Submission to Public Consultation on Parental Alienation to the Irish Department of Justice.

By Brian O'Sullivan

Submission to Justice Minister Helen Mc Entee

And the Public Consultation on Parental Alienation Ireland

By Brian O’ Sullivan,

Dr. Rachel Gately, Dr. Charlie Azzopardi

Dr. Padhraic Gibson

June 24, 2022

Contents:

About the Authors…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2a

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3

Key points………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Definition of parental alienation (PA)…………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Parental Alienation is family Violence and Intimate Partner Violence……………………………………………..5

Professional Experiences of Parental Alienation Cases…………………………………………………………………..9

The impact of PA on the targeted parent……………………………………………………………………………………..12

The impact of PA on the child/ren………………………………………………………………………………………………13

How might PA be responded to in the future……………………………………………………………………………….14

Is Parental Alienation recognised……………………………………………………………………………………………….17

History of PA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18

Progression of research……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..21

Parental Alienation as a concept…………………………………………………………………………………………………21

Prevalence of Parental Alienation……………………………………………………………………………………………….23

Gender…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….23

Future Research……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24

Anonymised selected narratives by children………………………………………………………………………………..25

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………33

Appendix 1 Brief outline of the reconnecting model…………………………………………………………………….33

Appendix 2 Moldova Decision Oct 2019, Case Analysis……………………………………………………………….37

Appendix 3 How to select an expert in parental alienation…………………………………………………………..42

Appendix 4 O’ Sullivan. B, 2020, Summary of findings………………………………………………………………..53

Appendix 5 Parents lived experiences of parental alienation…………………………………………………………71

Parent A lived experience…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..71

Parent B lived experience…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..74

Parent C lived experience…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..79

Parent D lived experience…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..81

About the Authors:

Brian O Sullivan:

Is a Systemic Family Psychotherapist in private practice in Laois and Dublin. He has completed the only published Interpretative Phenomenological Analytic study regarding Parental Alienation (PA) in Ireland. He has been published in peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed journals nationally and internationally regarding PA. He is often asked to share his research findings at national and international research conferences. He lectures on accredited undergraduate and post graduate degree programs in psychological theory and therapy. He has designed two MSc programs both have been accredited by Middlesex University in London. He has designed and delivered the only accredited CPD training in relation to PA in Ireland. He is often asked to act as an expert witness in complex private family law proceedings in Southern and Northern Ireland where PA may be considered a factor. He is Co- Director of the first European academically accredited Post Graduate Program in Parental Alienation Studies, and he is the Co- founder of Parental Alienation Europe. He can be contacted at brian@changes.ie or brian@parentalalienation.eu

Dr. Padhraic Gibson:

Dr. Gibson has a keen interest in the dynamics of Parental Alienation and its impact on children and young people. He lectures on the Post Graduate program in Parental Alienation Studies. He is Clinical Director of The OCD Clinic® international based in Dublin. He is senior research associate at Dublin City University, where he has also lectured on psychology, problem solving and strategic thinking. He has worked at senior management level and as Service Director in the Irish health sector for 25 years and in this time established and managed numerous clinics and teams. Working as a consultant clinical psychotherapist, he is also author of several highly acclaimed books including, Escaping the Anxiety Trap, (2020; Strategic Science books), The 13 Most Common Mental Traps (2019; Strategic Science Books), The Coaching Clinic, The Art and Science of Change. (2018, Lettertec Books) and Winning Without Fighting-SEBD Treatment in Schools, (2016, Malta University Press). Dr Gibson is a clinical lecturer and a senior research associate at the Centro Di Terapia Strategica, and collaborates with Professor Giorgio Nardone, his published research on human change can be found in the British Medical Journal, amongst others.

Dr. Charlie Azzopardi:

Dr. Azzopardi is a Systemic Practitioner with a keen interest in parental alienation. He has more than 35 years of experience working in the field of mental health. He is the Chair of the Institute of Family Therapy, Malta and is a Director on the Post Graduate Program in Parental Alienation Studies. Dr. Azzopardi has lectured locally and abroad and is now fully engaged running IFT-Malta, and private practice. His interest remains that of helping individuals, couples, families, students of psychotherapy and organisations find effective solutions to the various difficulties that inevitably befall them.

Dr. Rachel Gately:

Dr. Gately is a chartered psychologist from Galway who established a private practice in 2020 after discovering a need for the provision of high-quality psychological services in the West of Ireland. She offers a range of psychological services.

She has over 13 years’ experience working with children, young people and families. She is registered as a psychologist with the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI) and also maintains her registration with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) in the UK. She is a committee member of the PSI Special Interest Group, Psychologists in Private Practice.

