The Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Analysis
of Sixteen Selected Cases
John Dunne
ABSTRACT. This study analyzed sixteen cases which appeared to meet Dr. Richard
Gardner's criteria for parental alienation syndrome as set forth in his 1987
book. These cases showed a wide diversity of characteristics but Gardner's
criteria were useful in differentiating these cases from other post-divorce
difficulties. Traditional interventions were ineffective in altering the
alienation.
Gardner (1985) has described cases of intense rejection of a parent by children
after divorce which he referred to as "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS).
He defined this syndrome as a disturbance occurring in children who are
preoccupied with depreciation and criticism of a parent and denigration that
is unjustified and/or exaggerated (Gardner, 1987). He describes these children
as "obsessed with hatred of a parent."
The "parental alienation syndrome" has rapidly become a focus of controversy
within the mental health and the legal profession. It has been raised, as
well as attacked, in cases involving allegations of domestic violence, parental
substance abuse, and child sexual abuse, often strongly polarizing various
mental health professionals involved in the cases. Advocacy groups for mothers,
fathers, and sexual abuse victims have often been recruited into the conflict.
Very little is described in the literature about children who reject parents
following marital separation. Jacobs (1988)describes a case in which five
children rejected their father, apparently in response to their mother's
extreme narcissistic rage. Wallerstein (1984) noted one child at the ten
year follow-up, who rejected her mother, with whom she was living, after
her father's attempt to change custody failed. Fidler (1988) also noted one
case of a child who refused to see the noncustodial parent among the sample
of 76 children referred to a family court clinic.
More common in the literature is the failure to mention a child's rejection
of a parent as one of the outcomes of divorce. Pearson and Thoennes (1990)
noted a relatively high frequency of no or sporadic overnight visits with
a non-residential parent. In 40% of the maternal sole custody and 30% of
the paternal sole custody, the children had no overnight visits with a
non-residential parent. In joint legal custody, 7% of the children living
with their mothers and 20% of the children living with their fathers reported
no overnights with the other parent. Although this is a relatively high
frequency, the authors made no mention of the children's attitudes about
their parents or the reason for no visits. Kalter et al. (1989) did not report
any cases of the child rejecting a parent in their sample of 56 recruited
pairs of children and mothers. Similarly, Oppenheimer et al. (1990) noted
no cases in their sample of 46 elementary aged children, all living with
their mothers, who rejected either parent. Review articles by Zaslow (1988)
and by Heatherington et at. (1989) make no reference to parent alienation
or to children rejecting a parent as an outcome following divorce.
Rather than specifically identifying children's rejection of a parent, several
authors made reference to difficulties arising when a child aligns with a
parent or attempts to step into the role of protecting a vulnerable parent.
For example, Johnston et at. (1989) noted that large numbers of children
attempt to align with one or both angry parents which simultaneously helps
the child feel more important and more vulnerable. They indicated that the
"typical" response of an older child was to be negative toward the other
parent to some degree and to perhaps reject that parent or refuse to visit.
In another paper, Johnston and her colleagues (Johnston et al. 1987) noted
a tendency of children to become protective toward a fragile parent, the
frequency of role reversals, and a tendency to take responsibility in the
parental disputes. Jacobs (1988) and Wallerstein (1985) refer to the intense
rage of the narcissistically injured parent as being critical in the child's
attitudes about the other parent. Wallerstein also refers to the pathological
dependence of a parent on a child to protect against feelings of loss as
being important in the child's emerging need to protect that parent from
intolerable feelings. Oppenheimer and colleagues (1990) concluded that the
child's perceptions of parental attitudes and their own beliefs about the
divorce have a significant influence on their post-separation adjustment,
presumably also including the degree of hostility they felt toward one or
both parents.
The authors have been unable to locate any studies systematically analyzing
the children and their families when one or more of the children in the family
have rejected a parent after divorce. Such an analysis would be a necessary
first step in attempting to validate Gardner's "parental alienation syndrome"
and his hypothesis about etiology. This study was undertaken to explore
characteristics of cases which appeared to meet Gardner's criteria, to search
for commonalities among the cases, and to alert mental health professional
to this infrequent but serious outcome in children after divorce.
All cases presented here were referred to one or both of the authors for
forensic evaluation or treatment of a seemingly intractable situation, Cases
were selected for the study on the basis of at least one child in the family
having intensely rejected one of the parents on the basis of trivial or
unsubstantiated accusations, apparently meeting Gardner's criteria for "parental
alienation syndrome," There was no attempt to match these cases with a control
group of children whose parents had also separated and/or divorced.
