Category: Uncategorized

Dr. Steven Miller was deeply concerned about the profound harm to children from parental alienation. He devoted the last 20+ years of his life as a crusader against it.

Dr. Miller publicized about parental alienation and educated lawyers and clinicians about how to litigate and diagnose it. Dr. Miller helped alienated parents gather the evidence they need to win their alienation cases.

Here you will learn about Dr. Miller’s significant contributions to understanding and combatting parental alienation.

Who Was Steven G. Miller, MD?

In Dr. Miller’s own words:

I hold degrees in Psychology and Medicine from Brown University. I did my residency training at Brown University and Harvard University. For 30 years I was a faculty member at Harvard Medical School.

I specialize in clinical reasoning, clinical problem-solving, and clinical decision-making. My areas of special expertise include decision-making under uncertainty and how cognitive errors lead to professional errors.

I specialize in conditional probability (that is, the probability of one thing given another thing. An example of conditional probability is the probability that a child is alienated given that the child displays Gardner’s manifestations of an alienated child.

I have directed several hundred continuing education courses for physicians and other clinicians and have presented over 1000 lectures on professional reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making.

I directed a forensic medical practice for more than 40 years and received requests from around the country to undertake forensic medical evaluations.

Scientific Method is Required to Assess for Parental Alienation

Dr. Miller’s greatest contribution to the field of parental alienation – among several vital contributions – is how to use the scientific method to make a finding of alienation.

The scientific method answers the question of the probability of an event (A) given the presence of evidence for or against it (B).

Dr. Miller mentored his colleagues about how to determine the probability of alienation (A) given the presence of (B): Gardner’s symptoms in the child, alienating behaviors in a parent, and the absence of child abuse or serious neglect on the part of a rejected parent.

The scientific method results in this: when qualified evaluators are presented with the same evidence in a case of a child’s rejection of a parent, all evaluators will find for the same cause of the rejection.

There are three scientifically recognized plausible causes (or hypotheses) to explain a child’s rejection of a parent – alienation, estrangement, and a hybrid.

FURTHER READING: Clinical Reasoning and Decision Making in Cases of Child Alignment

Parental Alienation Is Complex & Counterintuitive – It Requires Specialized Skills

In Dr. Miller’s own words:

Such cases are not for the novice. Cases of severe alienation often exceed the expertise of highly skilled practitioners unless their special expertise includes treatment of severe child alignment, treatment of severe mental illness, and treatment of severe personality disorders – on the part of the alienating parent.

Treatment of all three may be necessary to achieve a good outcome or even to prevent catastrophic deterioration.

Otherwise, 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 good news is that the errors tend to be predictable and, at least in theory, preventable. The bad news is that some of the most serious and common errors arise from fundamental flaws in human thinking that are deeply ingrained.

These are “hard-wired” as a result of natural selection and are notoriously difficult to eradicate or even modify. Since one can seldom correct a problem one does not recognize, it is important for clinicians to be aware of these limitations and pitfalls.

Clinicians who deal with PA may be particularly susceptible to such errors because of the emotional and complex nature of the subject.

Such errors can be divided into two groups: cognitive errors and clinical errors. Cognitive errors are thinking errors. They often reflect deep-rooted tendencies for humans to reason in erroneous ways.

Clinical errors are deviations from good clinical practice. Many clinical errors arise because of cognitive errors, others because of insufficient information, others because of inadequate understanding of scientific principles.

Alienating Parents Present With the 4-Cs

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

Alienating parents tend to present well. As a rule, alienating parents present with the Four C’s. They are cool, calm, charming, and convincing.

That is because effective alienators tend to be master manipulators who are highly skilled at mimicking normal behavior and managing impressions – especially initial impressions.

These traits are usually related to an underlying personality disorder, typically of the borderline, narcissistic, and/or antisocial types.

LEARN MORE: The Four C’s – Unmasking the Facade of Alienating Parents

Alienated Parents May Present with the 4-As

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

Alienated parents are trauma victims due to the alienation. They have post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or something very much like it. Consequently, they may present with the four A’s – they tend to be anxious, agitated, angry, and afraid.

Alienated parents are attempting to manage one horrific family crisis after another. They are rarely successful at this. They are often attacked by professionals who fail to recognize the counterintuitive issues in alienation.

When non-specialists attribute negative traits to alienated parents, they are likely committing the “fundamental attribution error.” This error means to conclude that behaviors are dispositional when in fact they are situational, having been caused by the alienation.

Non-specialists often get alienation cases backwards. They erroneously conclude that the alienating parent is the competent parent and the alienated parent incompetent.

Even worse, non-specialists erroneously conclude that the alienating parent is a protective parent and the alienated parent to be an abusive parent.

The result is likely to be catastrophic unless a judge or other more sophisticated observer recognizes and corrects it.

FUTHER READING: Parental Alienation – the Four A’s That Lead to False Accusations

Children Typically Align with Abusive Parents

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

Children tend to bond with an abusive parent. The greater the abuse, the greater is the child’s bonding with the abusive parent and the stronger are the child’s attachment efforts.

Some find it implausible that children bond to an abusive parent. However this counterintuitive behavior is well-validated by child development research and flows logically from what we have learned from abused and neglected foster children.

Children are genetically wired to cling to their parents—even to cling to abusive parents whom they fear may leave or abandon them. It is a child’s instinct for survival that impels them to bond to an abusive parent.

When confronted with a case in which a child is strongly aligned with one parent and has rejected the other parent, and this is occurring in the absence of abuse or severe neglect, there is a high probability that the parent to whom the child is bonded is an alienating parent.

Accordingly, parental alienation should be a leading hypothesis, if not the leading hypothesis, in such cases.

FURTHER READING: Assessment of the Attitudes and Behaviors of Moderately to Severely Physically Abused Children

Pathological Enmeshment Between the Alienating Parent and Child

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

Clinicians who do not specialize in this area often mistake pathological enmeshment for healthy bonding. Pathological enmeshment is a family dynamic in which a parent essentially engulfs a child.

The enmeshed parent typically adultifies or parentifies the enmeshed child. Alternatively, the enmeshed parent may seek to keep the child dependent by infantilizing the child – treating the child as younger than his or her age.

Either way, the enmeshed parent treats the child in a way that is not age-appropriate.

By definition, this involves severe boundary violations of the child by the parent to the point that the parent not only violates the child’s boundaries, but erases them—obliterates them. Enmeshment is very damaging to a child, and the damage is often permanent.

Tragically, in cases of PA, pathological enmeshment is mistaken for healthy, empathetic bonding by the alienating parent. The alienating parent and child are too close— pathologically and dangerously close.

Enmeshment is anything but healthy – it is a potentially life-threatening psychiatric emergency. Similarly, pathological enmeshment does not indicate empathy. It represents a cascade of severe boundary violations and is the extreme opposite of empathy.

Children Rarely Reject a Parent Absent a Powerful Alienating Influence

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

 It is counter-instinctual for a child to reject a parent. Children will almost never do anything counter-instinctual unless they are induced to do so by a third party. Children will therefore rarely – if ever – reject a non-abusive parent.

Evaluators and other professionals need to understand that: (1) in the absence of abuse or very significant neglect by a rejected parent and (2) in the presence of multiple signs of alienation in the child, most cases of severe alignment are due to alienation—not estrangement.

The Pathology of Severe Parental Alienation

In Dr. Miller’s own words:

Severe cases tend to be clinical in a medical sense of the word—the underlying psychopathology is often associated with severe cognitive distortions (including shared delusions and/or other psychotic or quasi-psychotic thinking), profound emotional dysregulation, and extreme or bizarre behavior – on the part of the alienating parent and child.

Severe cases are often associated with serious co-morbid psychopathology, particu- larly on the part of the alienating parent. Therefore, treatment of the relation- ship 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).

If clinicians fail to consider the total clinical picture—including any underlying psychopathology—they may fail to appreciate the severity and complexity of the situation. That, in turn, has major implications for diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and outcome.

Alienating Parents Are Committing Child Abuse – The Treatment Priority Is Child Protection

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

It is common for the Courts and professionals to ignore or downplay the abuse issues in parental alienation. They instead focus on the child’s relationship with the rejected parent.

Instead of taking appropriate measures to ensure the child’s safety, the Court orders “reunification therapy.” This is problematic for many reasons, including the fact that, in moderate or severe cases, traditional reunification therapies virtually never work.

One of the oldest heuristics in medicine is primum non nocere—Latin for “first, to do no harm.” It would be difficult to find a more common yet egregious violation of this heuristic than an order for what amounts to traditional “reunification therapy” for PA.

Not only are such therapies known to be ineffective, they are known to be potentially harmful.

Failure of Traditional Reunification Therapy to Remedy Parental Alienation

In Dr. Miller’s Own Words:

Traditional Reunification therapies are of little, if any, benefit in regard to treating PA. These therapies usually make the situation worse, often catastrophically worse. Such therapies waste time that could be used to provide effective interventions.

Traditional therapies tend to “validate” the child’s feelings, encourage the child to express grievances, and give the child some “control” or choice while advising the rejected parent to listen, empathize, validate, and apologize (or even to “find something to apologize for”).

This seemingly logical but misguided approach runs rampant in some quarters where, referring to the parents, it is common to claim, “Both parties always participate.” In effect, this further empowers the already over-empowered child, and further disempowers the already disempowered parent.

This is not only likely to be futile, but the exact opposite of what effective therapies do. 

Effective therapies disempower the over-empowered child and re-empower the disempowered rejected parent. And this is only one major difference between effective and traditional therapies—there are more than a dozen.

Seen in this light, traditional therapies are contraindicated except, perhaps, as a brief therapeutic trial (for a few weeks, not a few months) if and only if the diagnosis is unclear.

Lay readers should note that the word contraindicated does not mean “not indicated.” It means forbidden. If a patient is allergic to penicillin, then penicillin is contraindicated. In the face of a penicillin allergy, it would not be proper to prescribe penicillin to see what happens. 

Specialized reunification therapies employ substantially different approaches and techniques from those of traditional therapies.

FURTHER READING: Why Traditional Therapy Fails in Severe Parental Alienation

How Should Parental Alienation Cases Be Treated?

In Dr. Miller’s own words:

It is in the child’s best interest regarding major life decisions to be made by those who are qualified to make those decision. This certainly applies to custody, parental access, and child protection.

Since PA is exceedingly counterintuitive, it is absolutely essential for those who deal with PA to have a deep understanding of the counterintuitive issues. Those who attempt to manage such cases using intuition—even professional intuition—instead of a deep knowledge of the science, are likely to make catastrophic errors.

Clinicians who attempt to manage them without adequate skills are likely to find themselves presiding over a cascade of clinical and psychosocial disasters.

At present, such errors run rampant in both the mental health and legal arenas. At a minimum, adequate expertise requires highly sophisticated pattern recognition for alienation.

FURTHER READING: Turning Points for Families – Healing for Parental Alienation

Conclusion

Dr. Steven G. Miller was my friend, colleague, mentor, advisor, and guru. Steve is missed for his wisdom, insight, dedication, and self-sacrifices.

Dr. Miller’s legacy remains life and well and will continue until parental alienation has been eradicated.

Parental alienation harms an estimated 250,000 children a year in the United States alone. Thousands more are harmed worldwide.

The mental health and judicial communities are unforgivably delinquent in properly addressing parental alienation cases. Parental alienation is either grossly minimized or utterly ignored by some professionals who are charged with protecting children.

Our current situation for addressing parental alienation is tragic for alienated children because of the profound harm. The tragedy of parental alienation is that it is easily recognized, easily remedied, and easily preventable by an alienation specialist.

The purpose of this article to provide information to assist the professionals in the Family Court and mental health systems to achieve early diagnosis and implement timely remedy for parental alienation.

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.

The alienating parent and brainwashed alienated child often falsely accuse the alienated parent of having committed child abuse and domestic violence.

These false allegations are examples of the alienating parent’s projections of their abusive behaviors onto the alienated parent and onto the professionals who recognize the alienation.

Minor, dependent children are unable to resist their alienating parent’s determined programming and manipulation. Alienated children eventually mimic the alienation narrative that their alienating parent had instilled in them and continuously reinforces.

After being subjected to one escalating version after another with the alienation narrative, alienated children add their own contributions. They spontaneously malign, denigrate, defy, and reject their alienated parent.

If timely effective remedy is delayed or precluded, alienated children will come to accept the false alienation narrative as truths. This is one reason they appear so credible even when reporting the most egregious lies about their alienated parent.

