DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ACTUAL ABUSE/NEGLECT
by Robert A. Evans, Ph.D.
One of the most authoritative works on differentiating between alienation and actual child abuse was written by Dr. Richard Gardner in his 1999 article in The American Journal of Family Therapy. Little has been written since then that sheds new light on this issue. Courts continue to be challenged in protecting children and determining what is in their best interests. This article will briefly review Dr. Gardner’s article and cite more recent work on this topic.
It is not uncommon in high conflict divorce cases for one parent to accuse the other of abusing and neglecting the children and therefore requesting protection from the court. In response the accused parent will claim the other parent is alienating the children against them. The children’s alienation is considered by one parent to be the result of Parental Alienation (PA) indoctrinations and the other to be the result of bona fide abuse-neglect. The criteria Gardner set down for differentiating between these situations are presented herein.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) has morphed into Parental Alienation (PA) as a terminology because of the multiple factors that are observed in PA. PAS, according to Gardner (1985, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 1992 and 1998), is a disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. An alienating or favored parent embarks on a program of denigration against a targeted parent. When bona fide abuse or neglect is present, then PAS and PA are not applicable terms, but “estrangement” becomes the appropriate terminology (Kelly & Johnson, 2001).
In all likelihood some abusive-neglectful parents use PA as an explanation for the children’s alienation as a cover-up for their abusive behavior. However, some alienating parents are using the argument that it is the other parent’s abusiveness that is causing the children’s alienation and not them. Obviously, this differentiation is an important one if courts are to deal properly with families embroiled in such disputes. Gardner laid out the criteria for differentiating between PA and bona fide abuse-neglect.
DIFFERENTIATING CRITERIA
When attempting to differentiate between PA and bona fide abuse the eight basic PA characteristics, listed below, are referred to first as guidelines. In general, children who have been alienated are likely to exhibit these characteristics or behaviors, whereas children who have been genuinely abused do not.
Parental Alienation
- Campaign of denigration
- Weak, frivolous, or absurd rationalizations for the deprecation
- Lack of ambivalence
- The “independent thinker” phenomenon
- Reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict
- Absence of guilt over cruelty to and/or exploitation of the alienated parent
- Presence of borrowed scenarios
- Spread of the animosity to the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent
Most recently, Dr. Steven G. Miller (MD) (2013) demonstrated when characteristics of an alienation case are present, based on Gardner’s symptoms, he can statistically predict the probability that parent alienation is present up to 99.99 percent. Dr. Miller’s statistical analysis, based on Bays Rule, in all likelihood brings PA within the range of a Daubert standard of acceptance. This is a landmark contribution to the field. Florida became a Daubert state on July 1, 2013. Many children, not all, who have been abused and neglected, will frequently exhibit the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is especially the case if the abuse has been chronic. Alienated children rarely exhibit these symptoms.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
The primary symptoms seen in post-traumatic stress disorder as indicated in the DSM-5 are:
- Recurrent, involuntary and intrusive memories of the traumatic event(s)
- Recurrent distressing dreams in which the content and/or affect of the dream are related to the traumatic event
- Flashbacks where the individual feels or acts as if the traumatic event(s) were recurring
- Psychological distress at exposure to internal/external cues that resemble/symbolize an aspect of the event(s)
- Physiological reactions to internal/external cues that resemble an aspect of the event(s)
- Avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event(s)
- Negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with the event(s)
- Irritable behavior and angry outbursts, with little or no provocation
- Reckless or self-destructive behavior
- Hypervigilance
- Exaggerated startle response
- Problems with concentration
- Sleep disturbances
In addition to those above, children six years or younger may demonstrate the following:
- Increased negative emotional states (e.g., fear, guilt, sadness, shame, confusion)
- Diminished interest or participation in significant activities, including constriction of play
- Persistent reduction in expression of positive emotions
Criteria for Differentiating Between PA and Bona Fide Abuse-Neglect in Parents
Relative Cooperation of the Two Parents with the Mental Health Professional
Alienating parents can be uncooperative with evaluators who might recognize the manipulative tactics used in alienating children. They typically resist attempts to have an impartial evaluator appointed. Frequently, they will select a mental health professional who naively only treats or evaluates them and their children and does not make an attempt to include the rejected parent. It is the rejected parent who is more willing to bring in mental health professionals to treat and examine in an unbiased manner.
Bona fide abuse-neglect
Parents who are abusive and neglectful are resistant to seeking the services of an impartial mental health professional. They recognize that the examination might reveal their parenting deficiencies. The parent who recognizes the children’s victimization may be a victim themselves and is far more likely to seek the services of an impartial examiner.
