiatric symptoms had occurred well prior to ongoing, wonderful contacts.
The claim that the alienated parent had caused the child’s psychiatric symptoms is suspiciously made subsequent to the initiation of contentious custody proceedings. Astonishingly, no one considers blaming the alienating parent, who typically has virtually exclusive – if not exclusive – caretaking and control of the child.
Unjustified Reliance Upon Fallible Intuitive Reasoning
Non-specialists in alienation typically accord the alienating parent and alienated child unjustified credibility that they are reporting accurately and truthfully. It is not questioned that the self-interested reporting of alienating parents and of brainwashed children may be tainted.
When this occurs, non-specialists are violating the clinical axiom to “use proper reasoning.”
The clinical axiom to “use proper reasoning” requires that findings and opinions must be based upon a combination of intuitive reasoning and analytical reasoning – specifically that findings based upon intuitive reasoning be corroborated with analytical reasoning.
Intuitive reasoning is one’s gut reaction to or instinctual judgment about something. Analytical reasoning is objective, reasoned evaluation of quality evidence. We are familiar with the adage, “self-reporting is unreliable.”
No one thinking rationally would take seriously the findings of a physician who had relied exclusively upon the patient’s self-diagnosis of the medical condition. How long does one think an emergency room doctor would retain that position if she or he relied exclusively or primarily upon patient’s self-report of symptoms?
For example, an ER doctor would be committing medical negligence if she or he treated a patient with a handful of Prilosec based solely upon the patient’s insistence that the indigestion and heartburn symptoms being experienced were not signs of a heart attack but instead had been caused by the rotten fish eaten for lunch?
Non-specialists in alienation are as negligent as this ER doctor would have been by relying exclusively upon the patient’s self-report about symptoms. Yet, non-specialists rely virtually exclusively- if not exclusively – upon the brainwashed, alienated child’s reporting is rampart in alienation cases.
Failing to comply with the clinical axiom to “use proper reasoning” is a major contributing factor for the erroneous claim that alienated parents are the cause of their child’s psychiatric symptoms.
Failure to Rule Out for Suggestibility of the Child
Humans are suggestible, which compromises the reliability of even adult self-reporting. Children, whose cognitive development is immature, are more vulnerable than are adults to suggestibility. (See Bruck & Cici, 1999 & 2002; Loftus, 1997, 2002).
The reporting of alienated children is exceptionally compromised due to the brainwashing by their alienating parent. We have extensive research on the suggestibility of children and the ease with which false memories can be implanted in them.
Before credibility is given to an alienated child’s reporting about any of the family dynamics, an evaluation must be undertaken to rule out for suggestibility by the alienating parent.
Failure to Assess for Lying and Deception
Lying and deception come naturally to humans. These are holdover skills from cave-person days and still reside in our survival tool kit. Children are storytellers. What parent has not had to teach their child not to lie?
Alienated children’s innate survival skills of lying and deception are enhanced by schooling from their alienating parents. Alienating parents are experts in impression management and in mimicking normal behavior. This is due to the likelihood of having one or more personality disorders.
It is therefore extremely difficult to determine when alienated children are lying or telling the truth. They sound exceedingly credible even when reporting the most egregious lies about their alienated parent.
Humans are Poor Lie Detectors
Humans are poor lie detectors. Research shows we can distinguish when someone is reporting a lie from reporting the truth only 54% of the time.
This fallibility in being able to distinguish truth from lies contributes to the credibility that is given to alienated children’s egregious lies about their alienated parents including that their alienated parent had caused their psychiatric symptoms.
This fallibility further accounts for why alienated children appear so credible and truthful even when telling the most egregious lies about their alienated parent.
Conclusion
The dynamics that occur in parental alienation are identical to the dynamics that occur in family triangulation. Triangulating parents were found by child psychiatrists in the 1950s to have caused psychosis in their triangulated children.
Given this 70 year history in family psychotherapy documenting the dangers to children from triangulating/alienating parents, time is of the essence to protect children from these parents. Remedy must be imposed according to child protection standards – removal from incorrigible triangulating, alienating parents.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, N. & Frankin, P. (1965). Family dynamics and the reversibility of delusional formation: A case study in family therapy, in I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. Famo (Eds.), Intensive family therapy. New York, NY: Harper, Chapter 6.