METHOD
The sixteen cases in this study were taken from the caseloads of basis that
they met the majority of the criteria set forth by Gardner, (1985, 1987),
in his description of the parental alienation syndrome. Those criteria are
as follows.
Child is preoccupied with depreciation and criticism of the parent that is
unjustified and/or exaggerated.
Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious factors within the alienating parent
contribute to the child's alienation from the other.
Denigration of the parent has the quality of a litany, a rehearsed quality.
There is phraseology not usually used by the child.
Child justifies the alienation with memories of minor altercations experienced
in die relationship with the parent which are trivial and which most children
would have forgotten. When asked, the children are unable to give more compelling
reasons.
The alienating parent will concur with the children and support their belief
that these reasons justify the alienation.
Hatred of the parent is most incense when the alienating parent and the child
are in the presence of the alienated parent. However, when the child is alone
with the alienated parent, the child may exhibit hatred, neutrality, or
expressions of affection.
If the child begins to enjoy him/herself with the alienated parent, there
may be episodes of "stiffening up" and resuming withdrawal and animosity,
as though they have done something wrong. Alternatively, the child may ask
the alienated parent not to reveal his/her affection to the other parent.
The degree of animosity in the child's behavior and verbalizations may vary
with the degree of proximity to the alienating parent.
Hatred of the parent often extends to include die alienated parent's extended
family, with even less justification by the child.
The alienating parent is generally unconcerned with the psychological effects
on the child of the rejection of parent and extended family.
The child's hatred of the alienated parent is often impervious to evidence
which contradicts his/her position.
The child's position seemingly lacks ambivalence. The alienated parent is
"all bad," the alienating parent is "all good."
The child is apt to exhibit a guiltless disregard for the feelings of the
alienated parent.
The child fears the loss of the love of the alienating parent.
By choosing cases which met the majority of these criteria, the authors were
selecting for situations which embodied severe parental alienation, rather
than the more common and more moderate instances of loyalty conflicts which
are widely evident in the children of conflictual divorcing parents.
In an effort to better understand the sub-population of divorcing families
who manifest an alienation of one parent, these cases were analyzed and data
obtained regarding the following variables:
length of the relationship or marriage prior to separation.
the age of the children at separation.
the length of time' between separation and the onset of the alienation.
the number of children in each family constellation who exhibited the dynamic.
the sex of the alienating parent.
the sex of the children.
the effectiveness of various interventions in remedying the alienation.
Case #1
A had just turned six years old when she was referred for treatment by her
Guardian Ad Litem. She was an only child from the father's second marriage
and the mother's first marriage. She attended the first grade at a private
school for gifted children and seemed to get along well with peers.
The parents had separated one and a half years prior to the referral for
treatment, initially the parents agreed that A would live with her mother
and be with her father on alternate weekends from Saturday morning until
Sunday evening, as well as holiday and vacation time. However, A almost
immediately became resistant to leaving her mother and going with her father.
At times the father had to pick her up and carry her to the car kicking and
screaming. These difficulties paralleled an increase in the mother's accusations
about the father's harassment and alcohol abuse. There were several court
attempts to increasingly supervise the contacts between the parents and the
visitation time with the father. Eventually, each of the parents was ordered
into individual therapy, as was A. In addition, a GAL was appointed and a
supervisor for the visitations was assigned.
None of these efforts seemed to alter the progressive rejection of the father
by A in clinical sessions. She was initially guarded and resistant, her affect
flat and joyless. It was reported by the supervisor that during her visits
with her father she was relaxed and playful, although she seemed to most
enjoy spending time with her father's live-in girlfriend. However, when it
came time to return to her mother, she became quite panicked aid insisted
on taking off any makeup or clothes that might indicate that she had had
fun at her father's. When she returned to her mother, she consistently complained
about each visit. Her play themes in therapy excluded any reference to men
or fathers.
A's mother was a forty-two year old medical professional who had not worked
since A's birth. She was supported by a large stipend from her ex-husband
and devoted all her energies to A. She claimed that A became very upset whenever
she talked about the possibility of going back to work and used this as a
rationalization for not returning to work. Despite her intense hostility
and her many accusations toward the father, the mother confided that she
continued to love him and was quite jealous of the father's new relationship.