Alienated children eventually succumb to their alienating parent’s coercive, determined programming and manipulation. They make their alienated parent feel like a persona-non-grata.

FURTHER READING: What Is Parental Alienation & Why It Is Missed by Professionals

The Alienating Parent – Mild, Moderate, or Severe?

Alienating parents are on a continuum from mild to moderate to severe. They are assessed for severity by their awareness of what they doing and for their intentional, calculated determination to exclude the alienated parent from any involvement in their children’s lives.

Mild alienating parents may not consciously or aggressively engage in alienating behaviors. But by the time a case reaches the point of contentious custody litigation, they can no longer claim ignorance of what they are doing.

If it is not their intention to alienate, they will relinquish their alienating parents as soon their behaviors are called to their attention. If they persist in their alienating behaviors despite being so alerted, they have marched into the moderate category.

Mild alienators generally abide by Court orders for the alienated parent’s time and for joint decision making. They do not, however, go out of their way to co-parent, compromise, or cooperate in agreeing to exceptions – unless it benefits them.

Moderate alienating parents know exactly what they are doing. Their goal is to selfishly keep their children primarily to themselves. They allow the alienated parent modest participation in their child’s life – for example, permitting limited or supervised contact with their children.

Moderate alienators do not make it easy for the alienated parent to participate in decision making and legal matters affecting their children. They will update the alienated parent with major developments and emergencies in their children’s lives but usually not normal child development issues.

Severe alienating parents have a mission in life to drive the alienated parent from any involvement with their children. They seek to obtain legal orders denying visitation and decision making to the alienated parent – for no justifiable reason.

They freely violate the alienated parent’s Court-ordered parenting time. They make unilateral decisions for their children despite joint legal custody. They do not provide routine or emergency updates on their child’s developments – until under a contempt order.

Severe alienators commonly make false child abuse and domestic violence allegations against the alienated parent. They do so purposely, knowing that these allegations frighten the Court and invariably result in elimination of the alienated parent’s contacts with their children while the abuse allegation is being investigated.

Alienating Behaviors Meet the Criteria of Domestic Violence and Domestic Violence by Proxy

It is anti-instinctual for a child to reject a parent – even an abusive parent. I learned this in my work with 3000 abused and neglected foster children. Not a single foster child rejected a parent. It is implausible and inconceivable for children to autonomously reject a loving, protective parent.

Alienating parents employ extreme coercive control manipulations to force their children to override their powerful instinct to have and need their loving and protective alienated parent.

Alienating behaviors meet the standard definition of child psychological abuse, domestic violence, and domestic violence by proxy.

FURTHER READING: Alienating Behaviors – Domestic Violence Upon the Child

Parental Alienation Dynamics Are in the DSM-5-TR

The dynamics occurring in parental alienation meet the criteria of several family relationship problems and mental health disorders documented in the DSM-5-TR. They are:

1. Child Psychological Abuse
2. Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress (CAPRD)
3. Parent-Child Relational Problem
4. Domestic Violence
5. Domestic Violence by Proxy
6. Child or Adolescent Antisocial Behavior
7. Delusional Disorder
8. Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another

Although the DSM-5 task force did not accept PAS into the manual, it was NOT because the task force did not deem PAS to be a legitimate syndrome. The task force elected not to stigmatize the child with a diagnosis and to avoid signaling only the child for treatment.

The task force, instead, appropriately targeted the entire family system for treatment. They accomplished this by identifying family interactions occurring in parental alienation as examples of other conditions requiring clinical attention.

Parental alienation was cited by its label in a 2015 peer-reviewed article as an example of the DSM-5 family relational problem,”Child affected by parental relationship distress (CAPRD).”

The article was written by child psychiatrist Willam Bernet and two child psychiatrists, Marianne Walmboldt and William Narrow, who had contributed to the relational section of the DSM-5.

What Is Parental Alienation Syndrome and Is It the Same as Parental Alienation?

Parental Alienation (PA) and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) are not exactly the same although they share characteristics. Parental alienation focuses on a constellation of family relationship problems.

By definition, a syndrome can apply only to an individual. PAS focuses on the child.

The clinical presentation of PAS children is characterized by Gardner’s 8 symptoms that he observed to be manifested when a child unreasonably rejects a parent due to the other parent’s behaviors.

The symptoms are highly specific for alienated children – meaning that they do not appear in any other group of children.

The common characteristics of PAS and PA are the context of adversarial custody proceedings and the causal connection between the alienating parent’s behaviors and the symptoms in the child.

Parental Alienation Syndrome Is a Legitimate Syndrome

Dr. Gardner’s eight symptoms of an alienated child qualify as a syndrome. When you see one of the symptoms in the context of adversarial custody, you tend to see all or most of the symptoms. The following is the DSM-5 definition of a syndrome:

“A grouping of signs and symptoms, based on their frequent co-occurrence that may suggest a common underlying pathogenesis, course, familial pattern, or treatment selection.” (p.830)

The 8 symptoms are highly sensitive and specific for an alienated children – meaning they have an exceedingly low error rate. They are not manifested by non-alienated children of divorce nor by abused or neglected children.

No scientific study has been produced to show that Gardner’s 8 symptoms appear in any other group of children.

FURTHER READING: Parental Alienation Syndrome Is a Legitimate Syndrome

Signs of Parental Alienation – Gardner’s 8 Manifestations

Gardner’s eight manifestations are relied upon in the scientific community to identify an alienated child. Not all manifestations are required although the first two are almost surely necessary.

A finding for an alienated child does not depend upon the number of manifestations present. The finding depends upon how severely and intensely the child defames, defies, resists, and rejects the alienated parent – which is what the manifestation “denigration” is all about.

Denigration is an exceedingly severe and intense manifestation because it involves either contact refusal in most or all situations; or it involves maltreatment of the alienated parent should there there be contact.

Because of the denigration symptom, alienated children make their alienated parent feel like a “persona non grata.”

The second manifestation that is almost surely needed is “weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for the denigration”.

This symptom reveals the child’s unbelievable, irrational, and bizarre reasons for rejecting the alienated parent – reasons for which no uninfluenced child would ever reject a parent.

This manifestation is highly suggestive of alienation because it supports the lack of bona fide abuse and neglect on the part of the alienated parent. By definition, a case cannot be alienation if the rejected parent is not a safe parent.

Gardner makes it clear that a finding of an alienated child includes looking for alienating behaviors on the part of a parent.

But consider this: the manifestation, itself, of borrowed scenarios implies influence and programming by an alienating parent. Borrowed scenarios means that the child reports events that could not have been obtained through first knowledge, and the child uses language and concepts beyond the child’s cognitive development.

Another fact to consider: the manifestations, when taken in a cluster, have an exceedingly low known error rate. This means that they have an exceedingly low false positive rate for identifying a child who is not alienated.

In fact cognitive scientist and physician, Steven G. Miller, determined that the manifestations have an error rate of <1%.

To use a medical analogy: if a biopsy comes back positive for cancer, the oncologist would not require the patient to get an X-ray or some other test for the sole purpose of confirming the biopsy’s cancer finding.

My evidence based practice confirms the low error rate of Gardner’s 8 manifestations to identify alienated children.

I have consistently observed the manifestations in more than 800 alienated children with whom I directly worked. I further observed the manifestations in approximately 2000 alienated children whose files I reviewed.

I did not observe a single manifestation – let alone a cluster of them – in any of the 3000 abused and neglected foster children with whom I had worked. If non-alienated children were to manifest these symptoms surely I would have expected to see them in those 3000 foster children.

I further did not see any of the manifestations in the 1000 non-alienated children of divorce with whom I directly treated.

FURTHER READING: Manifestations of Alienated Children – As Seen by an Expert

Signs of Parental Alienation – 17 Parental Alienating Behaviors

Alienating parents utilize 17 research-validated alienating behaviors that were identified by Baker and Fine. These behaviors are relied upon in the scientific community to identify an alienating parent and to assess the parent for severity.

The 17 alienating behaviors were found by numerous replicated studies to have an exceedingly low error rate. Not all 17 behaviors are required to identify an alienating parent. Identification is determined by the severity and the effectiveness of the behaviors utilized.

Of the approximate 400 alienating parents with whom I directly worked, all alienating parents utilized most – if not all – of the 17 alienating behaviors. None of the 400 alienated parents utilized any alienating behaviors.

Of the 1000+ severely alienating parents whose files I reviewed, all of these severely alienating parents utilized most, if not all, of the alienating behaviors. None of the 1000+ alienated parents utilized any alienating behaviors.

FURTHER READING: Parental Alienating Behaviors Discussed by an Expert

Signs of Parental Alienation – Summary

The signs of parental alienation are reflected in the following three factors:

• Gardner’s eight manifestations of an alienated child
• Baker and Fine’s 17 research validated alienating behaviors
• Absence of abuse or neglect by the alienated parent as determined by the scientific method to make clinical findings.

Parental Alienation Does Not Target Mothers

Alienated mothers make up 50% of my caseload and that of my colleagues. We all vigorously advocate for alienated mothers’ parental rights in their legal proceedings against alienating fathers.

I share the pain of the alienated mothers with whom I work. They feel abandoned DV groups in their desperate efforts to save their alienated sons. Alienated mothers are being subjected to physical abuse by their alienated sons, who are instigated by their alienating fathers.

Many of these physical assaults have resulted in alienated mothers needing to seek emergency medical treatment.

Abuse of alienated mothers by their alienated sons – in addition to the pain from being alienated from their children – is being ignored by DV groups. Alienated mothers are incredulous and exceedingly disappointed and frustrated.

They fear for the future of their sons. The fear that without timely intervention, their sons will grow up to be the next generation of abusers of women. At this irrational point, DV groups will first very belatedly jump in with assistance and protection.

It seems to me that preventive intervention, while these boys are still in their youths, is the treatment intervention of choice. The current situation is tragic for alienated mothers and their alienated sons.

Conclusion

Any distraction about whether or not parental alienation exists perpetuates the horrific child abuse occurring in parental alienation.

No one can credibly argue that, in the entire history of custody legal proceedings, there was not a single case in which a parent had turned a child against the other parent.

This being a fact, our Family Courts should properly examine the evidence in the case before it when parental alienation is claimed.

Reunification therapy is a form of family therapy that is widely relied upon by Courts to remedy the child abuse that occurs in parental alienation cases.

Here you will learn the criteria by which to judge a successful reunification intervention.

What is Reunification Therapy?

Reunification therapy is a specialized form of family therapy designed to heal a relationship between a child and an unjustifiably rejected parent.

Effective reunification therapists must possess the following specialized skills:

• A mental health license
• Strong foundation in family therapy
• Extensive education, training, and experience in alienation
• Ongoing continuing education in alienation
• Ongoing collaboration with recognized experts in alienation
• Knowledge of the Scientific Method to Make Clinical Findings
• Strong pattern recognition for alienated children & alienating parents
• Substantial knowledge of pathological enmeshment
• Substantial knowledge of borderline, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders
• Substantial knowledge of the Counterintuitive Issues in Alienation: Attention Non-Specialists
• Willingness, capability, and expertise to testify in Court about clinical findings and recommendations.

Without having acquired these highly specialized skills, a reunification therapist will invariably provide an ineffective and harmful intervention which exacerbates the child abuse.

FURTHER READING: How to Select an Expert in Parental Alienation

When Is Reunification Therapy Appropriate?

Reunification therapy is appropriate after the Court makes a finding of child abuse against the alienating parent. The abuse finding is based upon the alienating parent’s coercive manipulation of the child to unjustifiably reject the other parent.

Extreme coercion, which meets the criteria of domestic violence, is used to manipulate children to override their powerful instinct to have and need a parent.

The extreme child abuse occurring in alienation can be remedied only by highly specialized treatment provided in intensive reunification programs.

FURTHER READING: The Crucial Role of Intensive Reunification Therapy for Severely Alienated Children

Why Is Turning Points for Families Relied Upon by the Courts?

The Turning Points for Families (TPFF) intervention is relied upon by Courts because it is highly effective in remedying the child abuse occurring in severe parental alienation.

My Qualifications

I acquired the skills to help children and treat child abuse throughout my 50+ years of professional experience working with 5000 children and their families in a variety of settings.

I spent the first 24 years of my career helping and protecting 3000 children in New York’s Foster Care System. These children were found by the Court to have been abused and neglected by their parents.

These professional experiences prepared me to effectively help children and treat the child abuse occurring in parental alienation – psychological abuse, domestic violence, and domestic violence by proxy.