Bowen, M. (1971). The Use of Family Theory in Clinical Practice. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families: A family therapy reader. New York: Grune & Stratton, 159–192.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson
Bruck, M. & Ceci, S. (1999). “The Suggestibility of Children’s Memory.” Annual Reviews of Psychology. (50): 419-439
Bruck, M., Ceci, S., & Hembrooke, H. (2002). “The Nature of Children’s True and False Narratives,” Developmental Review. (22): 520-554.
Gardner, R. A. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome (2nd ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R. A. (2001). Therapeutic interventions for children with parental alienation syndrome. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Haley. J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), The interactional view, New York, NY: Norton: 31-48.
Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle, in her video below, provides a clear and accurate description of the family dynamics occurring in parental alienation.
Swithin describes an unhealthy parent’s commission of domestic violence by proxy upon a child in order to weaponize and turn the child against the other, healthy parent. This dynamic is labeled “parental alienation” in the scientific community.
Swithin does not discuss how she determines who the healthy parent is and who the unhealthy parent is. Here you will learn the scientific method relied upon to determine the truths about the healthy and unhealthy parents.
Tina Swithin’s Definition of Domestic Violence by Proxy
Swithin describes an unhealthy parent committing domestic violence by proxy upon the child in order to turn the child against the other parent
In this video, Swithin describes behaviors by a parent that meet the criteria of domestic violence by proxy of the child. Swithin’s description is a faithful accounting of the dynamics that occur in parental alienation.
Swithin states:
“Domestic violence by proxy is when the unhealthy parent weaponizes the children to use them to hurt the healthy parent. They may use the children as pawns and spies. They may manipulate their kids to take sides. And they may make them feel responsible for their emotions.
There is a strategic intent to turn the children against the healthy parent. When their efforts are unsuccessful, they call it alienation, enmeshment, or gatekeeping. When they can no longer hurt or control you, they weaponize their children to that.”
I would be hard-pressed to provide a more accurate and more compelling description of the domestic violence by proxy that occurs in parental alienation and which is committed by the alienating parent.
Tina Swithin’s Unscientific Labeling of the Parents
Swithin did not share the method she relied upon to label an unhealthy parent and a healthy parent. In the absence of being informed by a scientifically recognized method to designate each parent, her notions lack merit.
As with all of Swithin’s unscientific notions about alienation, her labeling of the unhealthy and healthy parent is based upon emotional reasoning and numerous logical fallacies.
Licensed Clinicians Rely Upon Science to Make Findings for Domestic Violence and Parental Alienation
Fortunately for children, there are licensed mental health clinicians who are qualified in both parental alienation and in domestic violence. These clinicians have acquired the necessary training, education, and experience to render accurate clinical opinions in these very complex and counterintuitive cases.
These clinicians are informed by the scientific method to identify the unhealthy parent, who is the alienating and abusive parent; and the healthy parent, who is the alienated and protective parent.
These clinicians have numerous times been found by Courts to provide expert testimony that is relevant, informative, probative, and scientific to educate the fact finder in cases of domestic violence and parental alienation.
What Is the Definition of the Scientific Method?
The scientific method is an objective, unemotional, rational systematic process of collecting and evaluating evidence. The process is used to establish facts and truths. The scientific method enables the rendering of accurate opinions regarding the case that is being assessed.
Physician and cognitive scientist, Steven G. Miller, describes a scientific method labeled “Bayes’ rule:
“Bayes’ rule, also known as Bayes’ theorem, is a simple mathematical equation that defines the relationship between a hypothesis and the evidence for that hypothesis. It governs conditional probability—the probability of one thing given another thing—and dictates how to combine and integrate new evidence to update one’s belief in a hypothesis.”
“Clinically, the hypothesis is often a possible diagnosis and the evidence is often a clinical finding. Each piece of clinical information should be combined in accordance with Bayes’ rule. Because it is a mathematical equation, Bayes’ rule implies that clinicians who have the same information should reach the same conclusions.”