She insisted that A have nothing to do with the father's girlfriend and forbade
the therapist to talk with the girlfriend. This mother viewed her daughter
as unique and special, frequently insisting on special treatment or
considerations. She had no insight into her role in alienating her daughter
from her father and blamed everything on the father's aberrant behavior.
The father was a well-paid physician and accomplished outdoorsman who was
highly thought of in both his profession and avocation. Although very angered
by his ex-wife's accusations, he tended to respond passively and did not
want to challenge her directly At times, however, his anger would erupt during
confrontations by her. He saw his ex-wife as obsessed with their daughter
and deluded by her own fantasies. He described his daughter as having two
personalities, one when she was under the influence of her mother, when she
acted like an extension of her mother's ego, and another when she was with
him, a happy and playful child. At one point the father was allowed to take
his daughter on an extended vacation where they reportedly had a very good
time together. However, difficulties re-emerged immediately upon the daughter
returning to her mother's home.
Two years after the separation and with no progress evident despite treatment
for all three individuals, the father agreed to have no further contact with
his daughter. This was viewed as preferable to continuing the conflict which
appeared to have no resolution for her. He continued to make voluntary
contributions to a trust fund for her and sent her letters occasionally,
which he hoped she would mad after she became an adult.
Case #2
F was a twelve year old girl and G a ten year old boy at the time of this
evaluation. They had been placed together in foster care following their
detailed descriptions of sexual and physical abuse by their father and physical
abuse by their step-mother, with whom they primarily resided. Despite the
children's statements and wishes, the court did not place them with the mother
because of allegations that she had instigated their statements against the
father. The children had only supervised contact with both parents during
this evaluation.
The mother had initiated the marital separation six years prior and the father
had resisted the divorce. Following the separation, the mother made accusations
of physical abuse of herself by the father and on the day prior to the
commencement of the divorce trial, the mother made allegations of sexual
abuse of the children by the father. The trial was postponed and several
professionals evaluated the children. Those evaluations substantiated that
the daughter had been sexually abused by the mother's boyfriend's (now husband's)
son but did not substantiate sexual abuse by the father. The custody of the
children was subsequently awarded to the father. A year following the divorce,
the mother made another report to CPS alleging physical abuse and possible
sexual abuse of the children by the father. After investigation the allegations
were dismissed as unsubstantiated. One year later the mother attempted to
modify custody but this request was denied. in the same year, approximately
three years after the separation, both parents remarried and all four parties
were ordered to participate together in an attempt at counseling.
Approximately one year after the counseling, the daughter was interviewed
by a CPS worker after she reported to her school that she was afraid to return
to her father's home following a weekend visitation with the mother. After
investigation, the case was again closed. Two months later, during a visit
with their mother, the children made die statements to neighbors and later
to the CPS caseworker which prompted this evaluation with one of the authors.
Psychological testing of the mother produced clinical scares elevated beyond
the normal range. The clinical pattern suggested that she was immature,
narcissistic, self-indulgent as well as passive-dependent. The testing also
suggested that she was likely to be suspicious of the motivations of others,
avoidant of deep emotional involvement, angry, argumentative, stubborn, and
prone to externalization. Psychological testing of the father was not elevated
beyond die normal range. His normal range profile suggested that he was apt
to be naive, hopeful, optimistic, and suggestible with a persistent need
to be liked by others and a tendency to avoid confrontation and negativity.
There was also some evidence of insecurity, feelings of inadequacy, and a
tendency to anticipate rejection. Because the allegations involved the father's
current wife, she was also evaluated. She was found to be an exceptionally
well-functioning individual.
The father's childhood history was benign and he enjoyed a good relationship
with his parents as an adult. However, the mother's history included a very
disturbed relationship with her own parents and considerable parental dysfunction
during her childhood.
At the time of the evaluation, the mother was a fulltime homemaker, with
one child front her second marriage at home. She volunteered at an abused
women's shelter and through this activity had a wide circle of friends who
offered her considerable support. The father and step-mother were both postal
workers who were pursuing educational goals on a part time basis, were active
in the schools, and well-regarded by neighbors. They had voluntarily sought
counseling for the family several months prior to the allegations because
of the degree of conflict between the two households and the effect of that
on the children.