FURTHER READING: Alienating Behaviors – Domestic Violence Upon the Child

The Turning Points for Families Program

TPFF specializes in the intensive interventions required to effectively remedy severe parental alienation. These intensive interventions are not provided in traditional reunification therapy, which is not appropriate to treat severe cases of parental alienation.

During the TPFF intervention, alienated children live with their alienated parent and remain protectively separated – as per the Court order – from their alienating parent.

The protective separation prevents alienating parents from interfering with and sabotaging the therapy. Alienated children are further freed from the loyalty conflict and therefore do not fear reprisals by their alienating parent for their cooperation with the TPFF intervention.

The loyalty conflict is imposed by alienating parents upon their children. The loyalty conflict requires children to relinquish their love and need for their alienating parent as the price to pay for their alienating parent’s love and approval.

TPFF is designed to jump-start the reconnection between severely alienated children and their alienated parent. TPFF provides therapy for a minimum of 8 hours per day, every day for 4 consecutive days.

TPFF creates an environment in which alienated parents, children, and extended family reconnect with each other through corrective experiences – utilizing memorabilia of their prior loving relationship and through participation in child-appropriate activities.

TPFF maximizes use of the most effective antidote to alienation: Contact between the alienated child and alienated parent.

LEARN MORE: Turning Points for Families – Healing for Parental Alienation

When is Reunification Therapy Not Appropriate?

Traditional reunification therapy is not appropriate for severe parental alienation. When children are severely alienated, traditional reunification therapy is contraindicated – meaning forbidden.

Traditional reunification therapy is “therapy light” when compared to intensive reunification programs such as TPFF.

In traditional reunification therapy, alienated children remain in the care of their alienating parent. During this unfettered contact with their children, alienating parents intensify the alienation programming – thereby extending and exacerbating the child abuse.

Traditional reunification therapists overlook alienating parents’ purpose for intensifying the alienation programming, which is to counter any progress towards reunification that may be occurring in the therapy session.

What therapist can validly claim that the influence over children by their alienating parent for about 157 hours a week can be overcome by only a few hours of therapy per week?

When alienated children are allowed to remain in their alienating parent’s care during the intervention, alienated parents are deprived of necessary contact with their children – contact being the greatest antidote to the alienation.

Already disempowered alienated parents are further disempowered by traditional reunification therapists, who make no effort to maximize their contact with their children. It would surely be a powerful positive message for alienated children about their alienated parent if the reunification therapist made increased contact a treatment priority.

In traditional reunification therapy, treatment sessions typically last only an hour, which is far too short to accomplish anything meaningful. The length of time between therapy sessions is too long – generally a week or more. Should even minimal progress have occurred in a session, it cannot be sustained during the length of time between traditional reunification sessions.

Traditional reunification therapy relies primarily upon “talk therapy” to produce desired progress towards reunification. Corrective interactions and new experiences play a minimal role at best – if at all.

“Talk therapy” is not an effective intervention for alienated children. The programming in alienation is analogous to the brainwashing in a cult. What therapist believes it possible to talk severely programmed children out of their distorted and even delusional thinking and beliefs?

The treatment priority of traditional reunification therapists is focus on the alienated parent-child relationship. These therapists neglect the far more dysfunctional family relationship, which is the pathologically enmeshed relationship between the alienating parent and child.

The Outrage of Traditional Reunification Therapy

The great outrage with traditional reunification therapy is neglect of the child abuse being committed by alienating parents. Traditional reunification therapists do not hold alienating parents accountable to relinquish their abusive alienating behaviors.

Traditional reunification therapists violate the clinical axioms to “determine treatment priorities” and to “treat the underlying condition.”

The treatment priority in parental alienation is child protection.

Treatment for the underlying condition in parental alienation is the requirement for alienating parents to relinquish their alienating behaviors and to actively support their children’s relationship with their alienated parent.

Traditional reunification therapy is not merely ineffective in treating severe alienation – it exacerbates the alienation and thereby exacerbates the child abuse.

LEARN MORE: Why Traditional Therapy Fails in Severe Parental Alienation

How to Get Alienated Children to Reunification Therapy

There are two key factors enabling success in getting resistant alienated child to cooperate with reunification therapy. The first key is Court action. The most compelling Court action is its imposition and enforcement of the protective separation of alienated children from their alienating parent.

The protective separation accounts for why 179 children of the 185 children who had participated in the TPFF intervention traveled cooperatively to New York under the care of their alienated parent.

The protective separation affords alienated children relief from fear of their alienating parent’s reprisals should they cooperate with their alienated parent and the therapy.

The second key factor that enables alienated children’s cooperation is the child’s powerful instinct to have and need a parent. The instinct for a parent is among our strongest instincts for survival, so it is rarely overridden. This instinct explains why none of the 3000 adjudicated abused or neglected foster children with whom I had worked rejected their abusive parents.

Alienated children’s instinct for their alienated parent had not been extinguished by the alienation but only repressed. The protective separation allows alienated children to lift their repression and rekindle their love and need for their alienated parent.

FURTHER READING: Successful Reunification Therapy for Parental Alienation

How Long is the Protective Separation Period Between Alienating Parent and Child?

The length of the Court-ordered protective separation is typically 90 days but can be shortened under certain conditions.

Shortening the protective separation is dependent upon the alienating parent demonstrating a genuine readiness, willingness, and ability to support the alienated parent’s relationship with their children.

When alienating parents convey to their alienated children genuine support for the relationship with their alienated parent, these children flip like a light switch to eagerly welcome their alienated parent back in their lives.

Alienating parents therefore have the power to request the Court to lift the protective separation sooner than 90 days. What alienated parents need do for this to happen is cooperate with the Court’s direction to relinquish their alienating behaviors.

Should an alienating parent choose to delay or refuse compliance with the Court’s expectations of them, then the Court will likely extend the protective separation.

How Long Is Reunification Therapy?

The length of a successful reunification therapy varies based upon several factors. These factors include the skills and expertise of the reunification therapist, the severity of the alienation in the child, and the alienating parent’s compliance with the Court’s requirements of them.

At the end of the 4-day intensive phase of the TPFF intervention, virtually all of the 185 children who participated took meaningful steps towards reconnecting with their alienated parent. The few exceptions were caused by alienating parents who had violated the Court- ordered protective separation.

TPFF is designed to jump-start the reconnection of severely alienated children with their alienated parent. TPFF cannot solve all family problems in so short a period of time. Some of the unresolved problems have nothing to do with alienation. These problems are typical issues that commonly arise as children progress through their developmental stages.

Upon completion of the 4-day intensive phase, local therapists provide after-care family therapy. Its primary purpose is to deepen the reconnection. After-care family therapy usually proceeds on a weekly basis, one session per week.

After-care family therapy may last for a few months or a few years – again dependent upon the skills of the therapist, the severity of the alienation, and the cooperation of the alienating parent.

FURTHER READING: Determining Severity in Parental Alienation

Who Should Cover the Cost of the Reunification Therapy?

I recommend that payment for the reunification intervention be incurred by alienating parents.

Alienating parents caused the need for reunification therapy. Justice requires that alienating parents therefore incur the expense to remedy what they had caused.

The first treatment priority in alienation is to remedy the harm to children from the child abuse caused by their alienating parent. Alienating parents should therefore be responsible for the expense to remedy the harm to the child that they had caused.

Alienating parents have maliciously and unjustifiably severed or harmed the relationship between the alienated parent and their children. When alienated parents are required to incur reunification treatment expenses, doing exonerates alienating parents from having committed very bad behaviors. Requiring alienated parents to pay full or part of the therapy expenses penalizes the victimized party.

The Court, however, makes the decision regarding how reunification therapy will be paid.

Criteria for Judging Successful Reunification Therapy

Improvements in alienated children’s behaviors with their alienated parent and improvements in their cognitive & emotional functioning are the best criteria by which to judge the success of an intervention.

Mark Twain is credited with expressing, “Actions speak louder than words but not nearly as often.”

Behavior and emotional and cognitive functioning are objectively observable. They are therefore valid and reliable measures to assess a person’s clinical presentation.

These measures also permit assessment after a therapeutic intervention for improvement in the person’s clinical presentation. Improvement is judged when current measures are compared to the measures prior to initiation of therapy.

Evaluating alienated children’s positive changes in these measures are a reliable means by which to judge success of a reunification intervention.

Behaviors Prior to Reunification Therapy

Severely alienated children present as exceedingly over-empowered, manifesting a sense of unjustified and unreasonable entitlement. They do not know how to respect or abide by their proper place in the family hierarchy.

Many behaviors presented by severely alienated children meet the DSM-5-TR definition of “child or adolescent antisocial behavior.”

A significant risk to alienated children’s positive prognosis in life – if not remedied – is partaking in the antisocial and self-harming behaviors. These behaviors include:

• Failure to comply with their alienated parent’s Court-ordered parenting time, yet knowing that this is unlawful.
• Insistence that no judge can tell them what to do if they don’t want to do it.
• Making knowingly false child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations against their alienated parent.
• Maltreating, defying, and physically assaulting their alienated parent and extended family members.These behaviors were not present prior to the onset of the alienation.
• Refusing to express remorse for their offensive or antisocial behaviors.
• Justifying their lack of remorse by stating that their parent deserves to be maltreated and abused.
• Allowing their school performance to seriously deteriorate.
• Acting aggressively and defiantly when interacting with peers and authority figures. These behaviors that were not present prior to the alienation.
• Engaging in juvenile delinquent behaviors. These behaviors that were not present prior to the alienation.
• Engaging in impulsive and risky behaviors which include threatening or attempting suicide; cutting; repeated acts of unprotected sex; using drugs and alcohol; and other risky behaviors. These behaviors were not present prior to the onset of the alienation.

At TPFF, addressing alienated children’s antisocial and self-harming behaviors is a top priority.

FURTHER READING: DSM-5-TR

Behaviors After a Successful Reunification Therapy

• Relinquishment of behaviors that meet the criteria for “child or adolescent behaviors.”
• Relinquishment of or significant reduction in self-harming behaviors.
• Acknowledgment that they must behave lawfully, civilly, and respectfully.
• Compliance with Court orders that apply to them.
• Treating their alienated parent with respect and civility even in the face of disagreements.
• Acceptance of supervision by alienated parent.
• Spontaneous sharing with alienated parent of updates on their lives – with respect to education, health, friends, interests, activities, etc.
• Initiation of affection with alienated parent and extended family members.
• Acceptance of affection from alienated parent and extended family members.
• Demonstrating appreciation for alienated parent’s concern, gifts, interest, investment of time and energy, etc.
• Re-involvement with extended family members and family pets.

Cognitive & Emotional Functioning Prior to Reunification Therapy

• Seeing their parents and the world in black and white terms.
• Not knowing right from wrong.
• Confusing love for hate.
• Confusing appropriate limit setting for emotional abuse.
• Interpreting normal parental affection to be sexual abuse.
• Labeling the alienated parent’s appearance at their games as “stalking.”
• Interpreting the alienated parent’s interest as a boundary violation.
• Confusing disagreement with personal attacks.
• Having delusional negative perceptions of their alienated parent.
• Fantasizing positive perceptions of their alienating parent.
• Interpreting their alienated parent’s disagreements with their alienating parent as an attack on them.
• Poor self-esteem.
• Feeling unlovable and unworthy.
• Feeling betrayed by their alienated parent.
• Compromised trust in self and others.
• Insecurity.

Cognitive & Emotional Functioning After a Successful Reunification Therapy

• A more realistic perception of each parent and extended family members.
• Improvement in autonomous thinking.
• Improvement in judgment and reality testing.
• Openness to hearing disagreements.
• Willingness to civilly resolve disagreements, wishes, and expectations with alienated parent.
• Improvement in school performance.
• Desire and appreciation for alienated parent’s interest, concern, and involvement.
• Reduction in psychiatric symptoms affecting thinking and feeling.
• A more nuanced perceptions of each parent and extended family members.
• Improved self-esteem and self-confidence.
• Reduction in trust and insecurity issues.
• Improvement in feeling lovable and worthy.
• Expressions of joy.

Conclusion

The best measures of a successful mental health therapy are noted in behaviors; healthy interactions with family members, intimate relationships, peers, and authority figures; developmentally appropriate emotional and cognitive functioning. These measures are objectively observable and, they are quantifiable when compared to the measures prior to the onset of the mental health therapy.

The key changes in alienated children’s functioning by which to judge a successful intervention are relinquishment of antisocial and self-harming behaviors, meeting age-appropriate/stage-specific milestones, and inspiring the alienated parent to exclaim, “I have my child back!”

Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle (OMB) posts articles and videos about parental alienation across her various social media accounts.

Swithin deceitfully defames the dedicated professionals who work to end the child-abuse occurring in parental alienation. She falsely accuses these professionals of harming children and slanders anyone who disagrees with her opinions.

Swithin deceitfully defames parents who are victims of parental alienation. She falsely alleges that their alienation claims are fictitious, and she instead wrongfully accuses alienated parents of child abuse.

Swithin further claims that alienated parents and alienation specialists suffer from one or more personality disorders – Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).

Here I discuss Swithin’s media posts that are harming children and erroneously defaming alienated parents and professionals.

Tina Swithin Lacks the Credentials to Offer Clinical Opinions and to Diagnose

Swithin is unqualified to render mental health opinions or to diagnose.

• Swithin is not a licensed clinician.
• Swithin lacks even a basic understanding of the family phenomenon of alienation.
• Swithin has not trained or studied about alienation with a qualified specialist.
• Swithin has not provided any proof or documentation of having attended nor completed any professional workshops or seminars about alienation.
• Swithin has not passed a Voir Dire challenge about parental alienation.
• Swithin has not passed a Daubert challenge on her knowledge about parental alienation.

Further Reading: Harmful Lies Perpetuated by Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle

How Tina Swithin Promulgates Her Harmful Lies About Parental Alienation

Although unqualified to render opinions about alienation, Swithin is remarkably successful in influencing others to accept her opinions. Swithin deceptively presents as charismatic, compassionate, and credible and thereby has amassed a large following.

Swithin plays on her followers’ emotions and sympathies to gain their support. She accomplishes this by fabricating horror stories of alienated children being traumatized by the “alienation industry,” a term Swithin deceitfully made up.

Swithin fails to disclose that she is the one behind the fabricated postings made by these alienated children.

Tina Swithin Maliciously Accuses Alienated Parents of Having a Personality Disorder

Someone who has a personality disorder suffers profoundly compromised judgment, psychological stability, interpersonal functioning, and parenting abilities.

Swithin fails to provide a shred of evidence for her false claim that alienated parents have a personality disorder.

Swithin ignores the research that finds exactly the opposite – Severely alienating parents almost surely have one or more personality disorders.

Swithin’s false claims unfairly harm alienated parents in the eyes of the Court and in the eyes of their children.

Swithin states:

“What is the common denominator that we see in high-conflict custody battles? Often, one parent has a diagnosed (or suspected) Cluster B personality disorder. The three disorders that are most common are: Borderline Personality Disorder (more common with females than with males), Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorders (more common in males than in females). With each of these three Cluster B disorders, there is a pronounced lack of empathy and repeated testing of laws, rules, and personal boundaries.”

SEE SWITHIN’S ARTICLE: Family Court and Narcissistic Abuse

Swithin states:

“Our mission at One Mom’s Battle is to increase awareness of Cluster B personality disorders (Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder) and their impact upon shared parenting and the Family Court System which includes Judges, CPS workers, Guardian ad Litems (GAL), Parenting Coordinators (PC), Custody Evaluators, therapists and attorneys.”

SEE SWITHIN’S ARTICLE: Tina’s Childhood

Swithin’s claim that alienated parents have a personality disorder is based solely upon the ipse dixit logical fallacy – “It’s true because I said so.”

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Harmful Lies About Reunification Camps

Tina Swithin Has Unlawfully & Harmfully Obstructed Court-Ordered Reunifications

Swithin has unlawfully imposed herself into several Court-ordered reunifications that resulted in sabotage. She then deceitfully generalized these examples to all reunification interventions, which she claims are failures that traumatize children.

Consider the following examples of Swithin’s unlawful involvements in Court-ordered reunifications:

The night before a Court-ordered reunification intervention was to begin, Swithin orchestrated and aided in the kidnapping of a teenager from the alienated parent and thereby foiled the intervention.

Swithin facilitated the kidnapping of two minor children from their alienated parent and assisted them in making a video in which they falsely accused their alienated parent and the reunification program of child abuse. The alienated parent had sole legal custody and did not authorize the making and publicizing of the video.

In at least three Court-ordered transitions of children from their alienating parent to their alienated parent, Swithin counseled the children to hysterically shriek and violently resist the transition. She foiled the interventions.

Swithin notified the media of the time and place of the these transitions so the hysterical, acting-out children would be recorded. Swithin posted these videos which portrayed the children as being terrorized. She furthered the abuse on these alienated children.

Swithin Influenced and counseled children to make defamatory videos falsely claiming to have participated in the TPFF intervention. In these videos, the children falsely accused their alienating parent of committing child abuse.

FURTHER READING: Larson Findings of Fact & Swithin’s Interference

Tina Swithin’s Specious & Harmful Reporting About Alienation Cases

1. Swithin neglects to cite the Court’s finding that the alienating parent is committing child abuse.
2. Swithin neglects to cite the Court’s finding that the alienated parent is a safe, protective, loving parent who acts in the children’s best interests.
3. Swithin fails to acknowledge that she had counseled children to act as of they are being tortured when being removed from their alienating parent.
4. Swithin fails to acknowledge that she provided children with the scripts for their videos in which they defamed their alienated parent and the reunification intervention.
5. Swithin fails to present alienated parents’ perspective on the family events.
6. Swithin ignores the peer-reviewed research findings regarding the safety and effectiveness of the reunification programs she criticizes – for example that TPFF was found to be safe and 96.4% effective in reuniting severely children with their severely alienated parent.
7. Swithin has never requested to interview any reunification therapist in order to gain a true understanding about the treatment they provide.

SWITHIN’S LIES: California Children Sent to Family Bridges Reunification Camp

Tina Swithin Neglects the Safety of Alienated Children

Swithin is oblivious to or simply does not care that her public disclosures of alienated children’s stories is exceedingly harmful to them and intensifies their abuse from the alienation.

Swithin further neglects to obtain required informed consent for these public disclosures. Doing so would necessitate Swithin contacting the children’s alienated parents, which Swithin wants to avoid at all costs.

Swithin is well aware that these children’s alienated parents are concerned and horrified by her selfish and unauthorized exploitation of their children. As opposed to alienating parents, alienated parents conscientiously protect their children, in their best interests, by concealing their identities and public exposure.

Swithin’s following posts reflect her pattern of harmful behaviors to disregard the safety of minor alienated children. Without having obtained appropriate parental consent, Swithin discloses these children’s identifies and their painful family dramas. I have deleted the children’s last names to protect them.

Here is another example of Swithin’s many exploitative posts about alienated children. In this, she actively recruits alienated children, who are minors, to come forward to make videos of their allegedly traumatizing experiences in reunification therapy.

Here’s another of Swithin’s exploited alienated children to whom she handed a script to create a video for publication about her reunification treatment. I have whited-out the girl’s face to protect her identity. Swithin did not.

Tina Swithin, have you no shame? How far will you go in exploiting children in service of your self-serving agenda?

Children instinctively recoil from having their family drama and trauma publicly disclosed. Extreme coercive control techniques and abusive manipulations are therefore required to get alienated children to come forward to make the videos that Swithin requires.

Children instinctively recoil when their parents are criticized. Remember how, as a child, we hated when our parents were denigrated! To overcome alienated children’s instinctive resistance to discussing how their parents behave very badly, Swithin provides them with the script for the videos she requires them to make.

Publicly exposing minor, alienated children’s family drama is one of many ways that Swithin selfishly exploits alienated children.

FURTHER READING: Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire

Tina Swithin’s Erroneous Claims About Alienation

1. Richard Gardner, who coined the label Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), was a revered child psychiatrist who served on the faculty of Columbia University School of Medicine. Swithin falsely claims Gardner was a pedophile.
2. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) meets the DSM-5 definition of a syndrome (p. 830). Swithin irresponsibly claims PAS does not qualify as a syndrome.
3. The dysfunctional family dynamics occurring in parental alienation are cited in the family relational section of the DSM-5-TR. Swithin irresponsibly claims parental alienation is junk science.
4. Parental alienation is recognized in the scientific and psychiatric communities. Swithin irresponsibly claims that parental alienation is rejected in the scientific and psychiatric communities.
5. Turning Points for Families is accurately labeled a “Therapeutic Vacation.” Swithin irresponsibly fabricates the label “reunification camps” to instill horror by implying “boot camp” and “concentration camp.”
6. Courts refer families to TPFF to begin the healing process after making their finding of child abuse by the alienating parent. Swithin irresponsibly claims that TPFF sends children to an abusive parent.
7. Turning Points for Families (TPFF) has been peer-reviewed for safety and 96.4% effectiveness in healing cases of severe parental alienation. Swithin irresponsibly claims that TPFF traumatizes children.
8. There is no organization, either formal or informal, known as the
   “alienation industry.” Swithin irresponsibly fabricated this non-existent industry.

Tina Swithin Shows No Remorse for Her Harmful Behaviors

Swithin shows no remorse or regrets about exposing minor children to horrific publicity about their private family drama. The harm to children from alienation is damaging enough. Swithin’s unauthorized spread of their stories throughout her social media accounts exponentially increases the damage.

Conclusion

Claims of child abuse must be taken seriously and investigated according to the scientific method to make clinical findings. When a Court makes a finding of child abuse against a parent, that parent must be prevented from having further contact with the child until the abusive behaviors are relinquished.

Tina Swithin has sabotaged several Court-ordered protective separations of children from their abusive alienating parent. Swithin should be held accountable for her unlawful behaviors that have further harmed alienated children.

Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle (OMB) spreads lies about reunification programs, such as Turning Points for Families (TPFF).

TPFF is a therapeutic vacation which Courts rely upon to safely and effectively reconnect severely alienated children with their alienated parent.

TPFF is not a “reunification camp” as Swithin falsely claims in order to slander effective reunification programs.

In this article I will:

• Respond to Swithin’s lies about reunification therapists and so called “reunification camps.”
• Report the truths about TPFF, a safe and effective reunification program.
• Point a positive way forward to heal children who are severely harmed by parental alienation.

SWITHIN’S HARMFUL LIES: Reunification Camps and the Alienation Industry

The Label “Reunification Camps” Is Made-Up

The reunification camps label is mischievously and maliciously designed to imply “boot camp” or “concentration camp.” The purpose is to create horror about safe and effective reunification programs.

TPFF meets with only one family at a time in a family setting. TPFF relies upon family memorabilia and child-appropriate and enjoyable activities to heal family relationships and restore healthy family hierarchy.

FURTHER READING: Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire

Tina Swithin Is Not an Expert on Reunification Programs

Tina Swithin is not a credentialed clinician. She does not hold any licenses in family assessment, family therapy, specialized treatment for alienation, child custody, domestic violence, child abuse, or any related field.

Swithin is therefore unqualified to offer her opinions on alienation or reunification therapy.

FURTHER READING: Harmful Lies Perpetuated by Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle

Reunification Programs Are Accountable & Safe

Swithin’s false claims that reunification programs traumatize children and lack oversight are utterly devoid of merit.

Swithin knows TPFF was found to be safe and 96.4% effective in remediating severe cases of parental alienation.

TURNING POINTS FOR FAMILIES RESEARCH STUDY

Court Oversight

TPFF is accountable to the Court that ordered the reunification intervention and is Court-reviewed from beginning to end.

Subsequent to the 4 day-intensive intervention, the Court holds mandatory hearings to assess improvement in the relationship between the alienated parent and child and to determine if the alienating parent is complying with the Court-ordered stipulations that applies to that parent.

Except for the cases in which the alienating parent had violated the protective separation, the Court found TPFF to have met its expectations for the reunification intervention.

TPFF has ongoing Court oversight throughout. All interventions are reviewed several times by the Courts which had ordered the intervention. Swithin conveniently IGNORES these facts and fails to cite them in her online criticisms.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Behaviors Are Harmful to Alienated Children

Licensing Board Oversight

Reunification therapists are accountable to their licensing boards and must comply with the board’s ethical and clinical mandates.

Reunification therapists are also required to take periodic continuing education workshops in order to keep their licenses in effect and their skills current.

Swithin knows that Court appointed reunification therapists are licensed mental health clinicians, and Swithin conveniently IGNORES the fact that I am double-credentialed as a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) and as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW).

Reunification Programs Protect Children From Abusive Parents

Courts refer cases to TPFF after having made a finding of child abuse against the alienating parent. Here are the child-abusive behaviors committed by alienating parents:

• Alienating parents psychologically abuse their children.
• Alienating parents engage in coercive control tactics to rob their children of positive feelings and need for their alienated parent. These behaviors meet the standard definition of domestic violence.
• Alienating parents engage in coercive manipulation of children to maltreat, reject, defy, and even physically assault their alienated parent. These behaviors meet the standard definition of domestic violence by proxy.