Dr Gately completed her doctoral training in Educational and Child Psychology at the University of Birmingham between 2010 and 2014 and has experience of guest lecturing to students on this course. She completed her thesis on children with care experience and as a result, has developed a specialist interest in this area. Since qualifying, Dr. Gately has worked as a Local Authority educational psychologist, as a specialist psychologist for children with care experience, as a child and family therapist in the charity sector and as clinical lead for a diagnostic autism team. She has worked extensively across the UK, Australia and Ireland and brings the benefit of having worked across these vastly different systems and settings to her current role.

She is trained in a diverse range of therapeutic approaches including Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Thera play and Video Interaction Guidance. In addition to her interest in the field of developmental trauma, she has specialist interests in autism, early development, family law work and parental alienation. She has recently completed a legal module on the first European accredited postgraduate course on Parental Alienation Studies. This award was developed and accredited in collaboration with the Institute of Family Therapy Malta and Parental Alienation Europe.

Introduction

We are delighted to have the opportunity to make this submission to the Minister for Justice, Ms Helen Mc Entee regarding the theme of Parental Alienation (PA).

We have addressed the specific themes set out in the public consultation document before locating PA within the empirical literature by way of providing a brief overall context for the reader.

Furthermore, we have attached in the appendices the documented lived experiences of several parents in Ireland both mothers and fathers who have asked their identifying details to be withheld by this author (but are available on request to the department if so requested).

Key Points

Parental Alienation is not a gendered issue. It is a child welfare issue and child protection requiring a response as we would to all other forms of child abuse
The Five Factor Model of assessment is an international evidence-based best practice model to identify the absence or presence of alienating dynamics in a family at a given moment in time
Early assessment and intervention optimize the outcomes for children and young people across their lifespan
A reconnecting model (appendix 1) has been used here in Ireland since 2019. When supported with firm, proactive decisions by the judiciary without dilutions or deviations it has worked time and again to reconnect an alienated child and parent. Furthermore, those children now have routine and regular parenting time and relationships with both of their parents today.
Education and awareness for professional’s working with families, children and young people is crucial. There is an accredited program of training available https://parentalalienation.eu/post-graduate-award-in-parental-alienation-studies/
Currently Systemic Family Psychotherapists are considered “qualified” to complete Section 47 reports as well as Section 32 1 (a) reports but not section 32 1 (b) reports. This anomaly could be remedied as a matter of urgency by the inclusion of Systemic Family Psychotherapists onto the schedule of “qualified” report writers for the Section 32 1 (b) – https://gsba.ie/main/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/LAB-Voice-of-the-child.pdf
Left untreated parental alienation lasts a lifetime.
In severe cases swift and pro-active decisions are required from the Judiciary in collaboration with mental health experts in parental alienation to ameliorate parental alienation and optimise the outcomes for children and young people across their lifespan
Interim residency transfer is the international evidence based best practice response to severe cases of PA where, the alienating parent has been warned and has failed to heed that warning.
Returning a child to a normal range healthy parent is not harmful to the child
Specialised Systemic Family Psychotherapy is acknowledged as the appropriate response with families experiencing parental alienation across the spectrum of mild, moderate and severe
Clear and unambiguous Court orders that carry and implement consequences are crucial
Conducting assessments / interventions with these families remotely via telephone or face time is not appropriate. Further conducting interviews of children in these families in the company or in the home of the alienating parent is not appropriate.

Definition of Parental Alienation:

Parental alienation is a relational phenomenon where, there is a pathological disturbance in the relationship between a child/ren and a normal range healthy parent in the context of separation or divorce as a result of coercive control and psychological abuse by the alienating parent. It is characterised by a child who rejects one of his or her parents without good cause. It occurs along a spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe.

At the severe end of the spectrum a child will reject all contact, parenting time and relationship with a previously loved normal range healthy parent (and that parent’s extended family, friends, and even previously loved pets). The child comes to believe the rejected parent is to be considered worthless, dangerous, unavailable, and unloving. If left uncorrected it can and often does last a lifetime.

In our view parental alienation is not a gendered issue. It is a child protection and welfare issue. It requires a response from professionals and agencies as we would with all other forms of child abuse.

Parental Alienation is Family Violence and Intimate Partner Violence

The initiation and maintenance of alienating dynamics can be considered a form of domestic violence that is, after a separation or divorce the abusive parent be it a mother or father may continue to control children and alienate them from an ex-partner to punish the ex-partner (Bernet & Lorondos, 2020).