Although the children initially made detailed statements about physical and
sexual abuse to professionals, during this evaluation their statements were
very general and contradictory of earlier statements. Both children exhibited
much more affect and energy around statements having to do with the divorce
conflict than with abuse, i.e., child support issues and values about living
in urban rather than rural areas. Their "memories" of various events appeared
to be highly contaminated by their mother's issues and perceptions.
This evaluation failed to substantiate abuse of the children by the father
or the step-mother and implicated the mother in excessively influencing the
children's statements against the father. Following a trial, the judge returned
the children to their father's home. The mother's contact with the children
was temporarily suspended while the children were reinvolved with the therapist
with whom they had previously been in counseling. The mother was then asked
to initiate gradual contact with the children through the therapist via letters
and phone calls. However, after a brief time, the mother moved out of the
state and did not follow through with supervised contact. The children have
had no contact with their mother for more than one year. Their therapist
reports that their overall functioning is much better than prior to the
allegations, although both children have difficulty understanding their mother's
failure to maintain contact with them. Their therapist has described the
children's fabrications of abuse as an attempt on their part to consolidate
a very tenuous relationship with their mother. She felt it was made clear
to the children that acceptance by their mother was contingent upon rejection
of the father and they appeared willing to sacrifice a very secure relationship
with the father and step-mother in order to resolve the issue of their mother's
commitment to them.
Case #3
This case involved a girl, M. who was two years, six months at the time of
the evaluation. There had been a long series of allegations by the mother
toward the father beginning in the early months of the pregnancy. The most
recent of these allegations was that the father was sexually abusing the
child during the limited visits that the child had with the father at the
paternal grandparents' home. CPS had been involved twice and made a preliminary
conclusion that sexual abuse was probable based on the child's statement
that "daddy hurt my butt."
The father was a 24 year old blue-collar worker whose work often necessitated
that lie be out of town for three to four months at a time. Both clinical
evaluation and psychological testing suggested a somewhat immature, narcissistic,
and impulsive young man. He viewed Iris ex-wife as deceitful, unpredictable,
and emotionally volatile. Although he had had two DWI's, he tended to minimize
his drinking pattern and deny that Ire had a problem. A detailed psychosexual
history was essentially unremarkable. He had dated relatively infrequently
and tended to be attracted to women for superficial attributes. His involvement
with M's mother was his first serious relationship. There was no history
of sexually inappropriate behavior.
The mother was a 24 year old woman who had worked occasionally as a clerical
worker. At the time of the evaluation she lived with her parents, who
supplemented the child support payments and funded her protracted legal battle
with her ex-husband. The mother's family was dominated by the maternal
grandmother from whom the mother had never emancipated. Psychological testing
and clinical interview suggested a person with strong narcissistic, histrionic,
and dependent traits. She appeared willing to exploit others without regard
to their feelings. She had a long history of avoiding disapproval by deflecting
blame to others. The extensive legal file seemed to document her willingness
to fabricate data to prevent her daughter from visiting her father.
Many of her allegations had some element of truth but always represented
the worst possible interpretation of her ex-husband's behavior or character.
A few months before the allegations about sexual abuse, the mother had called
the local police department, and discovered there was an outstanding warrant
for the father because he had failed to show for a summons on a DWI. She
waited until the father had made arrangements to pick up their daughter for
a visit, notified the local police, and arranged to have him arrested as
he appeared for the visit.
M had a history of constipation following her visits with her father. Several
hours after her return from one visit, and after having played in a wading
pool with several other children, M was noticed to have several abrasions
on her back. Later that same day, she was described as having a purplish
protrusion of her anus at which time M stated that her father "hurt my butt."
Subsequent evaluation by a pediatrician trained in sexual abuse issues was
ambiguous. However, a later colposcopic exam of the anus showed multiple
angulations, suggestive of repealed anal penetration, but also occurring
frequently in children without a history of anal penetration. A thorough
psychiatric evaluation of this family concluded that there was evidence of
parental alienation syndrome and did not substantiate the likelihood of sexual
abuse.
M was referred to an experienced female child therapist. M subsequently revealed
in more detail that the father had poked her in the anus with his finger
an several occasions when he was in his bedroom at the grandparents' home.
However, M gave a different description on re-evaluation with the original
evaluator. She had no signs of sexualized behavior and in all other ways
her development was progressing normally. She seemed acutely aware of her
mother's dislike of her father. It was concluded that this case represented
parental alienation syndrome.