Relative Credibility of the Two Parents
Alienating parents frequently consciously fabricate, which sometimes develop into delusions. Sometimes they will promulgate and even believe, the most absurd and preposterous allegations, especially when a sex abuse accusation becomes incorporated into a PA case. In contrast, the rejected parent is far more likely to be credible and far less likely to reveal deceits in the course of the evaluation.
Bona fide abuse-neglect
Abusive-neglectful parents are far more likely to lie and deny especially relative to their abuse-neglect. Their credibility is frequently compromised. In contrast, the parent who is trying to protect the children from abuse is far less likely to reveal deceits in the course of an evaluation. Furthermore, the non-abusing parent’s complaints and denials are usually credible.
Programming the Child’s Campaign of Denigration
The alienating process may be active and deliberate, or it may be passive and subtle. When active, the child is deliberately encouraged to profess derogatory complaints about the rejected parent and the alienating parent fully recognizes that the inculcated material is false. The same goal can be accomplished with subtle maneuvers, such as encouraging the child to criticize the rejected parent and accepting as valid every absurd criticism the child has of the rejected parent, no matter how preposterous.
Probably the most compelling manifestations of alienation are borrowed-scenarios typically seen in alienated children. In interviews, in the course of an evaluation, one may hear the same words, and phrases used by both the alienating parent and the child. Frequently the child, when pressed, will not even know the meaning of some of the words they use. When more than one child is involved, the repetitions of the phrases and vocabulary are particularly noticeable. This apparent consistency however is frequently mistaken as a validation of the complaints and not seen as a consequence of programming.
Bona fide abuse-neglect
Parents of children who have been actually abused and neglected are not usually obsessed with seizing opportunities to talk about the abuses with the child or in front of the child. These parents are more protective of the child than an alienating parent. Alienating parents are very free in sharing “abusive” incidents to their child and in front of their child. In joint interviews, actually abused children do not have the same degree of dependency for recalling events as alienated children do. Abused children typically do not make side glances to a parent in order to be reminded about what occurred. These children know what happened and usually do not need any input, reminders, or coaching to share their experience. This does not mean that an abused child might not occasionally ask a parent in a joint interview to help remember some minor details and frequently after one word or phrase from a parent the whole incident will come to the child’s mind with a reasonable degree of accuracy. No one’s memory is perfect and children are less capable of recalling details of events than adults are. In contrast, alienated children, having no actual experiences to relate to, will need much more input from a programming parent if they are to “get the story straight.” In addition, their stories will be lacking in any detail and when pressed for more information they cannot add any; there simply isn’t anything more to share. When more than one child is involved this absence of detail is consistent across all the children, which is a clear indicator that actual abuse probably didn’t occur.
Overprotectiveness and Exclusionary Maneuvers
Alienating parents are often seen as “overprotective”. Their exclusion of the child from the rejected parent often extends to other realms. Often exclusionary measures predate the separation and may go back to the earliest days of the child’s life (e.g., father’s exclusion from the delivery room; only maternal grandparents can baby sit, etc.). These behaviors are more exclusionary rather than representing genuine protection. Alienating parents, while appearing to be overprotective, are frequently not protective in areas that are unrelated to the alleged abuser. Rather, their protectiveness is focused on the children’s relationship only relative to the alleged abusing parent. In fact, they may even at times encourage involvement with the alleged abuser in situations where the abuse is not likely to occur, for example, public places and at times when it is convenient for them to timeshare. Parents who justifiably accuse a spouse of abuse may very well be protective of the children with regard to exposure to the abuser (i.e., selective protective gatekeeping) as well as other potential abusive situations.
Appreciation of the Role of the Other Parent in the Children’s Upbringing
Parents who alienated their children are often oblivious to the psychologically detrimental effects of the destruction of a child’s bond with the rejected parent. In extreme cases it appears that the alienating parent would be pleased if the rejected parent were to evaporate from the face of the earth. As one alienating parent told this author, she saw no role for the father in the child’s life.
Bona fide abuse-neglect
Accusing parents in bona fide abuse-neglect situations are often still appreciative of the importance of the child’s involvement with the other parent, albeit an abuser. Most often they do everything in their power to reduce the abuse and neglect hoping that the situation can be salvaged so that the children may yet enjoy a more benevolent relationship with that parent. Accordingly, this is an important differentiating criterion between PA and bona fide abuse-neglect.
It behooves an evaluator to conduct a detailed inquiry regarding the events in a case and to try to ascertain whether there are justifiable dangers or whether these were fabricated or even delusional (Sauber & Worenklein, 2013). Alienating parents are preoccupied with the destruction of the other parent’s role and presence in a child’s life, totally discounting the importance of a child’s bonding with the rejected parent. Parents of children who were actually abused want the other parent’s involvement in a child’s life because they recognize the importance of a healthy psychological bond between a parent and a child.