Harman et al (2018) tells us this complex form of aggression entails a parental figure engaging in the long-term use of a variety of aggressive behaviours to harm the relationship between a child and their other normal range healthy parent and to hurt the other normal range healthy parent directly because of their relationship with their child.

In my experience (BOS) controlling the children may be motivated by one parent seeking a greater share of material benefits related to the distribution of assets, finances, future social welfare entitlements and /or payments and residency status for example, one parent recently disclosed to me “This report is very important to me, If I keep the children, I get children’s allowance, my residency status will be fixed, I will get maintenance from the other parent, the fuel allowance, the back-to-school allowance, the one parent family allowance, the family income supplement and a free house”. The children in this case had been denied parenting time with their normal range healthy mother for 12 months based upon false allegations of abuse to advance the agenda reported above.

Jaafe et al (2008) found abusive ex-partners are likely to attempt to alienate children from the affections of the other parent (by asserting blame for the dissolution of the marriage and telling negative stories), sabotage family plans (by continuing criticism or competitive bribes) and undermine parental authority (by explicitly instructing children not to listen or obey).

Drozd an Olsen (2004) supported this view when they found the aggressor parent may engage in behaviours designed to sabotage the child’s relationship with the victim parent. The aggressor parent takes advantage of the victim parent’s vulnerabilities and convinces the child the victim parent is not a good parent.

Family violence may be defined as any act of violence perpetrated by one member of a family towards another family member (Chalk & King 1998). This includes coercive control where, there is a persistent pattern of controlling, coercive and threatening behaviour including all or some forms of domestic abuse (emotional, physical, financial threats) by a parent towards a child and / or the other parent. It traps children in a relationship and makes it impossible or dangerous to leave.

Alienating behaviours by one parent may be viewed as acts of aggression where, the aim is to terminate the relationship between the child and the targeted parent further, this frame allows us to place the focus away from a “problematic” child to where it belongs that is, onto the abhorrent behaviours of the alienating parent and their lack of engagement with their parental responsibilities as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of a Child (UNCHRC, 1990).

Essentially, researchers appear to be moving in a different and arguably more helpful direction. Whereas prior to 2018, key researchers in this field such as Amy Baker and William Bernet were predominantly focused on proving the existence of the syndrome or on developing models by which to recognise the syndrome, there has subsequently been a shift from seeing parental alienation as a within person syndrome to situating it as a form of family violence and child abuse in which family violence is understood as behaviours that are coercive, controlling and which generate fear in the child. In parental alienation, one parent attempts to coerce, control and generate fear in a child towards the other parent and as a result, this is considered to be a very particular form of family violence (Harman et al., 2018). The shift from viewing PA as a psychological disorder to a form of family violence has had profound implications for legal and clinical contexts. As Haynes, Matthewson & Turnbull (2019) state in their book, ‘Understanding and Managing Parental Alienation’, “leaving a child in the care of the alienating parent is tantamount to leaving them in the care of an abusive parent” (p. 10).

As stated at the start of this paragraph, little research prior to 2018 had focused on the impact of parental alienation on the families involved. However, this is now changing, and several seminal research studies have been published reversing this trend. An important study by Poustie, Matthewson and Balmer (2018) investigated the experience of alienated parents. 126 alienated parents were interviewed using thematic analysis. The authors found that there were a range of tactics used by alienating parents to disrupt the alienating parent’s relationship with the child or children. The severity of the tactics used indicated that without intervention, parental alienation would not abate and in fact, could worsen. This finding is supported by previous research (Templer, Matthewson, Haines and Cox, 2017).

Previous research has identified typical emotional outcomes for alienated parents to include frustration, fear, helplessness, stress and loss (Schwartz, 2015; Baker & Darnell, 2006). The outcomes for children are also profoundly negative and include lower self-sufficiency, higher rates of major depressive disorder, insecure attachment styles as adults and lower self-esteem (Ben-Ami & Baker, 2012).

Based on my experience (BOS) of working with children, young people and families subjected to alienating dynamics. I have observed the following coercive and controlling behaviours by the alienating parent here across Ireland and genders who are resolutely determined to erase the other normal range healthy parent (and his or her extended family) out of the life of the child forever.