Case #4
C was a sixteen year old girl, D a twelve year old boy, and E a nine year
old girl at the time of the evaluation which occurred a year and a half after
the marital separation. All three children were refusing to have any contact
with their father and had not seen him for over a year at the time of the
evaluation.
Prior to the separation. the children spent extensive time with other caretakers
because of their parents' strenuous work schedules. There was evidence of
poor supervision and lack of involvement by both parents during that time.
However, all three children had been very attached to their father by all
reports. The father initiated the separation after sixteen years of marriage
because he had become involved with a woman with whom he worked. The mother
was distraught over the separation and experienced a brief episode of psychotic
depression characterized by delusions, memory loss, and disorientation. She
then precipitously moved the children to another town several hours from
the father. The children saw their father for several months after the separation
on brief visits. However, when it became apparent that he would not return
to the household and was seeing the woman with whom he had become involved,
all three children eventually refused to have contact with him.
The mother seemed unable to differentiate the father's unwillingness to continue
their relationship from his desire to continue to parent the children. She
repeatedly referred to her husband's "abandonment of the family" and had
conducted a "burial ceremony" during which she and the children symbolically
buried the father so that the "new family," which did not include the father,
could move forward.
After repeatedly being frustrated in his attempt to make contact with the
children, the father initiated an evaluation through Family Court. At the
time of the evaluation, D had gained 80 pounds since the separation and was
now 100% over his optimal weight. The mother explained the children's decision
to have no contact with their father as resulting from their being in Catholic
schools and therefore intolerant of the idea of divorce. She contended that
she had encouraged the children to see their father but to no avail. However,
information from neighbors and letters written by her to the father strongly
suggested that she was motivated to sever the children's contact with the
father and quite vociferous regarding her animosity towards him in their
presence.
Psychological testing suggested that the father relied on denial for dealing
with conflict, was somewhat oversensitive in interpersonal relationships,
but otherwise outgoing and sociable. There was also the suggestion of some
narcissism in his dealings with others. The mother's psychological testing
was invalidated by considerable defensiveness characteristic of individuals
who deny psychological problems, are unsophisticated psychologically, and
who claim excessive virtue. The testing also suggested that she was apt to
be inflexible, unrealistic. and very needful of being seen by others in a
positive light.
The evaluation concluded that it was the mother's inability to differentiate
her own needs from those of the children that had led to the children's
alienation from their father. The evaluator recommended that the custody
of D and E be immediately and temporarily changed to the father for two months
while the mother sought therapy for herself and C. However, the court denied
that recommendation but did order visitations to begin immediately for all
three children. Only after several months delay did the children begin therapy
and brief visits with their father. Following several more months of therapy
and contact with the father only during the therapy sessions, D asked to
stay over night with his father. The mother reacted with rage, as though
D had betrayed her. However, with the support of his counselor and father,
13 was able to follow through on his wish to spend alternate weekends with
his father. C, however, continued to refuse to have any contact with her
father and E continued to have only brief daytime visits on alternate weekends.
The mother found her son's proactive relationship with his father intolerable
and within nine months sent him to live with the father claiming D had become
abusive and unmanageable.
RESULTS
In fourteen of the sixteen cases in this study, the mother had primary custody
and was the alienating parent. In one case, the non-custodial mother was
the alienating parent and in one case, the non-custodial father was the
alienating parent.
There were a total of 26 children (14 girls and 12 boys) in these 16 families
and 21 of the 26 children appeared to be involved in the alienation dynamic
with a parent. Twelve of the alienated children were female and nine were
male.
The length of the marriage prior to final separation was tabulated. In two
of the cases, there was no marriage and in three more cases the marriages
lasted less than six months. One marriage ended after four years, six had
survived between five and ten years, and four had lasted between eleven and
fifteen years.
The ages of the alienated children at the time of parental separation ranged
from in utero (four cases) to fourteen years of age and appeared evenly
distributed across age brackets.
The cases were analyzed to determine the approximate amount of time between
the separation and the onset of alienation, as determined by the clinician
retrospectively. In five of the cases, onset appeared to be coincident with
the separation. In two of the cases, alienation appeared within six months
after separation. In four more cases, the alienation became apparent from
one to two years after separation. In the final four cases, the alienation
occurred between three and six years after separation.