Swithin IGNORES the fact that TPFF is Court ordered after the Court has made a finding of child abuse against the alienating parent. Swithin spreads the false narrative that TPFF places children with an abusive parent.

Courts Impose a 90 Day Protective Separation Between the Alienating Parent and Child

After a finding of child abuse has been made against the alienating parent, the Court imposes a 90 day protective separation between the alienating parent and child. Alienating parents must comply with the Court’s requirement to engage in appropriate therapy to relinquish their alienating behaviors.

Until alienating parents demonstrate that they are ready, willing, and able to support their child’s relationship with the other parent, Courts will not restore contact.

Swithin IGNORES the fact that the 90 day protective separation is a decision made by the Court. Swithin spreads the false narrative that TPFF is responsible for keeping children from a safe parent for a minimum of 90 days.

FURTHER READING: Alienating Behaviors – Domestic Violence Upon the Child

Courts Determine if Protective Separations Need to Be Extended Beyond 90 Days

Courts decide whether to lift or extend the protective separation beyond the initial 90 days. This decision is based upon whether the alienating parent has relinquished the child-abusive behaviors.

Courts schedule a review date some time before the 90 days ends in order to take testimony. The Court will lift the protective separation if and when the alienating parent demonstrates that all Court imposed stipulations have been addressed. Alienating parents therefore control whether or not the protective separation will be lifted.

Swithin IGNORES the fact that it is the Court ‘s decision to extend the protective separation. Swithin spreads the false narrative that TPFF indefinitely keeps children from a safe parent.

TPFF Utilizes Family Memorabilia & Child-Engaging Activities as Primary Reunification Techniques

TPFF is an experiential program whose primary techniques utilize family memorabilia and enjoyable and educational family activities.

These experiential techniques spontaneously and sensitively enable alienated parents, alienated children, and extended family to rekindle their prior loving, meaningful, and protective relationships.

Swithin IGNORES the fact that TPFF utilizes child-sensitive, research-validated techniques, yet Swithin spreads the false narrative that TPFF relies upon abusive brainwashing techniques.

FURTHER READING: Turning Points for Families – Healing for Parental Alienation

Turning Points for Families – The Way Forward

When alienated children and parents come to TPFF, it is the first time in several years that the alienated child is free from the alienating parent’s coercive control. This coercive control prevents alienated children from owning and expressing their true desire and need for their alienated parent.

The Court-ordered protective separation frees alienated children from the loyalty conflict that has been inflicted upon them by their alienating parent. The loyalty conflict requires alienated children to relinquish their relationship with their alienated parent as the price to pay to maintain their alienating parent’s love and approval.

Freedom from the loyalty conflict allows alienated children to once again be in touch with their true desire and need for their alienated parent. The desire and need were not extinguished by the alienation; the desire and need were only repressed.

TPFF reawakens alienated children’s instinctual desire and need for their alienated parent and jump-starts the healing process.

Conclusion

Tina Swithin’s slanderous lies about reunification programs exploit and harm alienated children and boosts her bottom line and her image.

Swithin’s callous disregard for the child’s best interest is extremely harmful. Carefully read her posts and watch her videos with a perceiving eye and an open mind. You will come to the same conclusions as discussed in this article.

In 2009, Tina Swithin, of One Mom’s Battle (OMB), had an exceedingly contentious public custody battle. Swithin is to be commended for prioritizing her children’s best interests during the protracted Court proceedings.

Swithin has, to the contrary, reversed her behaviors. She has abandoned the child’s best interest standard when it comes to children who are Court-ordered to participate in reunification therapy. Swithin has exacerbated the harm to these children.

Here I will discuss:

• How Swithin protected her children’s best interests in her own contentious custody case.
• The “child best interest” parenting behaviors required in contentious custody cases.
• Swithin’s unlawful intrusions in Court-ordered reunification cases and her abandoning of the “child’s best interest” standard in these cases.
• Potential trauma to children from public disclosure of their family drama.

Tina Swithin Knows Better

According to her posts and videos on social media:

• Swithin kept her children’s identifies concealed in an otherwise very public custody case.
• Swithin told her children they DO NOT have to choose between their parents.
• Swithin DID NOT badmouth the father to her children.
• Swithin facilitated the father’s relationship with their children.
• Swithin enforced the father’s parenting time.

Swithin proudly and correctly credits herself for having shielded her children from public exposure in her own custody case. Swithin writes:

“In my books, I refer to my ex-husband’s mother as, “Cleo.” I refer to my children as Piper and Sarah and my ex-husband as Seth. Even though the adults in this situation have been publicly outed, I will continue to protect the identities of everyone except my ex-brother-in-law, Jason Robert Porter.”

LEARN MORE: Tina Swithin Protects Her Own Children’s Identities

The Child’s Best Interests Required in Contentious Custody Cases

There are a number of “child best interests” parental behaviors that are indispensable in contentious custody cases. These include:

• Protecting children from involvement in and knowledge of parental disputes and legal matters.
• Assuring children that they will continue to have a meaningful relationship with each parent – predicated on the parent being fit.
• Assuring that children maintain their positive feelings for and opinions of the other parent.
• Protecting children’s public exposure and concealment of how they had been adversely affected by the family drama.

Exposure of children to publicity and disclosure of their adverse experiences from the family drama is embarrassing, humiliating, and often traumatizing. Swithin is well aware of this, so she acted accordingly to shield her own children from such exposure.

FURTHER READING: Harmful Lies Perpetuated by Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle

Tina Swithin’s Unlawful Intrusions into Reunification Cases

Swithin unlawfully imposes herself in Court-Ordered reunification cases so as to sabotage the reunifications. Swithin stealthily conceals her role in the sabotage – making it appear that the children themselves are freely resisting reunification.

Swithin posts online videos of children whom she claims are victimized by dishonorable Family Court judges and “reunification camps.” These horrific videos show children violently resisting a Court-ordered removal from a parent.

These videos truly are horrific. But they do not reveal the context of the videos.

Swithin fails to state that she masterminds the videos. She encourages and counsels children to shriek hysterically and to violently resist the removal so as to appear that they are being tortured. Swithin alerts the media to film and disclose the events.

FURTHER READING: Larson Findings of Facts & Swithin’s Interference

Why is it okay for Swithin to protect her own children but not these children?

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Harmful Lies About Reunification Camps

The above are examples of the exploitative social media posts made by onemomsbattle (Tina Swithin). I blurred the faces of the minor children to protect their identities.

Swithin does not blur children’s faces and shamelessly includes their names and other personal information. She knew better than to do that with her own children.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Behaviors Are Harmful to Alienated Children

Potential Harm to Children From Public Exposure & Disclosure

Minor children cannot give consent for public disclosure of their stories. Such consent must be “informed” – which means having a sufficient understanding of the consequences from such exposure and disclosure.

Alienated children cannot possibly have acquired sufficient understanding. First, human cognitive development does not mature until the mid-twenties. Second, cognitive functioning of alienated children has been severely compromised by the alienation programming. Alienation programming is analogous to the programming in a cult.

The following are some of the serious potential consequences to children from exposure and disclosure of their family drama:

1. Feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, and shame.
2. Collateral damage to extended family members who often include minor cousins.
3. Teasing and scapegoating from classmates and peers.
4. Inconsolable guilt from having publicly accused their innocent alienated parent of child abuse, child sexual abuse, or other contemptible behaviors.
5. Revealing behaviors that typically qualify as antisocial.
6. Revealing behaviors and attitudes that negatively reflect on them, such as disrespect, defiance, and maltreatment of a parent.
7. Being confronted later at college or employment interviews with their antisocial behaviors.
8. Giving the impression of being delusional.
9. Giving the impression of lacking a conscience.
10. Giving the impression of having an unwarranted sense of entitlement.
11. Giving the impression of having no knowledge of or respect for boundaries.
12. Giving the impression of not knowing right from wrong.

Conclusion

Alienated children have been profoundly harmed by their alienating parent. Unmediated alienation portends an exceedingly poor prognosis in life. Public disclosure and exposure carries high risks for post traumatic stress disorder and other severe psychiatric conditions.

Tina Swithin’s unlawful intrusions in Court-ordered reunification cases has perpetuated and exacerbated the child abuse by derailing and even precluding timely and effective treatment.

Tina Swithin should receive justice according to how anyone who engages in criminal behaviors receives justice.

Tina Swithin founded the online organization, One Mom’s Battle (OMB). OMB intentions are to defame our Family Court System, deny the phenomenon of parental alienation, and attack the professionals who dedicate their careers to protecting children. Swithin is motivated by money and popularity.

Swithin’s lies have aroused skepticism and have induced several state legislatures to pass anti-alienation laws that result in harm to children.

Two important truths about Swithin are discussed here:

1. Swithin harms children
2. Swithin interferes with Court orders to help alienated children.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Behaviors Are Harmful to Alienated Children

Tina Swithin Is Not an Authority on Parental Alienation

Swithin is completely unqualified to offer valid opinions about parental alienation.

• Swithin is not a licensed clinician.
• Swithin lacks even a basic understanding of the family phenomenon of alienation.
• Swithin has not trained or studied about alienation with a qualified specialist.
• Swithin has not provided any proof or documentation of having attended nor completed any professional workshops or seminars about alienation.
• Swithin has not passed a Voir Dire challenge about parental alienation.
• Swithin has not passed a Daubert challenge on her knowledge about parental alienation.

Tina Swithin Falsely Reports About Parental Alienation

Swithin’s deceptive and defamatory reporting about alienation fails to cite the Court findings and orders regarding the alienation cases she is criticizing. This is hardly surprising given Swithin’s biased, self-serving agenda.

Omitted from Swithin’s reporting is that the Courts have found the alienating parent to be an abusive parent and the alienated parent to be a safe, protective parent.

Swithin does not interview the alienated parent nor report about the alienated parent’s perspective on the family dynamics. Doing so would utterly undermine Swithin’s entire false narrative.

FURTHER READING: Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire

Tina Swithin Harms Children

Swithin harms children by using them to promote her self-serving goals. Her damaging actions leave alienated children as collateral damage.

• She promotes and supports alienating parents to involve their children in the violation of Court orders.
• She recruits minor children to come forward to report negatively about their reunification therapy experience.

Swithin did not report about her involvement in a case in which a child was kidnapped from the alienated parent. The kidnapping prevented the child from participating in a Court-ordered reunification program with the alienated parent.

Swithin did not report about her involvement in another case in which she facilitated the kidnapping of two minor children from their alienated parent. The children were assisted in making a video in which they falsely accused their alienated parent and the reunification program of abuse. The alienated parent had sole legal custody and did not authorize the making and publicizing of the video.

Swithin did not report about her involvement in several cases in which she aided in alerting the press about the time and place of the Court-ordered transition of the children. This resulted in a public media circus that terrorized and exploited the children. With Swithin’s coaching, the alienating parent encouraged the children to become hysterical and severely act-out during the transition.

What Is Parental Alienation?

Parental alienation is an abusive family dynamic in which a parent brainwashes a child to reject the other parent. The rejected parent has been found by the Court to be a safe, protective, and loving parent. The rejection is completely unjustified and anti-instinctual.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Harmful Lies About Reunification Camps

Conclusion

Tina Swithin is not motivated by “the child’s best interests.” If she were, she would not aid in orchestrating the media blitzes of custody transfers, advertise for minor children to report their alienation stories, facilitate the kidnapping of alienated children in defiance of Court orders, and publicly expose children’s identities in her online posts.

Tina Swithin self-describes as an advocate who promotes child protection. To the contrary, Swithin’s self-serving agenda delays Court orders for safe and effective treatment to heal the child abuse being committed by alienating parents.

Traditional reunification therapy is an abysmal failure for treating severe cases of parental alienation. These failures show the need for my specialized 4-day, intensive reunification program, Turning Points for Families (TPFF), which is relied upon by Courts across the United States and Canada.

Not all reunification therapies are created equal – particularly when it comes to treating cases of severe parental alienation. Most therapists who provide traditional reunification therapy are not qualified or sufficiently trained to provide safe and effective therapy for these cases.

Courts, being misinformed, often appoint these unqualified reunification therapists. Here you will learn what successful reunification therapy looks like, and what it DOES NOT look like.

The Need for Timely Reunification Therapy

When unqualified traditional reunification therapists undertake treatment for severe alienation, they are blind to the harm being inflicted by alienating parents. The child abuse is not addressed and is, instead, exacerbated.