I have observed these parents simply unable or unwilling to cease their attempts at weaponizing the child/ren despite the pervasive harms this causes to the children and young people some examples to demonstrate this include the following:

Repeatedly denigrates, demeans, and devalues the other parent in the presence of the child and others. They often insist a child stop calling their parent mum or dad or even prevents them from talking about the other parent. They bad mouth the other parent, criticise their parenting and deny their value to their children
Isolates the other parent from friends and family. They act as a maladaptive gatekeeper, preventing children from spending time with the other parent, from talking on the telephone or messaging. They repeatedly break Court orders. They become more and more empowered as they realise there are no consequences for consistently breaking orders of the Court.
Causes financial hardship by refusing to communicate or make arrangements other than through Solicitors or the family court. They barter child parenting time, offering to increase time, or threatening to reduce it, depending on money exchanged.
Interferes with parental responsibility. They fail to consult on medical or educational issues. They do not relay important health or educational information. They often change the child’s surname to eliminate a child’s association and identity with the healthy parent.
They make false allegations of abuse, fitness to parent, substance abuse or mental health difficulties. They will and do report these to the Gardai, Tusla and Courts to prevent a child from being with their normal range healthy parent. The targeted parent is often left to navigate both criminal and civil investigative processes. Furthermore, the child may now be subjected to frequent interviews by Gardai and Tusla.
Interferes with child parent time by arranging appointments, events, and activities when child is scheduled to be with the other parent. They often use telephones to constantly message / face time and communicate with the child when the child is with the targeted parent. They often telephone the Gardai seeking “welfare checks” when the child is with the normal range healthy parent.
Destroys and disposes of gifts, photographs and letters (often in front of the child) given to children by the targeted parent. This fosters a belief that their other parent is not important and does not love them. The children quickly come to realise they are not to speak of the other parent.
They burden their child with their angry and emotional outbursts. They often present as crying or appearing fearful or anxious when a child spends time with the targeted parent. The child often comes to feel responsible for their parent’s emotional regulation and safety.
They will often cite “My child does not want to go and what can I do” or “I cannot force the child” or “I will not force my child to do anything they do not want to do” They insist the angry child’s voice be listened to and actioned upon. They present as disempowered when it comes to the child’s relationship with their other parent and that parent’s extended family and yet these same parents are very much empowered in all other aspects of the child’s life such as attending school, sporting activities, screen time, homework and so on. Essentially the only thing a child is allowed to do is reject the relationship with the other parent
Sometimes they will present and cite “I want him/her to have a relationship with the other parent and yet they will be resolute (overtly and/or covertly) in sabotaging all efforts or processes where the aim is to re-establish a relationship between the child and targeted parent.
They talk about “us” rather than “I”. They fail to talk about the child as an authentic individual with independence for themselves.
They suggest the targeted parent is “harassing us” by seeking parenting time with the child. They will say “slow down”, “wait until the child is ready”, but this never happens without a clear unambiguous Court order that actually carries and implements consequences for the alienating parent.
They exaggerate health and other issues. They act in overly controlling ways towards the child.
They will allow and implicitly encourage the child to dismiss and present as cruel towards the targeted parent and her/his wider family without correction in a way that would never be tolerated with the alienating parents own family.

Experiences of Parental Alienation

In my experience (Brian O’ Sullivan), I have been referred cases from the family law courts where, PA was considered a possible factor in private family law proceedings in Southern and Northern Ireland. I would invite the reader to consider the following points based upon my experience in this context.

I often see families who have been 2, 3, or 5 years in litigation with no contact between the child/ren and the healthy parent in that time despite several previous reports and many Court hearings in the past