In looking at interventions to deal with the alienation from a parent, a
wide range of both legal and clinical processes were identified. In three
of the cases, a change of custody away from the alienating parent or a strict
limitation of that parent's contact with the child(ren) was implemented by
the court system. In all three cases, this was successful in eradicating
the alienation. There were no cases in which a change of custody occurred
but the alienation continued. In the other thirteen cases, various interventions
were tried, ranging from therapy for each of the parents individually, therapy
for the parents together, therapy for the children with the alienated parent,
therapy fur the children with the alienating parent, and the assignment of
a Guardian Ad Litem to the case. In two of these cases, the children were
evaluated as having experienced "some" or "minimal" improvement in their
relationship with the alienated parent. In the other eleven cases, there
was no improvement and in two of these cases, the alienation was evaluated
as "worse" after these interventions.
DISCUSSION
These cases exemplify the wide diversity and complex nature of the "parental
alienation syndrome" as it is played out in parental access disputes. In
contrast to Gardner's (1985, 1987, 1992) anecdotal description of cases,
this study attempted to analyze the salient characteristics of selected cases
meeting Gardner's criteria for parental alienation. These cases suggest that
the syndrome can occur without reference to the length of the relationship
prior to separation, can occur immediately following separation, or not until
many years after the divorce. It can occur in very young children as well
as with teens who have previously enjoyed a lengthy and positive post-divorce
relationship with the alienated parent. It can involve all children in the
family constellation or only one of the children. The alienating parent is
most often the custodial mother but alienation by non-custodial fathers or
mothers was also observed.
Then was a wide range in the severity of symptoms of PAS. It may be true
that some elements of PAS are present to some degree in a majority of divorcing
families. Our findings are consistent with those of Johnston et al. (1989)
in that all of our cases were entrenched in intense post-divorce conflicts.
As such they may represent a severe form of a psychological response common
in the children of divorcing parents and may not deserve to be classified
as a distinct syndrome,
Jacobs (1988) and Wallerstein (1985) refer to narcissistic injury as the
motivating force for the alienating parent. Jacobs (1988) also suggests a
form of "sibling rivalry" between the divorcing parents for the control and
love of the child and Wallerstein (1985) suggests a pathological dependence
of a parent on the child to protect against feelings of loss as another
underlying dynamic. This is supported by the observations in this study that
all of the alienating parents experience intense dysphoric feelings which
they blamed on their former spouses. Predominantly the alienating parents
experienced intense narcissistic injuries. However, issues of "sibling rivalry"
and pathological defense against feelings of loss were also present in at
least some of the alienating parents. In some cases, more than one motivating
factor appeared to be involved. It should be underscored, however, that these
motivations are often strikingly out of the consciousness of the alienating
parent, many of whom were adept at coloring their motivations and behaviors
in socially acceptable ways to themselves as well as to professionals.
Contrary to what might easily be assumed by professionals, this study suggests
that PAS does not necessarily signify dysfunction in either the alienated
parent or in the relationship between that parent and child. PAS appears
to be primarily a Function of the pathology of the alienating parent and
that parent's relationship with the children. Children are apt to be susceptible
to alienation when they perceive that the alienating parent's emotional survival
or the survival of their relationship with the alienating parent is dependent
upon the child's rejection of the other parent. This is consistent with the
finding of Johnston et al. (1987) in which they noted a tendency for children
to be protective toward a fragile parent when the parents were entrenched
in disputes over custody and access.
Efforts to evaluate these issues based on complaints by the child or one
parent are generally fruitless. Assessment of the entire family dynamics,
with an awareness of Gardner's descriptions of parental alienation, appears
useful in understanding these complaints and differentiating them from alienation
resulting from cases of abuse or other deficits in the alienated parent and
his/her relationship with the children.
This study also suggests that traditional therapies and interventions are
not successful in rehabilitating children affected by this syndrome. Although
the courts have been reluctant to take drastic action, especially when this
is contrary to a child's explicit wishes, in this study only a change in
custody to tile alienated parent was successful in remedying tile alienation.
It should be noted, however, that in two of the cases in this study in which
the court was willing to take this step, and one case hi which a change of
custody occurred voluntarily, the children eventually had little contact
with the alienating parent. This suggests that the PAS dynamic may be so
toxic that a relationship with both parents may not be possible, or in the
child's best interests, in cases of severe alienation. Each case must be
evaluated on its own merits and the identification of a parental alienation
syndrome is not sufficient, in and of itself, to justify changes in custody.
