Ten Fallacies of Parental Authority

There are several myths or fallacies about parental authority that may derail appropriate decisions in custody cases (as explained by a leading psychologist working in the field of parental alienation, Dr. Richard A. Warshak):

Fallacy 1 – Children never unreasonably reject the parent with whom they spend most of the time. The alienating parent is often not the custodial parent.

Fallacy 2 – Children never unreasonably reject mothers.

Fallacy 3 – Each parent contributes equally to a child’s alienation. Sometimes the target parent may share some of the blame, but the instigator is the main actor.

Fallacy 4 – Alienation is a child’s transient, short-lived response to the parents’ separation. While this is one possible outcome of divorce, often it merely masks alienation.  Numerous studies show alienation failing to dissipate and indeed lasting for years.

Fallacy 5 – Rejecting a parent is a short-term healthy coping mechanism. An alienated relationship with a parent is clearly a deviation from the norm, even among children whose parents are divorced. Most children want regular contact with both parents after divorce.

Fallacy 6 – Young children living with an alienating parent need no intervention.

Fallacy 7 – Alienated adolescents’ stated preferences should dominate custody decisions.

Fallacy 8 – Children who appear to function well outside the family need no intervention.

Fallacy 9 – Severely alienated children are best treated with traditional therapy techniques while living primarily with their favored parent.

Fallacy 10 – Separating children from an alienating parent is traumatic.

It is especially important to recognize and treat parental alienation as quickly as possible.

In addition to undermining and, possibly destroying the relationship between a child and the targeted parent, parental alienation causes the following behaviors in children (among others): school-related problems, anger issues, behavioral regression, depression and suicidal ideation, sleep problems, eating problems, academic problems, withdrawal, confusion, enuresis, daydreaming, low self-esteem, drug and alcohol problems, lack of trust, relationship problems. Parental alienation can also result in a toxic trauma reaction that has long-term effects and, in some cases can be more devastating than the consequences of physical or sexual abuse (i.e., cognitive, physical, and emotional), and neglect (physical and emotional), as well as family dysfunction in their own future. There is research to indicate that parental alienation is child maltreatment and can have the same or worse affects as physical and sexual abuse, as stated above (see Spinazzola, Hodgdon, Liang, Ford, Layne, Pynoos, 2014). Treating this phenomenon as if it can be addressed with counseling and therapy is a common mistake and has been demonstrated to exacerbate the negative consequences to the detriment of the children.

The findings regarding traumatic childhood experiences (which can include severe parental alienation) have stunned researchers. There is a strong link between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), on the one hand, and onset of chronic illness and significantly higher rates of heart disease, PTSD, diabetes, and others, on the other hand. Childhood trauma also results in significantly higher rates of chronic pulmonary lung disease, hepatitis, depression, and suicide. ACEs include children caught in a severe loyalty bind between their parents in child custody litigation. People who have suffered a number of incidents of childhood trauma (possibly including severe parental alienation) have died nearly 20 years earlier, on average, in comparison to children who have not experienced childhood traumas.

There are treatment possibilities for alienated children, provided by programs such as “Family Bridges”, “Turning Points for Families” and others. The purpose and goals of these programs, for example, is to re-create the child’s identity, to give the child the experience of relating benevolently to the rejected parent (including face saving ways to correct cognitive distortions) and move beyond the past to have rewarding relationships with both parents. Children participating in programs like these learn how to stay out of the middle of their parents’ conflicts, and how to maintain balanced, realistic, and compassionate views of both parents. Both programs have been documented to be 95% successful in reuniting the rejected parent with the alienated children.

Especially in cases of severe parental alienation, it is especially important to suspend contact between the child and the favored parent – typically for a period around 90 days. It is easier to focus on rebuilding the relationship if only one parent is involved with the child. The environment of the favored parent presents cues, communications, attitudes, and influence that undermine the child’s relationship with the rejected parent. Importantly, where the alienating parent has demonstrated a lack of understanding boundaries and has shown to have engaged in systematic and malicious alienating strategies, the suspension of contact is necessary to ensure that treatment can progress unhindered, without setbacks. Studies have shown that treatment becomes very difficult, if not impossible, when the alienating parent continues to have contact with the child – even when the contact is extremely limited. A no contact order can, in part, be tied to the quality and rate of progress in repairing the damaged relationship. A no contact order also gives the child an incentive to invest in the healing process by contacting the favored parent contingent on (i) establishing a good relationship with the other parent, and (ii) the child not appearing to be disloyal to the favored parent. A no contact period insulates the child from the adjustments the favored parent will go through.