Common (Selected) Behavior Patterns
| Bona fide Abusers | Alienating Parents |
| Abuses are described to have existed long before the separation and perhaps even prior to the child’s birth. | While they may describe lifelong abuse there is evidence that was not the case prior to the children learning about the custody dispute; the campaign most frequently begins after separation; the children’s awareness of the custody dispute is typically the trigger where they provide their own contributions that complement the alienating parent’s. |
| Often psychopathic; little guilt over victimization of others; use deceitful maneuvers to shift blame to others; does not consider the consequences of their behavior on the children; likely to have a history of psychopathic behavior in other realms of their lives. | In severe PA very probable psychopathic; this is a good differentiating criterion because the presence of this trait can be useful in substantiating whether a parent is alienating; an alienating parent can be psychopathic in a parenting relationship and yet not be in other realms of their lives. |
| Bona fide abusers who abuse their children generally abuse their spouses and others | To an alienating parent the child’s campaign of denigration is justifiable because of the rejected parent’s abuse and neglect of the children with far fewer complaints about abuse of the alienating parent; the alienator has many complaints their primary focus is on the abuses to the children. |
| Typically, abusive-neglectful parents are deficient in their concerns for the physical well-being of their families; they have little sense of family responsibility with regard to providing the spouse and children with a reasonable level of food, clothing, and shelter; typically, such abusers are justifiably considered to be very self-indulgent | Rejected parents are usually committed parents, very concerned with providing food, clothing, shelter, and child care; children in these families want the rejected parent to continue contributing toward their education; typically, rejected parents are not found to be self-indulgent, even though this accusation may be considered part of the campaign. |
| Parents who abuse or neglect their children are often very disturbed individuals, very angry and their anger fuels paranoia; an evaluator needs to assess for the presence of paranoia when conducting an evaluation to differentiate between bona fide abuse-neglect and PA. | When paranoia fuels PA, initially the victim is often the rejected parent; as litigation drags on, the paranoia may expand to all the people who provide support to the rejected parent; typically, the paranoid system becomes illogical and preposterous (e.g., the rejected parent would be accused to perpetrate abusive behavior, even sexual molestation, in the most unlikely situations such as in the presence of witnesses, or in front of court-ordered supervisors, etc.). |
CONCLUSION
Differentiating between PA and bona fide abuse is becoming increasingly important as PA is becoming more recognized by both the mental health and legal professions as well as being juxtaposed to allegations of child abuse, both physical and sexual. An important function of the data collection in child custody evaluations is to evaluate the validity of each parent’s allegations (Sauber & Worenklein, 2013). As Kuehnle (1996) pointed out when professionals rely solely on the subjective observations of children’s narrative to assess the accuracy of abuse allegations, their conclusions are not more accurate than chance. Dr. Miller developed a strong statistical verification procedure that predicts the probability that alienation is present. The purpose of this article has been to provide criteria for making this important differentiation as well as update Dr. Gardner’s contribution to this area of forensic mental health.
Robert A. Evans, Ph.D. is licensed in FL as a school psychologist and specializes in parenting plan & timesharing (child custody) evaluations, family law cases involving parent alienation, critiques/reviews of evaluations, continuing legal education, and attorney case and trial consultations. He has given expert testimony in many states across the US and has been approved by numerous legal bar associations as a provider of continuing legal education in such areas as Critique & Review of Child Custody Evaluations and Litigating Family Law Cases with Parent Alienation. His offices are in Palm Harbor and Tampa, FL. His website is: www.drbobevans.com and he can be reached at 727-786-0600 or email: drevans@drbobevans.com
REFERENCES
Gardner, R A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29(2), 3-7.
Gardner, R A. (1986). Child custody litigation: A guide for parents and mental health professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R A. (1987a). Child Custody. In J. D. Noshpitz (Ed.), Basic handbook of child psychiatry (Vol. 5, pp. 637-616). New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, R A. (1987b). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between false and genuine child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R A. (1989). Family evaluation in child custody mediation, arbitration, and litigation. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R A. (1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill. NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R A. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome (2nd. ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R A. (1999). Differentiating between parental alienation syndrome and bona fide abuse-neglect. The American Journal of Family Therapy, Vol 27, No. 2, p 97-107 (April-June).
Kelly, J. B. and Johnson, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome, Family Court Review, 39(3),249-266.
Kuehnle, K. (1996). Assessing allegations of child sexual abuse. Sarasota: Professional Resources Exchange, Inc.
Miller, S. G. (2013). Clinical reasoning and decision-making in cases of child alignment. In A. J. L. Baker and S. R. Sauber (Ed.), Working with alienated children and families. New York: Routledge.
Sauber, S. R. and Worenklein, A. (2013). Custody evaluations in alienated cases. In A. J. L. Baker and S. R. Sauber (Ed.), Working with alienated children and families. New York: Routledge.