The scientific method to make clinical findings requires adherence to several clinical axioms. It further requires avoidance of cognitive errors and logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies and other cognitive or thinking errors.
A belief system that lacks support by neutral, quality evidence.
Speculation devoid of neutral corroboration.
Intuitive judgments based upon gut reactions or feelings.
Opinions based upon personal experiences generalized to the larger population.
Wishful thinking based upon bias.
Delusional thinking.
Logical Fallacies Committed by Swithin
Ipse dixit – “It’s true because I said so”.
Appeal to consequences -concluding that an idea is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable.
Argument by repetition – repeating an argument over and over again in place of supporting evidence.
Appeal to pigheadedness – refusal to accept a well-proven argument due to stubbornness.
Argument from emotive language – substituting facts for words that stir up emotions.
Base rate fallacy – substituting statistical information with irrelevant, irrational information.
Willed ignorance – refusal to change one’s mind when confronted with conflicting information because of a desire to maintain one’s belief system.
What Evidence Is Relied Upon to Distinguish the Alienating (Unhealthy) Parent from the Alienated (Healthy) Parent?
In 2007, research psychologist, Amy Baker, and clinical social worker Paul Fine identified 17-research-validated behaviors commonly employed by alienating parents.
These 17 behaviors have been replicated in numerous follow-up scientific studies and are accepted in the scientific community to identify an alienating parent. The behaviors are not manifested in non-alienating, separating or divorcing parents.
Baker and Fine’s alienating behaviors meet the criteria of domestic violence and domestic violence by proxy – some of the exact same behaviors that Swithin described above in her video.
The alienated parent, by the definition of alienation, cannot have committed behaviors that meet the criterial of clinical significance for child abuse or neglect – as determined by the scientific method.
Alienating Behaviors Meet the Criteria of Domestic Violence & Domestic Violence by Proxy
The Eeny Meeny Alienation Domestic Violence Abuse Wheel is Based Upon the Duluth model of power and control which is relied upon to identify domestic violence perpetrators. The wheel stands for itself.
Steven G. Miller, MD, describes the characteristics of alienating parents in his chapter that I reference above. The following is from Dr. Miller’s chapter:
“While PA certainly is a relationship problem (or set of problems), severe cases are often associated with serious co-morbid psychopathology, particularly on the part of the alienating parent. Therefore, treatment of the relationship problems per se, while necessary, is seldom—if ever—sufficient. Effective intervention invariably requires treatment of both the alienation and any co-morbid condition (such as mental illness or a personality disorder).”
“There is usually co-morbid psychopathology, particularly in the alienating parent. Several authors have observed an increased prevalence of personality disorders, such as antisocial and borderline personality disorders, among severely alienating parents.
“It is therefore not surprising that alienating parents who have antisocial, borderline, or related personality disorders are resistant to treatment for PA, particularly if one understands that such individuals may not react well to ‘looking in the mirror.’”
Alienated parents are attempting to manage one family crisis situation after another. They are frequently the victims of false child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations that require financially expensive and emotionally draining defenses.
Alienated must manage extreme rejecting, hostile, and often physically abusive treatment by their children. They must walk the fine line between having a measured response to each new emotional or physical assault and having to set limits on their child’s antisocial behaviors.
Alienated parents are continually confronted with double bind situations that require extremely difficult decisions and choices.
Tina Swithin acknowledges the family dynamics occurring in parental alienation. She describes in her video a parent who weaponizes a child against the child’s other parent to hurt that parent and to turn the child against that parent.
Swithin is not informed by the scientific method regarding any of her notions about parental alienation. The result of Swithin’s meritless postings about alienation deprive alienated children from receiving timely protection.
Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle (OMB) has been on a 10-year crusade against alienation. One of Swithin’s missions is to annihilate safe and effective reunification programs, such as Turning Points for Families (TPFF).
As with all of Swithin’s illusionary lies about alienation, her attacks on reunification programs lack even a shred of evidence, proof, or reality – beginning with her made-up name “reunification camps.”
Here I respond to three of Swithin’s TikTok videos with her most bizarre lies about reunification programs and the judges who order the programs.
Tina Swithin Made-Up the Term “Reunification Camps”
Tina Swithin has created and popularized the term “reunification camps” when referring to the reunification programs ordered by the Court to remedy the findings of parental alienation.