Full evaluation of a child's situation and relative parental strengths and
weaknesses may identify instances when it is in the best interest of tile
child to remain with the alienating parent and to have little or no contact
with the alienated parent in order to reduce the effects of continued conflict
on the child.
Although the "parental alienation syndrome" was only first described in 1985
(Gardner, 1985), the question arises as to whether PAS has always been evident
in the divorcing population, but unrecognized, or whether it is a recent
phenomenon, perhaps increasing in prevalence. Although this study did not
address this question, it is possible that both may be true. With social
changes creating parity between parents in the eyes of the court, a mother's
traditional role with her children may be undermined. This may be perceived
by the mother as a considerable psychological threat which can only be dealt
with by developing a pathological alliance with the child.
Professionals who work with the divorcing population, either as therapists,
or evaluators, need to be aware of the symptoms of PAS and the difficulties
that these cases present for the families and for the court system. A failure
to appropriately identify and intervene in the early stages of these cases
may result in the alienating parent being given professional support for
his/her position, reinforcing the child's need to maintain or expand complaints
about the alienated parent. This has the capacity to more firmly entrench
the syndrome and to enhance the severity of the dynamics.
Further study is necessary to assess the prevalence, the range of severity,
the effect on development, and the longterm outcome for children who remain
alienated from one of their parents. As this study suggests, very little
is known about what interventions would allow a child to have functional
relationships with both parents in such highly polarized cases. It is the
obvious hope that this study would prompt others to systematically evaluate
series of cases, perhaps clarifying the etiology and evolution of the syndrome.
Moreover, larger populations of divorcing families need to be examined for
the prevalence of partial or complete alienation of a child from a parent.
Retrospective studies of adults who have remained alienated throughout their
childhood development may also be useful in understanding this syndrome and
its consequences.
REFERENCES
1. Fidler, B.J., Ph.D., & E.B. Saunders, Ed D. (1988). Children's adjustment
during custody/access disputes: Relation to custody arrangements, gender
and age of child. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 33(6), 517-523.
2. Gardner, R.A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation.
Academy Forum, 29 (2), 3-7.
3. Gardner, R.A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation
between fabricated and genuine sexual abuse. Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill,
N.J.
4. Heatherington, M., M. Stanley-Hagan. & E.R. Anderson (1989). Marital
transitions: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 44(2), 303-312
5. Jacobs, J.E., M.D. (1988). Euripides medea: A psychodynamic model of severe
divorce pathology. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 42(2), 308-319.
6. Johnston, J.R., R. Gonzales, & L.G. Campbell. (1987). Ongoing post
divorce conflict and child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
15(4), 493-509.
7. Johnston, J.R., M. Kline, & J.M. Tschann. (1989). Ongoing divorce
conflict: : Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59 (4), 576-592.
8. Kalter, N., Ph.D. (1989). Long-term effects of divorce on children: A
developmental vulnerability model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57
(4), 587-600.
9. Oppenheimer, K., Ph.D., R.J. Primz, Ph.D., & B.S. Bella. (1990).
Determinant of adjustment for children of divorcing parents. Family Medicine,
22(2), 107-111.
10. Pearson, J. & N. Thoennes. (1990). Custody after divorce: Demographic
and attitudinal patterns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60 (2), 233-249.
11. Wallerstein, J.S., Ph.D. (1984). Children of divorce: Preliminary report
of a ten year follow-up of young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
54(3), 444-458.
12. Wallerstein, J.S., Ph.D. (1985). Children of divorce: Emerging trends.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 8 (4), 837-873.
13. Zaslow. M.J., Ph.D. (1988). Sex differences in children's response to
parental divorce: Research methodology and post-divorce family forums. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58 (3), 355-378.
AUTHORS
John Dunne, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in the Seattle area
specializing in the evaluation and treatment of parents and children. Marsha
Hedrick is a clinical psychologist in private practice in Seattle specializing
in forensic evaluations of adults and children.
The authors wish to thank Janis P. Mayberry, PhD, for her assistance in analyzing
cases contributed by her for this study. The editor wishes to acknowledge
Dr. Richard Gardner's review of this manuscript.
Address correspondence to: 216 1st Avenue South #333, Seattle, WA 98104.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 2(3/4) 1994 by the Haworth Press
Inc. All rights reserved.
Marsha Hedrick
JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE, Vol. 21, p 21-38 1994