Inappropriate reunification therapies drag on indefinitely, with little or no accountability of the therapist. The Courts and the professionals delude themselves into thinking that the alienation is being remedied. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Parental Alienation Is a Specialized Clinical Condition

Before undertaking treatment of an alienation case, therapists have an ethical obligation to self-assess if they are qualified to handle these cases.

Traditional reunification therapists fail because they lack a fundamental understanding of the dynamics occurring in severe alienation. These dynamics include complex and counterintuitive clinical issues.

Steven G. Miller, MD, who ran a forensic medical practice throughout the United States for 40+ years, elaborates upon the specialized skills, knowledge, and experience required to safely and effectively treat alienation cases. Dr. Miller (2013) states:

“Few mental health problems are more difficult to sort it out and more resistant to treatment [dependent upon diagnostic findings]than the triad of a severely alienated child, a severely determined alienating parent, and a severely rejected targeted parent.” (p. 10)

“While PA [parental alienation] certainly is a relationship problem (or set of problems), severe cases are often associated with serious co-morbid psychopathology, particularly on part of the alienating parent.” (p. 11)

“Severe cases tend to be clinical in the medical sense of the word— (including shared delusions and/or other psychotic or quasi psychotic thinking), profound emotional dysregulation, and extreme or bizarre behavior. If clinicians fail to consider the total clinical picture—including any underlying psychopathology—they may fail to appreciate the severity and complexity of the situation.” (p. 11.)

Such cases are not for the novice. Cases of severe alienation often exceed the expertise of highly skill practitioners unless their special expertise includes the treatment of severe child alignment, treatment of severe mental illness, and treatment for personality disorders. treatment of all three may be necessary to achieve a good outcome or even prevent catastrophic deterioration.” (p. 11)

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.” (p. 11).

Unqualified reunification therapists are mystified by the exceedingly complex and counterintuitive family dynamics occurring in parental alienation. As a result, these therapists misdiagnose and misinterpret the case.

Treatment Errors Committed by Unqualified Reunification Therapists

Diagnosis dictates treatment. When therapists fail to accurately assess the family dynamics in alienation cases, they fail to deliver timely and appropriate interventions. Here are two fatal errors of traditional reunification therapies.

1. Failure to Correctly Assess the Presenting Problem

• Child psychological abuse
• Domestic violence
• Domestic violence by proxy

Traditional reunification therapists fail to recognize the above child abuse occurring in the alienating parent-child relationship.

Unqualified therapists, instead, erroneously identify the presenting problem to be a simple parent-child relationship issue between the alienated parent and child.

2. Failure to Appropriately Intervene

When child abuse is revealed in therapy, the required intervention is for the therapist to alert the Court. The Court assesses the evidence presented for child abuse. If an abuse finding is made, the Court will impose appropriate remedy. The remedy in severe alienation is almost always removal of the child from the alienating parent.

When the presenting problem is incorrectly assessed, intervention is wrongly focused on modifying the alienating parent’s allegedly deficient parenting.

Reunification therapists must inform the Court that safe and effective therapy cannot be provided as long as an alienated child remains in the care of a severely alienating parent.

Coercive-Brainwashing of the Alienated Child

The programming in alienation is analogous to the brainwashing in a cult. Effective healing for a former cult member requires separation from the cult leader. Effective treatment for alienated children requires separation from their severely alienating parent.

Healing of alienation dynamics is a double challenge: creating psychological distance between the alienating parent and child & facilitating psychological connection between the alienated parent and child.

Manipulation and Cooption of Therapists

As Dr. Miller pointed out, severely alienating parents likely have a personality disorder. People with a personality disorder do not present as whom they really are.

Alienating parents are skillful in impression management and in mimicking normal behavior. They are adept at deceiving and coopting others – especially therapists and other professionals.

Once coopted and blinded by an alienating parent, unqualified therapists commit several cognitive and clinical errors that cloud thinking and arouse emotional reasoning.

Reunification therapists must conduct ongoing self-examinations to determine if they are committing any of these cognitive or clinical errors.

FURTHER INFORMATIVE READING: Clinical Reasoning and Decision Making by Dr. Steven Miller

When reunification therapists become coopted by and align with the alienating parent, they do not recognize the alienated parent’s determination to sabotage the therapy. Alienating parents intensify their programming out of fear of successful reunification therapy.

As a result of the intensified programming, alienated children affirm their alienating parent’s false narratives, which they vehemently express in the therapy sessions.

A particularly dangerous narrative is that alienated children, and not their alienating parents, had initiated the alienation. When alienating parents blame their children for having initiated the alienation, it is an exquisite example of visiting the sins of the parent upon the child.

Coopted, aligned therapists buy into this false narrative, inappropriately validate the child’s delusional thinking, and fail to require alienating parents to relinquish their coercive and manipulative behaviors.

Alienating parents claim they are genuinely supportive for their child’s relationship with the alienated parent. Not surprisingly, they seem to always be unable to get their children to have contact with their alienated parent.

Qualified, successful reunification therapists hold alienating parents accountable for having caused and for maintaining the alienation. Qualified, successful reunification therapists require alienating parents to demonstrate genuine support for the relationship between the alienated parent and their child.

Requiring Alienated Parents to Apologize for False and Frivolous Claims

Unqualified reunification therapists request alienated parents to apologize to their children for false allegations and frivolous claims. This request, if complied with, is dangerous and violates the standard of the “best interest of the child”!

Requests by Therapists for Apologies for False and Frivolous Claims Harm Children

• Apologies are rejected as being too little, too late, and not genuine.
• Apologies reinforce an alienated child’s over-empowerment.
• Apologies provide ammunition for alienating parents to claim, “Finally your other parent has apologized. We were correct all along.” 
• Apologies further disempower the alienated parent. 
• Apologies further traumatize the child by confirming false or distorted abusive and/or marginal parenting by the alienated parent.
• Apologies validate the child’s negative, unrealistic, and even delusional perceptions of the alienated parent.
• Apologies are humiliating to the alienated parent.
• Apologies reinforce the alienation dynamics and thereby perpetuate the child abuse.
• Apologies reinforce the pathological enmeshment between the alienating parent and child.
• Apologies further compromise the child’s critical reasoning skills.
• Apologies further undermine the child’s reality testing and judgment.
• Apologies further undermine the child’s development of a conscience.
• Apologies given for false and frivolous claims are used in Court against the alienated parent.

Therapeutic Interventions Which Help Children With Their False and Frivolous Beliefs

• Help to relinquish their delusional thinking.
• Help to sublimate their feelings.
• Help to express themselves, both verbally and behaviorally, in compliance with social norms and expectations.
• Help to meet stage-specific developmental milestones.
• Help to improve reality testing and judgment, that had been distorted and undermined.
• Help to enhance cognitive functioning, that had been compromised.
• Help to nurture the conscience, that had been corrupted.
• Help to perceive parents realistically and not fancifully.
• Help to problem solve issues civilly and respectfully with their alienated parent .
• Help to express emotions and feelings according to social norms and expectations.
• Help to behave according to social norms and expectations.
• Help to encourage age-appropriate/stage-specific autonomy and development.
• Help to challenge the pathological enmeshment with their alienating parent.

Allowing Alienated Children to Control the Therapy

Much to the detriment of alienated children, unqualified reunification therapists routinely cede their control of the therapy process to alienated children. Doing so runs counter to the standard of the “child’s best interest.”

Harm from Empowering Alienated Children to Control the Therapy Process

Unqualified reunification therapists erroneously believe that alienated children are helpless players in the family drama. Nothing could be further from the truth. Alienating parents empower their children by having made them their allies and confidants.

Child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin, dramatizes this dysfunctional reversal of healthy family hierarchy as follows: “The triangulated [another label for alienated] child is an overpowered little tyrant who is standing on the shoulders of the triangulating [another label for alienating] parent. The triangulated child is therefore the most powerful player in the family drama, towering over both parents.”

I ask the reader to visualize Dr. Minuchin’s imagery of the triangulated [alienated] and then decide if this child is truly powerless.

Remediation of the Harm to Overempowered Alienated Children Requires Limit-Setting

QUALIFIED REUNIFICATION THERAPISTS DO NOT ALLOW ALIENATED CHILDREN TO:

• Decide whether or not to show up for the therapy.
• Determine what can or cannot be discussed in the therapy.
• Unilaterally decide to “take a time out” by absconding from the therapy room.
• Maltreat, disrespect, and/or emotionally abuse their alienated parent.
• Decides whether to talk and participate or not talk and not participate in the therapy.
• Determine when the therapy session is over.
• Decide if another therapy session can be scheduled.
• Physically assault their alienated parent.

When therapists permit children to maltreat their parent, it is not therapy; it is therapist-assisted elder abuse.

Unqualified reunification therapists must consult with a knowledgable alienation specialist to provide guidance and supervision of their reunification therapy.

Conclusion

All reunification therapists are not created equal. Reunification therapists have an obligation to children and to their professional ethics to self-assess to determine if they are qualified to intervene in cases of parental alienation.

Should a reunification therapist not be sufficiently qualified to provide safe and effective, evidence-based reunification therapy, the therapist must seek guidance from and collaboration with a qualified parental alienation specialist.

Turning Points for Families (TPFF) is a therapeutic vacation for families to jump-start the reconnection between a child and an unreasonably rejected parent. It is the beginning of the process to restore healthy family relationships and healthy family functioning.

Turning Points for Families – Safe and Effective Reunification Therapy

TPFF is recognized in the scientific community to be a safe and effective treatment intervention to heal the dysfunctional family relationships occurring in cases of severe parental alienation.

TPFF was peer-reviewed in a 2021 Colorado State University research study and was found to be safe and 96.4% effective in treating severe cases of parental alienation.

CLICK TO READ STUDY

Courts in the United States and Canada rely upon TPFF to remedy the harmful effects children suffer from the abuse being inflicted upon them by alienating parents.

As a result of more than 100 Court orders throughout the United States and Canada, TPFF has helped 185 children. The treatments of all 185 children were Court-reviewed after the TPFF intervention. No child was found by the Court to have been harmed, contrary to some erroneous claims made by bad actors – read article below.

Lies Perpetuated by the Alienating Parents’ Industry

Healing for the Child by Court Order for Abusive Alienation Dynamics

The TPFF intervention is an intervention of last resort. That is, TPFF is typically ordered by the Court after multiple traditional reunification therapies were found to be an abysmal failure.

When the Court refers a family to TPFF, the Court had already found the alienating parent to be the abusive parent and the alienated parent to be a safe, protective, and nurturing parent.

The psychological abuse inflicted upon a child by the alienating parent is the most unhealthy dynamic of all family dynamics that occur in cases of severe parental alienation.

The Pathologically Enmeshed Relationship Between the Alienating Parent and Child

Alienating parents use coercive-control strategies which result in profound long-term psychiatric disabilities for children. Severely alienated children have a poor prognosis in life.

The relationship between a severely alienating parent and child is characterized by “pathological enmeshment.” Pathological enmeshment is a severe psychiatric condition for the child.

In this pathologically-enmeshed relationship, the alienating parent employs coercive-control and manipulative strategies to:

• Violate the child’s boundaries.
• Compromise the child’s autonomy.
• Create dependency.
• Undermine the child’s critical reasoning skills.
• Harm the child’s interpersonal relationships.
• Strip the child of the child’s true opinions about and wishes and needs for the alienated parent.
• Engage in antisocial behaviors in the manner by which the child maltreats the alienated parent and extended family members.
• Cause the child to suddenly develop severe psychiatric symptoms.

Alienating Parents Commit Domestic Violence & Domestic Violence by Proxy Upon Their Children

Children have a powerful instinct for their parent, which is exceedingly difficult to override. Alienating parents employ coercive-control behaviors to compel children to maltreat and reject their other parent.

These coercive-control alienating behaviors rob children of their deeply-rooted, instinctual feelings and need for the alienated parent.

Alienating parents use coercive-control behaviors which meet the standard definition of “domestic violence of a child.”

Alienating parents encourage their children to maltreat their other alienated parent. This behavior meets the standard definition of “domestic violence by proxy.”

Child Protection is Our TOP Priority at Turning Points for Families

WE REMEDIATE THE ALIENATION DYNAMICS CAUSED BY

• Child psychological abuse
• Domestic violence
• Domestic violence by proxy

Once a child has been protected from these abusive alienating behaviors, we begin the healing of the alienated parent-child relationship.