Swithin is deliberately minimizing and discrediting these programs, which are relied upon by the Courts.
Turning Points for Families is therapeutic vacation. It treats only one family at a time in a home-like setting and with daily participation in local activities of interest and desire to the children.
These are Tina Swithin’s Three Videos With Her Bizarre Lies About “Reunification Camps”
In the following three videos, Swithin makes some of her most bizarre claims about reunification programs. Her intent is to terrorize alienated children who have been referred by the Courts to one of these specialized programs so that they will violently resist the intervention.
Swithin claims that reunification camps strip children to their underwear and watch them go to the bathroom
In this video, Swithin makes a number of false claims that reunification therapists terrorize children in order to gain their compliance and capitulation.
Swithin falsely claims reunification therapists:
Gaslight children until their feelings do not matter.
Call children liars.
Tell children their feelings for their abusive parent have no basis in reality.
Tell children they have made up their truths.
Expose children to gaslighting videos
Threaten children they will never see their loving, healthy family members again if they do not get with the program.
Degrade children by stripping them down to their underwear.
Take the doors off their room and watch them go to the bathroom.
Do everything to intimidate, threaten, and terrorize the children to gain their compliance.
Swithin irresponsibly compares reunification camps to outlawed wildness camps
In this video, Swithin claims that Judges and professionals are in collusion in order to profit off of children.
These are what Swithin falsely claims judges and professionals say and do:
Treat children like property or a retirement account.
Allow parental rights to trump children’s safety.
Force children to have a relationship with an abusive parent.
Judges accept the false claim of alienation because they do not believe a parent would abuse a child.
When the healthy parent protects the child from the abusive parent, they are falsely accused of alienating.
Judge have no domestic violence training and are not educated about it.
Judges do not understand why children would reject an abusive parent.
Reunification therapists tell children their healthy parent is lying to them.
Reunification therapists tell children the abuse never happened and they made it all up.
Reunification camps are like wilderness camps that are being closed down for committing child abuse.
Children are removed from their healthy parent by traumatizing transporters who take them kicking and screaming to be deprogrammed.
There is collusion between judges and professionals to line their pockets at the expense of children.
Until and unless a child admits that the abuse never happened, they are subjected to regiment, exercises, and required to write letters denying any abuse.
Reunification programs are a “barbaric cottage industry” in which professionals make a great deal of money by abusing children.
Swithin claims that judges, litigants’ lawyers, children’s lawyers and reunification therapists collude to make money and send children to reunification camps
In this video, Swithin defames judges and professionals by erroneously claiming they collude with each other to profit off of children.
These are more of Swithin’s false claims about judges and reunification therapists:
Judges are lazy or overburdened so they delegated their job responsibilities to professionals in the alienation industry who are in it for the money.
Other judges are unethical and corrupt. They are involved to make money.
Reunification camps are a scheme to make money like the “cash for kids scandal.” There is no difference.
Judges do not know even domestic violence 101.
Professionals have infiltrated the Court system.
Lawyers have conspired with the same custody evaluators and professionals to achieve the findings they want.
Judges rely upon these corrupt conspirators.
All of these colluders and corrupt judges are “cockroaches” working behind the scenes in the dark.
Swithin Has Made No Attempt to Learn the Truth About Turning Points for Families
Swithin has not contacted me to learn the facts and truth about the TPFF intervention.
Swithin fails to report that TPFF does not use transport teams. 179 children of 185 came to TPFF under the supervision of the alienated parent. The remaining 6 came under the supervision of their alienating parent.
Swithin has not reported the findings of the Courts that the overwhelming number of treatment outcomes at TPFF were positive.
Swithin has not reported that the treatment failures at TPFF were due to the alienating parent’s violation of the court-orders protective separation.
Swithin has not contacted alienated parents for their perspective on the family dynamics and of the TPFF intervention.
Swithin has not made attempts to speak with the overwhelming number of children who have had reconnection success stories at TPFF.
Swithin does not report that every TPFF intervention of the 185 children who participated was reviewed by the Court subsequent to the 4-day intervention. Except for a few cases in which the alienating parent violated the no-contact order, the Court was satisfied with the outcome of the intervention.
