A
collection of articles on Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental
Alienation in family court proceedings in the United Kingdom by
Dr
L F Lowenstein M.A., Dip.Psych., Ph.D.
'Parent Alienation and the Judiciary', Medico-Legal Journal (1999d) Vol.67 (3), 121-123.
'Parent Alienation and the Judiciary', Medico-Legal Journal (1999d) Vol.67 (3), 121-123.
Increasing
numbers of cases are coming before the Courts where one parent feels
displaced in relation to the children in the family. The syndrome,
parental alienation (PAS),' as it is now called, is not a new one,
but its importance is being highlighted in the United States as well
as in the UK. Judges are often uncertain as to how to treat the
situation where one parent seeks to make contact with the children
following an estrangement, separation, or an unusually unpleasant and
vicious divorce.
There
is some pressure on the Judiciary to keep the child or children with
the person who has major control, usually the mother. Parental
alienation however, also affects some mothers denied contact with
their children who are resident with the father. On the whole, it is
the male member of the partnership who suffers from the alienation
situation.
In
recent cases in which I have personally been involved, I had the
opportunity of talking about PAS and its problems with two judges, on
different occasions. The dilemma is how to deal with the case where
the resident partner i.e. the alienating partner, fails to co-operate
with the courts in providing adequate access for the other partner. I
will recreate the general conversation, on an informal basis and
hence no names can be mentioned. Interestingly, similar conversations
were repeated with both judges, one male and one female,
demonstrating how similar problems are often faced by the Judiciary
in parental alienation cases.
Psych.:
Your Honour, this is a case typical of parental alienation and I feel
it is only right that the alienated parent should have contact with
the child in question.
Judge:
But the mother says that the child does not want any contact with the
boy.
Psych.:
This is because there has been a consider-able amount of
programming, I have discovered through my assessment, to make the child respond in this manner.
programming, I have discovered through my assessment, to make the child respond in this manner.
Judge:
This may well be so but how do I deal with this situation when mother
stubbornly refuses to allow contact of the child with the father?
Psych.:
It is a difficult situation, your Honour, but the question remains:
should justice be done or should it be ignored?
Judge:
It is not as easy as that. I have spent time with mothers, even
sitting in a cell, to try to get them to see reason to allow their
former husbands to have access to a child. Sometimes this has worked
while at other times, there has been a refusal. This puts me in a
very awkward position since I must consider carefully, first and
foremost, the children concerned and they are, after all, in the care
of their mother who, if they are deprived other, due to her being
sentenced for failing to follow instructions, will lose a mother
vital to their welfare.
Psych.:
Again it comes down, your Honour, to considering the question of
failure to comply with the Court ruling. If an ordinary criminal
fails to obey instructions of the Court, some punitive action is
taken. Should not some punitive action also follow when a mother, or
father for that matter, refuses to accede to the ruling of the judge
and the Court?
Judge:
Well, I will see what I can do on this particular matter and the case
before me but I still feel that it is a difficult one to settle, when
one of the partners is totally opposed to contact with the child and
the child in question has decided openly and before me, to refuse to
have any contact with the other parent. Are you suggesting that I
fine the mother in question or place her in a prison for failing to
adhere to my instructions and that of the Court?
Psych.:
I personally see no other alternative. It may well be that if such a
threat is made, the alienating parent may, in due course, accept what
has been recommended by the Court and there will be no need to take
the action which you and I both feel is undesirable and may even be
counter-productive.
Both
judges agreed the case before them was typical of parental alienation
and the difficulties they faced are only too obvious. Their first
concern, and also that of myself, was the children. If the children
have been "brain-washed" and "programmed" in a
particular direction, this made the judge's decision all the more
difficult.
It
is my view that no exception can be made for failing to adhere to the
ruling of a court and that justice must be done however painful this
may be. It may well be that the alienated parent should eventually
gain access following a period of therapy between the psychologist
and the child or children in question, to make them aware of what is
happening. If older they themselves may well be able to put pressure
on the alienating parent to see sense.