Child Safety Is Our #1 Priority at Turning Points for Families

Turning Points for Families Memorabilia Intervention

Our MEMORABILIA INTERVENTION is an incomparably successful technique for healing family relationships.

The memorabilia intervention provides the unparalleled opportunity for family members to experience healing interactions with each other.

Through the use of photographs, videos, cards, presents, and other mementos, I walk the family down memory lane. The mementos reconnect the family to the loving, meaningful history that they once had had with each other.

The success of the memorabilia intervention derives from its reliance upon experiences rather than on talking. Actions speak louder than words.

Through the memorabilia intervention, the child experiences the alienated parent’s actions as the true markers of that parent’s character, qualities, attitudes, feelings, hopes, and intentions.

Through the memorabilia intervention, the alienated parent reveals whom he or she really is.

The memorabilia intervention paves the way for honest and respectful communication and problem solving. This healing development is a natural outgrowth of the range of human feelings – positive, negative, and all in between – that were aroused during the memorabilia intervention. Only after feelings are revealed, acknowledged, and accepted can positive communication and problem solving ensue.

Virtually every child who had participated in the TPFF intervention became fully engaged in and thoroughly enjoyed the memorabilia intervention.

These children become enraptured by viewing photographs and videos of their birth and early childhood.

Who does not become intrigued by re-experiencing family adventures, trips, vacations, and other excursions?

Who does not become impassioned by re-experiencing special family events, holiday celebrations, birthday parties, graduations, births of siblings and cousins, family weddings, and more?

Who does not appreciate re-experiencing difficult situations and/or growing pains that had been overcome with a parent’s support, encouragement, advocacy, presence, and unconditional love?

Who does not enjoy going back in a time capsule to recover and re-experience forgotten memories of loving, happy, exciting times that had occurred within all the family relationships?

Who does not revel in re-experiencing a loving, protective family at all stages of growth and development?

I credit the effectiveness of the Turning Points for Families intervention to the therapeutic philosophy and guidance of my mentor, child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin. The most meaningful way to impart Dr. Minuchin’s therapeutic philosophy is to quote him directly. The following is from his book entitled, Family Healing:

“I see connections and possibilities. I help families search for alternatives. I encourage tolerance of differences and acceptance of limitations….As I see families, I am amazed by the variety of resources people have and the ways they can change–that is, use their resources differently….It also means hope–for new ways of living together. (pp. 285, 287)”

Conclusion

I designed and implemented the TPFF intervention with the goals of restoring healthy, satisfying, and growth-producing family functioning and re-establishing normal family hierarchy – treating only one family at a time.

In the TPFF intervention, I provide an environment that protects, nurtures, and advocates for children so that they can maximize their potentials and grow up to become the best and happiest people they can be.

Assessing Validity of the Child’s Wishes and Feelings

It is common practice to consider the feelings and wishes of minor children regarding major decisions affecting them. This is particularly applicable and important to situations in which their parents are separating or divorcing.

Divorce is one of the most difficult and uncertain situations that children will have to negotiate during childhood. How their parents handle separation and divorce will affect their children’s prognosis in life – for better or for worse.

Consideration of children’s wishes and feelings in situations of parental separation and divorce gives them a sense of control over a situation that is otherwise utterly out of their control.

It is only logical that children would have strong autonomous wishes and feelings regarding the outcomes of the divorce and custody proceedings.

Children who demonstrate emotional and cognitive maturity and autonomy commensurate with their developmental stage typically provide valid and appropriate reasons for their wishes and feelings regarding the outcome of the custody legal proceedings.

On the other hand, emotionally and cognitively immature children or children who demonstrate compromised autonomy, typically provide invalid and inappropriate justifications for their wishes and feelings.

For example, it is common for immature children and children with compromised autonomy to express preference for the more permissive parent or for a parent who is emotionally unstable.

In normal families, however, the child’s preference for one parent is never to the utter rejection of the other parent.

Some children of contentious parental custody have been coached by one of the parents to align with that parent against the other parent.

Before weight is given to the voice of the child in contentious custody cases, it is incumbent upon the professionals to rule out for possible coaching of the child by a parent.

What Healthy Children Do and Do Not Want When Parents Separate

Healthy children do not want to choose between parents upon their separation. Children yearn for their life to continue as close to normal as possible. This “normalcy” includes ongoing meaningful contact with each parent – just as it was when the family was living together.

Some alienating parents and professionals have made the utterly nonsensical claim that children do not want and are unable to successfully manage having two homes; having to travel between two homes in compliance with the parenting plan; having to carry backpacks with clothing and other supplies to accommodate to the parenting schedule; having to get accustomed to two beds, two desks, two computers, two toothbrushes; and having to accept double the usual number of gifts and money on birthdays and holidays.

Not a single one of the 4200 non-alienated children with whom I have worked during more than 50 years of professional practice ever expressed a preference for a bed or desk over preference for a parent!

On the other hand, in order to justify rejection of a parent, I have heard these frivolous rationalizations, and even greater absurdities, from the 800 alienated children whom I treated.

Children are adaptable – much more so than are adults. Children will easily adjust to two homes, two beds, two desks, two computers, and to two toothbrushes just as long as their parents present a united front and a consistent message that this is the way it is going to be for their best interests.

If separated parents are initially able to participate together in family events and activities, doing so will likely ease their children’s transition to this new stage in the family’s development.

Separated parents, however, do not have to be great buddies. They do not have go on family vacations together. They do not have to celebrate holidays and birthdays together. They do not need to sit next to each other at their children’s activities.

But other parental behaviors are absolutely imperative in order to minimize children’s insecurities and sadness after parents separate. These parental behaviors include showing respect and consideration for each other in front of their children. And these parental behaviors must demonstrate parental cooperation in making major decisions for their children.

Normal parents who consider the best interests of their children convey to them that the other parent must remain meaningfully involved in their lives. By doing so, parents guarantee to their children the greatest possible consistency and normalcy in the situation of parental separation.

Giving Voice to A Child Is Not Always in the Child’s Best Interest

If a child is alienated, especially severely alienated, then giving weight to the child’s voice is contraindicated to the child’s best interest. The expressed wishes and feelings of alienated children are not their own. What alienated children express, instead, are the wishes and feelings of their triangulating alienating parent.

My mentor, child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin, was known for declaring, “When the lips of the triangulated “puppet” child move, the words of the triangulating “ventriloquist” parent are expelled.”

In the phenomenon of parental alienation, the alienating parent is exerting undue influence, manipulation, and intimidation over the child to align with that parent’s wishes and goals.

Before giving weight to the voice of a child in the situation of contentious parental conflicts and custody, it must be determined if the child’s expressed feelings and wishes are genuinely hers/his and not those of a parent.

Alienating parents employ coercive mind-control and manipulative tactics to pressure the child to override the child’s powerful survival instinct to have and need a parent.

FURTHER READING: The Instinct for a Parent Violated in Parental Alienation

These coercive and manipulative tactics are known as alienating behaviors, and they meet the standard definitions of domestic violence and domestic violence by proxy.

It is not justified to automatically give weight to alienated children’s expressed wishes, feelings, and beliefs. Assessment must be undertaken to determine if the child’s expressed wishes, feelings, and beliefs are a consequence of the alienating parent’s coerced, mind-control and manipulative tactics.

As a result of the coercive mind-control and manipulative tactics of the alienating parent, the child becomes pathologically enmeshed with that parent. The complementary dynamic is the child’s pathological detachment from the alienated parent.

Pathological enmeshment is a severe psychiatric condition for the child in which the alienating parent violates the child’s boundaries, compromises the child’s autonomy, undermines the child’s critical reasoning skills, and robs the child of psychological stability.

Pathological enmeshment, sine qua non, justifies not giving weight to the voice of the child before ruling out for the enmeshed parent’s influence.

Alienation Has Much in Common With A Cult

Psychologist Stanley Clawar, and Clinical Social Worker, Brynne Rivlin, followed 1000 children of contentious parental conflict in which one parent had engaged in a “programming/brainwashing” process to turn the child against the other [target] parent.

700 children were of parents who had been engaging in exceedingly contentious custody proceedings.

Definition of the Programming/Brainwashing Process by Clawar & Rivlin

“Programming and brainwashing is a process (intentional or unintentional) whereby a parent or parental surrogate attempts to limit, damage, and interfere with the love, contact, and image of the target [other] parent.” (p. 9)

Clawar and Rivlin discussed their findings about these 1000 children in their 2013 book published by the American Bar Association entitled, Children Held Hostage: Identifying Brainwashed Children, Presenting a Case and Crafting Solutions.

Clawar and Rivlin’s alarming findings about the brainwashing/programming process raise serious concerns about giving weight to the voice of the children in this population.

A summary of Clawar & Rivlin’s alarming findings is that 86% or 860 of these 1000 children had experienced some degree of programming/brainwashing as follows:

• 23% or 230 children experienced programming/brainwashing more than once per day
• 22% 0r 220 children experienced programming/brainwashing about once per day
• 12% or 120 children children experienced programming/brainwashing more than once per week
• 8% or 8 children experienced programming/brainwashing once per week
• 21% or 210 children experienced programming/brainwashing occasionally
• Only 14% or 140 of the 1000 children did not experience programming/brainwashing (table 17, p. 420)

Similarities of the Brainwashing in Alienation to the Indoctrination in Cults – According to Clawar & Rivlin

“Most of these studies emphasize the necessity of physical and social isolation; the stripping process (modification of hairstyle, speech content, style of clothing, and other features that connected the individual to mainstream society or past social identities); the definition of all outsiders as bad, evil, uninformed, or on the wrong path to truth; the use of repetition… and the reinforcing of inferior status. (p. 5)

Certainly, the issue of isolation is relevant to the programming and brainwashing of children, because parents often try to isolate the the child from others, especially the other (target parent) or any other source of contradictory information or beliefs, such as a counselor or other relatives. The stripping process, which can be physical (the taking away of material goods and other types of related restrictions/punishments) as well as social/physical tools (the removal of love and affection), is often observed in domestic-relations case and other circumstances in which adult wishes to control the thoughts/behavior of the child.” (pp 5-6)

Other Similarities Between Brainwashing in Alienation and Indoctrination in Cults – According to Clawar & Rivlin

• Repetition of badmouthing, denigrations, negative attributions of the target parent
• Use of inferior status descriptions of the child to make the child feel bad and dependent
• Use of inferior status descriptions of the target parent to denigrate that parent
• Rituals or ceremonies to exclude the target parent. (pp. 5-7)

Motives of the Brainwashing/Programming Parent – According to Clawar & Rivlin

“Effective programming often causes the child (victim) to operate against the other, target parent. The intent of the programmer is to control the child’s thoughts and/or behavior. The programmer often contains themes designed to damage the child’s image of the target parent in terms of the target parent’s moral, physical, intellectual, social, vocational, emotional, and educational qualities (as well as his or her parenting abilities.” (pp. 12-13)

“If the intent of the programmer is to control the flow of information (as to a judge in child abuse or sexual assault cases), then the child may feel compelled to lie or distort his or her (real) perceptions/beliefs.” (p. 13)

Research on The Suggestibility of Children

Our accumulated knowledge about child development informs that children are highly suggestible – even by unfamiliar researchers.

Children are that much more suggestible by an obsessed alienating parent upon whom the child is dependent for survival and with whom there is unfettered access. Children are unable to resist a determined, coercive, and manipulative parent who is committed to the mission of driving the other parent from their child’s life.

Frequently the alienating parent’s access to the child is nearly 100%, if not 100%, because of the common alienating strategy to make knowingly false child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations against the alienated parent.

Alienating parents abuse their parental authority by coercing their dependent children to confirm the false child abuse allegations against the alienating parent.

Even one false child abuse allegation almost surely results in the restriction, if not suspension, of the alienated parent’s access to the child during the CPS investigation of the false allegations. If the CPS report includes sex abuse allegations, suspension of access is a virtual certainty.

The suspension of the alienated parent’s contact with the child affords alienating parents increased opportunity to brainwash their children with abandon; and the suspension of the alienated parent’s access to the child denies alienated parents of the treasured opportunity to counter the alienation programming – especially via experiences with the child.

Denial of contact between the alienated parent and child due to false child abuse allegations facilitates the vicious progression and escalation of the alienation narrative that thereby feeds on itself.

Contact between the child and alienated parent is the greatest antidote to the alienation. The antidote is tragically lost when visits are rescinded while false child abuse allegations are being investigated by CPS.

Effects of Lie Repetition

Research confirms that the repetition of a lie merely three times enables the lie to become truth for the reporter of the lie.