Swithin fails to report about the 2021 peer-reviewed research study that found TPFF to be safe and 96.4% effective in reconnecting severely alienated children with their alienated parent.
Activities That Reconnect Alienated Children and Their Alienated Parent At Turning Points for Families
The Memorabilia Intervention Reveals the Positive Truths About the Alienated Parent
Creation of Fun Experiences Revives Prior Positive Connectedness
Conclusion
For more than 10 years, Tina Swithin has been proliferating absurd lies about reunification programs. One of the most outrageous lie is that reunification programs subject children to horrifying experiences that torture and terrorize them.
It is beyond credulity to give credibility to Swithin’s self-serving meritless claims about reunification programs. She has no first-hand knowledge about these programs, and she has made no attempt to gain first-hand knowledge.
The time is long overdue for Swithin be held accountable for her egregious lies about reunification programs that have resulted in profound harm to many alienated children.
Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle (OMB) is an unqualified, self-serving bad actor. She lacks credibility to offer opinions about Family Court Judges and the professionals whom the Courts rely upon to help and protect alienated children.
Swithin has nonetheless been on a 10-year crusade to unjustifiably defame Family Court judges and professionals with ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is a claim that lacks evidence or proof and has no merit.
Among Swithin’s meritless claims is that judges and professionals are abusing children in order to line their pockets. These ad hominem claims have no basis in reality – they are made up by Swithin.
Here you will learn the reality of Swithin’s true self and the reality of her illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court judges and professionals.
The Reality of Tina Swithin’s Own Child-Exploitive and Child-Abusive Behaviors
Swithin presents a false self that she is a protector and advocate of children.
Tina Swithin engages in exploitive, child-abusive behaviors that are profoundly harmful to alienated children. Evidence of Swithin’s exploitive behaviors are revealed in her numerous, transparent online social media posts.
Not surprisingly, Swithin seems clueless – or insensitively disregards – that she is telegraphing her child-exploitive behaviors in her posts.
Here are examples of Swithin’s child-exploitive and child-abusive behaviors:
Swithin interferes with alienated children’s Court-ordered reunification therapy.
Swithin’s social media posts reveal the faces and identities of minor alienated children (without consent from their legal parent).
Swithin recruits minor, alienated children to come forward and tell their falsified reunification stories (counseled by Swithin and without consent from their legal parent).
Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claims About Family Court Judges Are Projections of Her Exploitation of Children
Swithin is projecting her child-abusive and profit-seeking behaviors onto dedicated Family Court judges and professionals.
Projection is a psychological defense mechanism that occurs when one attributes to another one’s own limitations, attitudes, traits, opinions, mistakes, flaws, behaviors, and so on.
Projection typically originates on an unconscious level and helps us cope with life’s exigencies and serious difficulties. Projection is initially understandable – but only until its unconscious operation is brought to the person’s attention.
When someone persists in projecting behaviors after the projection has been brought to the person’s attention, the projective behaviors are conscious and deliberate. Under these conditions, projection is not understandable nor acceptable.
Swithin’s social media posts are a stream of illusionary ad hominem claims upon our Family Court judges and upon dedicated professionals who work to help and protect alienated children.
Swithin falsely claims that judges and professionals deliberately harm children by giving custody to an abusive parent, are purposefully acting against the child’s best interests, and are motivated exclusively by financial profit.
Swithin does not provide a shred of evidence for her claims. Swithin’s claims are not based in reality. Swithin’s claims are projections her illusions in support of her self-interest and financial self-aggrandizement.
Swithin’s illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court Judges are based entirely upon the “ipse dixit” logical fallacy – “It is true because I said so.”
Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claim that Judges Give Children to Their Abusive Parents
During her ten year crusade against the Family Court system, Swithin has repeatedly made the illusionary claim that judges intentionally transfer children from a protective parent to an abusive parent. Swithin fails to back her claim with credible evidence.
Swithin fails to provide evidence of a single alienation case in which the Court had made a finding of abuse against the parent to whom the Court subsequently transferred custody.