From
the conversation, it can be seen that many judges are undoubtedly
unsure how best to deal with alienating parents - this usually being
the
mother. Judges are often saved by the fact that fathers cease to pursue their role of wishing to play a part in their children's' lives. This is due to the resistance they meet from the former spouse, who has often formed a new relationship and wishes the new partner to take over the role of father. I have even known cases where the mother insisted the child call the new husband "dad" and the natural father by his first name.
mother. Judges are often saved by the fact that fathers cease to pursue their role of wishing to play a part in their children's' lives. This is due to the resistance they meet from the former spouse, who has often formed a new relationship and wishes the new partner to take over the role of father. I have even known cases where the mother insisted the child call the new husband "dad" and the natural father by his first name.
Fathers
who pursue both their right and their sense of responsibility through
the courts are relatively few. Many opt out due to the resistance
they meet from their ex-partners, the programmed child and the
reluctance of judges to give them justice. This is undoubtedly due to
the following:
1.
Judges are reluctant to punish and most especially incarcerate
obdurate mothers who refuse to comply with a judge's decision that
they must allow access with an estranged father.
2.
Judges often are reluctant to ignore the view expressed by children
that they do not wish to meet their fathers, despite the fact that
such children have been "intensively programmed" to respond
in this way by mothers and the mother's relations.
3.
Judges are reluctant to advise that therapy should take place,
despite the fact that when such alienation occurs, children are
damaged. Such therapy is often recommended by expert witnesses such
as a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Such recommended periods of
therapy for the child and mother are viewed by judges (with the aid
of the mother's Counsel!) as likely to damage further the children
who are involved in this conflict and hostility between the parents.
Despite
such reservations, judges have a moral duty to provide justice for
the alienated party, this usually being the father. The threat of
punishment for the alienator must be supported by punishment,
including removing the child from mother's care to a neutral place or
to the alienated parent, and to use incarceration when necessary.
Failure to carry out this distasteful, but necessary, action against
the obdurate party would constitute a mockery of the judicial system.
It is my experience as an expert witness to the Courts as a forensic,
clinical psychologist, that most alienating parents, whether mothers
or fathers, will obey a court order if punishment is threatened for
failure to adhere to the ruling. Hence the carrying out of the
various possible measures is rarely necessary.
In
connection with PAS many judges have, without always being aware,
adopted a double standard. They see mothers who are alienators as
"victims" to be protected even when they have committed
what can only be described as a form of "emotional abuse".
They have abused their powerful position by influencing the young
children and turning them against the other parent. They have usurped
the role of the other parent or given it to yet another partner with
whom they have become associated. In this way, they have, by
destroying the right of the other parent taken away that parent's
opportunity to contribute to the child's welfare. This is at a time
when we are seeking to promote the equality of the sexes. Partners
should have equal power and responsibility toward their children.
PAS,
when it has been proven, is a vicious form of gender opportunism or
gender apartheid, which those seeking through justice can no longer
ignore. Judges must stop worrying about public outcries if they
remove a child from the care of a vicious programming parent who is
showing their hostility toward the former partner.
I
therefore suggest that the alienated parents, be they fathers or
mothers, be protected. In so doing we are also protecting the
children of such a relationship from a gross and calculated misuse of
power or position, that of the resident care giver.
Judges
in cases of proven PAS should act as decisively as they would if
judging a case of proven crime such as rape or murder. They must
remove the child from the emotional damage being heaped upon it, to a
safe place, where the non-alienating parent, with the help of therapy
for the child, can have his influences felt by the child. At the same
time, it is necessary to help the parent who has alienated the child
in the first place. He or she has undoubtedly suffered from a
considerable amount of pathological hostility towards the former
partner.
By
removing the child, or children, from the influence of the
"brain-washing" alienator, the child has the opportunity of
experiencing the dedication of the previously alienated parent and to
develop a less biased view of that parent. Also the child can develop
a positive view of both parents despite them being at war with each
other.
This
will do much to ensure for that child that both parents, although
hostile towards one another, care and are devoted to him/her. This
provides the child with a reasonable start in life, which he or she
would not have had, had the influence of the alienator been allowed
to continue along with a failure to have any contact with the
alienated parent at the same time.
References
1.
Parent Alienation Syndrome: What the legal profession should know,
MLJ Vol 66 (1998) pt 4,151.