Because alienated children repeat the false sex abuse allegations multiple times – to CPS, to the police, to their therapists, to the district attorney – the false belief of having been sexually abused by their alienated parent becomes the child’s truth.

This, in part, explains why alienated children appear so credible and believable – even when reporting the most egregiously outrageous lies about their alienated parent.

Alienated children can pass a lie detector test with flying colors!

Sexual Abuse Allegations Must be Properly Investigated for Merit

It is precisely because there is the very same risk potential for severe psychiatric symptoms from a false belief of sexual abuse as from the actual occurrence of sexual abuse, that the allegation must be investigated by the scientific method.

Child abuse and child sexual abuse allegations must be taken seriously. That is exactly why all allegations must be properly investigated for merit by the scientific method to make clinical findings.

All indicated/substantiated allegations of abuse must be treated with swift and appropriate penalties.

Proper treatment for a clinical condition is dependent upon accurate diagnosis.

The sooner child abuse allegations are determined for merit, or for lack of merit, the sooner the child can be safely and properly treated.

The proper treatments are diametrically opposite for a child who had been sexually abused by a parent as opposed to a child who had been programmed by one parent to falsely believe having been sexually abused by the other parent.

It is particularly catastrophic for children when they accept as their truth the false belief of having been sexually abused by a parent. These children then become subject to the same risk factors for severe psychiatric disturbances as if the sexual abuse had actually occurred.

It seems to escape the cognition of those who treat children for sexual abuse that the false belief of having been sexually abused by a parent is as harmful as if sex abuse had actually occurred. The result is that children who had been programmed to falsely believe they had been sexually abused by a parent fail to get the appropriate treatment that they need.

Findings by Child Psychiatrist, George E. Davis, Regarding Sex Abuse Allegations in Contested Custody Cases

Dr. Davis of the Children’s Law Institute summarized the research from the all-inclusive studies about the frequency of child sexual abuse incidents and the frequency of knowingly made false sexual abuse allegations in highly contested custody cases.

Dr. Davis found that the rate of false sex abuse allegations in contested custody cases can be as high as 35% while actual incidents of sex abuse a child by a parent is less than 2%. Davis described the conditions under which the false sex abuse allegations are made:

“The perfect storm of incentives for false sex abuse allegations: Conflicted caretakers, adversarial legal proceedings, positive and negative consequences—coaching. (p. 29)

False allegations are rare except in certain limited circumstances with high incentives, coaching, and intense conflict. Suggestibility is more common and is almost always the fault of adult motivations or behaviors. Children are easy to confuse and intimidate. The characteristics of child memory require special consideration.” (p. 29)

In my 500 cases of severe alienation, false claims of child sex abuse were made by the alienating parent against the alienated parent in approximately 80% of the cases. In my opinion, the making of knowingly false sex abuse allegations is highly specific for an alienating parent. And in many of these 500 cases, the alienating parent had engaged in a pattern of making false sex abuse allegations.

Before giving weight to a child’s reports of sex abuse by a parent in a highly contentious custody battle, the programming by the other parent must be ruled out by the scientific method. The scientific method requires, among other criteria, to verify the child’s reporting with neutral quality evidence.

Caution by the Experts on Suggestibility of Children

From Lawyer, Jaime Rosen

Ms. Rosen published a 2013 article entitled “The Child’s Attorney and the Alienated Child: Approaches to Resolving the Ethical Dilemma of Diminished Capacity,” published in Family Court Review.

Ms. Rosen’s intent of her article was to educate the child’s attorney about substituting judgment for the wishes of an alienated child because of the programming of the child by the alienating parent.

Ms. Rosen advocated for the necessity to override the “client centered model” of representation in favor of the “best interests of the child model” in cases of undue parental influence over the child. 

Ms. Rosen argues that the lawyer for the child may substitute judgment if the child client exhibits diminished cognitive capacity as a result of a brainwashing by a parent, whom Rosen refers to as the “alienating parent.” In recognition of the brainwashing parent’s influence over the child, Rosen asserts:

“The ABA [American Bar Association] Standards also recognize that children are susceptible to intimidation and manipulation and the child’s decisions may not reflect the child’s actual position…The attorney also has a duty to prevent the child client from pursuing decisions that would not be made but for the brainwashing techniques employed by the alienating parent.”

“Under the influence of an alienating parent, the child may not be cognitively or psychologically able to make a judgment that is in his or her best interests.

The child’s attorney must determine whether the child’s wishes and statements are an authentic reflection of the child’s attachment with each parent or instead, a result of one parent’s efforts to contaminate the child’s feelings toward the other parent as a result of programming or scripting. 

In cases of parental alienation, the parental brainwashing of the child is the true culprit. The child’s opinion is replaced with the desires and objectives of the parent who exercises the most influence over him or her. Further, as more weight is accorded to the child’s stated preferences, the risk of manipulation or pressure by a parent increases.” (Pp. 333-334, 336.)

Peer-reviewed research, the clinical literature, and the evidenced-based practices of mental health clinicians and matrimonial attorneys abound with affirmation of coached children in situations of adversarial custody.

From Psychologists Shaw and Loftus

Research psychologists Julia Shaw and Elizabeth Loftus determined that false memories can be implanted with ease in children, as well as in adults, of all ages by the third weekly interview. 

Julia Shaw’s replicated research found that false memories of having committed a crime can be implanted in more than 70% of the participants in the study.

Elizabeth Loftus’ replicated studies inform that it is exceedingly easy to corrupt human memory with very little effort.

From Psychologists Maggie Bruck and Stephen Ceci on the Ease With Which Children’s Memories Can Be Altered and Influenced

Psychologists Bruck and Cecil write about their extensive research on the suggestibility of children as follows:

“When children are repeatedly and suggestively interviewed about false events, assent rates rise for each interview. For example, children are more likely to assent to a false event in a third interview than in a second interview. Subtle suggestions can influence children’s inaccurate reporting of nonevents that, if pushed in follow-up questioning by an interviewer who suspected something sexual had occurred, could lead to a sexual interpretation.”(P. 432.)

Bruck and Ceci further emphasize that children can sound quite “credible” in their reporting of nonevents but which had been suggested by the interviewer.   

From Psychologist and Lawyer, Christopher Barden

Dr. Barden cautioned that professionals who intervene in adversarial custody proceedings have a “critical obligation to carefully review the influence of parents, therapists or other adults on the attitudes, beliefs and memories of children.” (p. 420)  

From Psychologist Richard Warshak, Ph.D.

In his 2003 peer-reviewed article entitled, “Payoff and Pitfalls of Listening to Children,” Dr. Warshak cautioned about the vulnerability of children to adverse parental influence over the child’s feelings and wishes. Dr. Warshak declares:

“Through a variety of tactics such as selective attention, repetition, intimidation, overindulgence, and suggestion, a parent can corrupt a child’s view of the other parent.  Once a child forms a predominantly negative opinion of a parent, and particularly once this opinion is expressed publicly, it is liable to become deeply entrenched and highly resistant to modification even in the face of information that directly contradicts misconceptions.” (P. 375.)

Dr. Warshak further cautions professionals in a high conflict custody case not to:

delude themselves into thinking that they are hearing a child’s voice when, in fact, they may be receiving a distorted broadcast laced with the static of a charged emotional atmosphere; or the voice may be delivering a script written by another; or it may reflect the desire to placate, take care of, or pledge loyalty to a parent.  (P. 382.)

Warshak expresses concern with the “enlightenment rationale” approach to child custody by empowering the child with decision-making status in the legal proceedings:

“The basic pitfall with the enlightenment rationale is that we will confuse what children tell us with what is in their best interest. Some evaluators, advocacy groups, and parents (particularly those whose children support their position in the custody dispute) assume that children’s words always express their genuine thoughts and feelings, and they equate children’s thoughts and feelings with expressions of their true best interests. 

That is, children know and are accurate reporters of what is best for them. Proponents off this position believe that a child’s strong preference for or aversion to a parent should weigh heavily in custody decisions. In this view, any child’s rejection of a parent is prima facie evidence of severe maltreatment by the rejected parent.”  (P. 374.) 

Children are Instinctively Storytellers

Lying and deception are part of our instinctual survival kit – holdovers from Cave Person days. In fact, there are research studies that have found that lying occurs within 10 minutes in 40% of all conversations!

What parent has not had to teach their children not to lie?!

Alienating parents are capitalizing on the child’s instinctual tendency to report inaccurately, fantastically, and deliberately untruthful. The instinct to lie is one of several contributing factors to the ease with which alienating parents are able to coerce their children to override the child’s instinctual need to be protective of a parent and to avoid “tattling” on a parent.

From Seth Slater, M. F. A.

Mr. Slater, writes in Psychology Today on 9/22/2013 and 1/31/2018 about the role lying plays as a:

“valuable tool in the survival kit of any social species” and that “lying is a tool we all inherit as a result of the social pressures of evolutionary biology.”

From Richard Friedman, MD

In an 8/5/2003 NY Times article entitled, “Behavior: Truth About Lies,” Dr. Friedman states:

“By the time most children are 4, they have acquired the ability to deceive others, a skill critical to survival. In fact, few human behaviors are viewed as paradoxically as lying. We teach our children that it is wrong, yet we lie every day in the name of civility.”

From Theodore Schaarschmidt

In a 7/11/2018 article by entitled, “The Art of Lying, published in the Scientific American, Mr. Schaarschmidt states:

“Lying is among the most sophisticated and demanding accomplishments of the human brain…. Lying is a major component of the human behavioral repertoire; without it, we would have a hard time coping. Small children love to make up stories, but we generally tell the first purposeful lies about age 4.” 

Humans Are Poor Lie Detectors

Complicating our ability to determine the validity and accuracy of a child’s reporting is that humans are exceedingly poor lie detectors.

From Harvard Social Psychologists, Bella DePaulo and Charlie Bond

Dr. DePaulo and Charlie Bond summarized all the studies conducted to determine the human ability to detect lies. 24,000 participants were involved in their aggregate study. Dr. Paulo opined about the results:

“People are pretty lousy lie detectors. In ordinary social interactions, when all we have to go by is what the other persons are saying and how they are saying it, our judgments of whether someone is lying or telling the truth are correct only a little more often than chance. By chance, accuracy would have been 50 percent; the average accuracy across all of the studies was 54%”.

Mistakes Clinicians Make in Assessing Validity of Self-Report

The failure of mental health clinicians to make findings informed by science is regrettably rampart in the field.

A 2009 research study about clinicians’ rejection of science to inform findings was summarized in a 2009 article written by Newsday science writer, Sharon Begley, entitled, “Ignoring the Evidence: Why do Psychologists Reject Science.” 

The study which Begley discussed is entitled, “Current Status and Future Prospects of Clinical Psychology: Toward a Scientifically Principled Approach to Mental and Behavioral Health Care by Professors Timothy Baker, Richard McFall, and Varda Shoham, published in Psychological Science in The Public Interest. They state the following:

“Clinical psychologists’ failure to achieve a more significant impact on clinical and public health may be traced to their deep ambivalence about the role of science and their lack of adequate science training, which leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence….Clinical psychology resembles medicine at a point in its history when practitioners were operating in a largely prescientific manner.”

Clinical psychology resembles medicine at a point in its history when practitioners were operating in a largely prescientific manner.” (p. 67)

Begley further cited Professor Walter Mischel of Columbia University, who expressed to her:

“The disconnect between what clinicians do and what science has discovered is an unconscionable embarrassment” and that “there is a widening gap between clinical practice and science.” 

It has been my experience that the rejection of science to inform findings afflicts many professionals in all the mental health disciplines. One exception appears to be psychiatrists, who have been comprehensively educated during their medical training in the scientific method.

Other Factors Contributing to the Unreliability of Human Reporting in General and the Reporting of Alienated Children Specifically

• Corruption of human memory over time
• Leading questions by the researcher or investigator
• Suggestibility by the researcher or investigator
• Repetition of falsehoods or distortions
• Emotional reasoning
• Cognitive immaturity
• Emotional immaturity
• Subjectivity
• Deja Vu experiences
• Contradictory reporting by others involved
• Influence from friends, family, the news media, social media
• Brainwashing by another for self-serving purposes

Conclusion

Severely alienated children are not expressing their own genuine wishes, feelings, and opinions. They are, instead, expressing the wishes, feelings, and opinions of the alienating parent as a result of the alienating parent’s use of coercive mind-control tactics.

Giving weight to the wishes of an alienated child perpetuates child abuse and delays or prevents effective remedy.