Before a child abuse allegation can have merit, the following minimum criteria must be met:
Understanding of the total clinical picture.
Consideration of the findings of the Court regarding the abuse allegation and the family dynamics.
The perspective of both parents regarding the abuse allegation and the family dynamics.
Ruling out for influence and programming of the child.
Relying upon the scientific method to find for the abuse.
None of Swithin’s posts about the alienation cases she criticizes contain even one of the above criterion let alone all these necessary criterion.
On the other hand, Courts have removed custody from alienating parents because they are committing child psychological abuse, domestic violence, and domestic violence by proxy of alienated children.
Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claim That Family Court Judges Take Kickbacks From Professionals
Swithin’s illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court judges and professionals are motivated by the need and desire for sensationalism. Her claims are not motivated by child protection.
Swithin accuses Family Court judges of taking kickbacks from professionals in the fictitious “alienation industry.” Swithin has manufactured this illusionary entity.
Swithin spreads the illusionary ad hominem claim that Family Court judges have entered into a conspiracy with professionals. Swithin claims that the purpose of the conspiracy is to line the pockets of judges and professionals.
These outrageously false claims lack proof or evidence. These are more of Swithin’s illusionary claims against those who work to protect alienated children.
Swithin fails to provide a shred of evidence for her conspiracy illusion because there can be no evidence for an illusion. Swithin is instead projecting onto judges and professionals her own behaviors to aggrandize her pockets.
In the video below, Swithin accuses Family Courts of engaging in the “human trafficking of children.”
Video claiming Family Courts engage in “human trafficking of children”
In the below video, Swithin defames Family Court judges by accusing them of engaging in “human trafficking of children” by sending them to so-called “reunification camps. Swithin made up the label up “reunification camps” to smear the safe and effective reunification programs relied upon Courts to remedy the abuse of parental alienation.
In this video, Swithin shows of a video of children hysterically screaming and violently resisting being taken to Swithin’s “reunification “camps. Swithin fails to reveal that she had counseled how the children should behave.
Swithin further shows me reporting on the truth about my reunification “therapeutic vacation” program known as Turning Points for Families (TPFF). Swithin has absolutely no first hand knowledge about the TPFF program but nonetheless accuses me in this video of reporting inaccurately about its safety and effectiveness.
Here Swithin claims Family Courts are weaponized against Mothers:
Tina Swithin says Family Courts are weaponized against Mothers
In this OMB post about Family Courts, Swithin claims, “My right as a mother to protect my children is overshadowed by a flawed system”:
1/23/2024 OBM website post: “Our system [Family Court System] needs to change. Our system needs to start protecting our children….I also know that the system tells me that I will be the one violating court orders. What I do know: The system that claims it protects my children is broken. My right as a mother to protect my children is overshadowed by a flawed system.”
Here Swithin claims Family Courts are an “Institutional betrayal”:
Swithin Labels Family Courts as “Institutional Betrayal”
Swithin claims in the video below, “The family court system is abusive” and she is recruiting to publicize stories of uncorroborated Family Court failures. Swithin claims, “There is a disconnect between family court and other judicial systems. There is no regulation or checks and balances.”
Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claims About Reunification Therapists
Swithin hypocritically projects her own lack of qualifications upon licensed reunification therapists. She claims reunification therapists are money-hungry, unaccountable, and unregulated for their therapeutic services. Nothing could be further from reality.
The truth about reunification therapists:
Reunification therapists are licensed mental health clinicians by their state licensing boards and must thereby comply with their state’s ethical and treatment standards.
Reunification therapists are accountable to the Courts that had appointed them to provide reunification services.
Reunification therapists are providing a highly specialized, highly successful, and highly sought reunification service.
Acquiring the specialized skills to provide safe and effective reunification therapy requires many years of intensive training, education, and experience.
Being exceptionally qualified professionals, reunification therapists are entitled to be compensated commensurate with the time, effort, and expense they had invested to acquire the expertise to successfully provide reunification therapy.
Tina Swithin’s Projections onto Reunification Therapists of Her Unqualified Standing in Parental Alienation Cases
Swithin’s pursuit of sensationalism lavishly lines her pockets and increases the number of her admirers. Follow her numerous online posts that advertise her unlicensed and unregulated “fee for service” counseling services.
Tina Swithin herself is unlicensed and unaccountable for the “fee for service” counseling she offers and about which she noticeably posts. These posts are more of Swithin’s projections onto therapists of false claims of being money-grabbers.
I barely scratched the surface in researching the price tags that Swithin places on her unlicensed and unaccountable “fee for service”counseling.
Swithin’s “fee for service” counseling includes, but are not limited to, divorce coach, one on one consulting services for parental alienation, Family Court Advocate to defend against Family Court Abuses, Coffee with Tina counseling services, Advice offered in her books for sale, and more.
Swithin claims to service clients all over the world. Take note:
Tina Swithin advertises for clients worldwide
Swithin is projecting onto judges and professional her own greedy behaviors to line her pockets at the expense of the alienated children she is exploiting.
Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Distortions of the Courts’ Findings in Alienation Cases
Swithin perpetuates her ad hominem attacks upon judges by distorting and misrepresenting the Court’s findings and rulings.
Swithin would instantly “go out of business” if the Court’s findings and complete record were made public in the alienation cases she rails about. This is why Swithin never posts the Court’s complete record.
In the rare situation in which Swithin posts Court transcripts, it is when she has selectively chosen one-sided and uncorroborated information in order to mislead.
Swithin fails to post the Court’s finding of alienation. Swithin does not post the Court’s finding that the alienating parent was found to be committing child abuse. Swithin does not post the Court’s finding that the alienated parent is a safe, protective parent.
The Inevitable and Unenviable Dilemma for Family Court Judges
Family Court judges must weigh the evidence and testimonies that are presented to the Court by the witnesses: the parties themselves, the parties’ personal witnesses, the experts whom the Court has appointed, the experts who have been hired by one of the parties, and the other professionals in the case.
Courts generally have held protracted hearings and trials on alienation cases spanning many years. Some of my cases had lasted 10 years and even longer. In these cases, Courts have heard and considered a massive amount of evidence and testimonies. No stone had been left unturned.
The testimony that the Court must consider is only as good as the knowledge, skills, and experiences of the experts providing testimony and the accuracy of the other witnesses’ testimonies.
Steven G. Miller, MD – physician, cognitive scientist, and alienation specialist – repeatedly pointed out that alienation is one of the most -if not the most – complex and counterintuitive clinical conditions he has ever encountered in both medicine and in mental health.
Judges who oversee an alienation case have an incredibly difficult job sorting out exceedingly contradicting testimonies from the parties themselves, from their lay and fact witnesses, and from the experts.
Evidence is frequently contradictory and subject to widely divergent interpretation by the experts.
It is been my experience in my more than 1000 expert testimonies, and from my several thousand forensic document reviews, that judges diligently endeavor to sort out all the contradictory evidence and testimonies so as to make decisions in the best interests of the child.
Judges are human, so they of course make mistakes and some may have biases like everyone else. The judicial system is not perfect. But what I have learned from my experiences in so many alienation trials is that judges tend to be cautious in their rulings.
When judges do make mistakes in an alienation case, it is usually by missing or not understanding how truly abusive alienation is to the child. Decisions in these situations tend to give more recognition to the position of the alienating parent.
They do not capriciously remove children from the alienating parent – the parent with whom the child appears to be healthily bonded but is not.
Judges instead typically order one traditional reunification intervention after another with the child remaining in the care and custody of the alienating parent.
It is generally only after the failure multiple traditional reunification interventions that Courts order one of the more intensive programs. At that point, the Court orders the protective separation of the child from the unremitting abusive alienating parent.
The consequence of Swithin’s illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court Judges and reunification therapists is profoundly harmful to alienated children.
Some judges have been intimidated by her attacks and have consequently failed to do a protective removal of severely alienated children from their unrelenting, abusive alienating parent. The child abuse is thereby being perpetuated.
Other judges have failed to order one of the safe and effective intensive reunification programs that Swithin also defames with illusionary claims.
The time is long overdue to hold Swithin accountable for her meritless, illusionary claims about the overwhelming number of dedicated Family Court judges who diligently endeavor to render decisions in the best interest of the child.