Both men and women are equally likely to engage in alienating behaviours and dynamics. This includes same sex parents in more recent times.
The rate of alienation in my case work is consistent with the findings of Clawar & Rivlin (1991) who found PA to be present in 80% of the cases in their study.
The alienating parent, be it a mother or father will be and is pathologically determined to erase the other parent from the life of a child. They will and do sabotage (covertly and overtly) any process where the aim is to promote a relationship between the child/ren and the other normal range healthy parent. They simply will not or cannot motivate behavior change in themselves to place the developmental needs of their children ahead of their own in their conflicts. Behavior change must be externally motivated with informed pro-active and firm decisions by the Judiciary in a speedy fashion with consequences if we are to ameliorate the harms to children and young people
Consistent with the empirical literature there is a high rate of false allegations in these cases where men will typically allege emotional or psychological abuse and neglect of a child and females will and do allege sexual abuse of a child. This includes cases where there are allegations that one minor child has sexually abused another minor child (not reflected in the literature). This results in children being subjected to interviews by Gardai and/or Tusla
These investigations take far too long to reach a conclusion (12 months or more) and in the meantime contact between the child and target parent is often terminated thus unwittingly perpetuating the alienation
Court Orders are frequently disregarded with impunity and with no consequences applied to the alienating parent
Mediation may be helpful in mild cases but has no place in moderate or severe cases
Children present in the assessment process displaying profound anger, grief, trauma, and distress. We must remember a child has to be carefully taught to hate especially a parent. Informed practitioners will acknowledge truly abused children still seek a relationship with their abusive parent, they will minimize the abuse, protect the abusive parent and spend a lifetime seeking affirmations from that parent, that is very different to the clinical presentation of a child subjected to alienating behaviors.
In proceedings where I have been providing evidence to the Court. I have often noticed each parent will have a Solicitor and /or a Barrister yet the child/ren do not have such representation in southern Ireland.
I see children provide vague rationales such as “he / she abuses me”. Previous professionals / reports rarely deconstruct these narratives and simply accept at face value the expressed wishes of a child as “the voice of a child”. When these narratives are deconstructed, I often hear weak and frivolous rationales being provided by the child/ren as reasons not to see a parent ever again. It is often framed in adult and scripted language. Essentially it is often normal range parenting practices being re-framed as something else(see appendix 2, narratives of children).
I often see children present as resistant to contact when in the company of the alienating parent. Then when I remove the alienating parent and introduce the healthy parent, I observe a warm loving and affectionate relationship between the child and “hated” parent. I often describe it like a light switch going on. Then when the alienating parent is re-introduced, I observe the child immediately withdraw physically and emotionally from the healthy parent.
Children often tell me I miss my mum / dad, but I am not allowed to say this.
I have often been subjected to complaints to my professional body as well as being trolled on social media by alienating parents when they discover I support a relationship between the child and both parents. I have found it necessary to audio and visually record (with consent) the assessments. There have been several occasions I was very fortunate to be able to rely on these recordings to rebut the false allegations made about myself during the Court process advanced by the legal representatives of the alienating parent
Alienating parents make a great first impression, they are master manipulators. They will present as calm and collected. They work hard to triangulate professionals, GP’s, teachers, social workers and assessors into an alliance with them however, as you probe and deconstruct their dominant narratives further they present as minimizing, lying by omission, denying, attending selectively, rationalizing, diverting attention, evading detection, intimidating subtly, provoking guilt, shaming, playing the victim role, playing the servant role (cloaking a self-serving agenda in a noble role), projecting blame, feigning innocence, feigning ignorance or confusion, brandishing anger, distorting what the other is saying, indicating contempt for the other, acting as the final authority, criticizing in a harsh uncalled for manner. It is acknowledged there are clear associations between these parents and personality disorders. Simply put, normal range healthy parents do not do this to their children.
Alienated parents present as grieving, frightened, confused, traumatized distrustful of professionals and services, angry, why would they not present in this way. They feel they have been wrongfully robbed of their parenting role and relationship with their child. Additionally, their core identity has been reconstructed to that which they find beyond abhorrent. They often have experienced shame, stigma, feeling judged and silenced wrongfully as a result of their engagement with well meaning, well-intentioned but uninformed professionals and practitioners who have unwittingly perpetuated the alienation. Therefore, they make a poor first impression to professionals.
We believe once an allegation of parental alienation is made. Consistent with the Israeli model, (and the Moldova decision of October 2019 https://parentalalienation.eu/part-2-of-case-note-on-pisica-v-the-republic-of-moldova/ (appendix 2a) the case must be referred to an bona fide expert in PA (see appendix 3) for assessment and recommendations. This report goes back to the same Judge who made the original order within two weeks where, the Court can then make certain orders with firm consequences relating to the child’s contact and parenting time with both parents. Thereby ameliorating alienating dynamics from the outset of Court proceedings
We believe every social, legal and mental health professional working with children and families complete annual CPD training as well as existing an new entrants completing the accredited academic training in parental alienation such as https://parentalalienation.eu/post-graduate-award-in-parental-alienation-studies/

The impact of PA on the targeted parent:

The only (currently) published study in Ireland addressing this theme commenced in 2014 was completed in 2016 with the ethical consent of the Human Research Ethics Committee at University College Dublin (O’Sullivan. B, 2020).

This study illuminated the experiences of parents being alienated from their children in a rich way that provides a depth to the themes experienced. One key theme from the data in this study relates to the psychological and emotional harm experienced by those participants in their efforts to maintain a relationship with their children and to preserve a sense of meaningful identity.

Further themes from the data include their identity being reconstructed in a negative light, a profound sense of loss, hopelessness, despair, being labelled a bad parent, disrupted contact with children being perpetuated by the actions and inaction’s of uninformed professionals, being subjected to false allegations of abuse and neglect, being unheard, unsupported, unbelieved, being in a sustained and enduring war zone, having a permanent cancer all leading to a pervasive theme of active and passive suicidal ideation. A Summary of the findings are in the appendix 4 of this submission.

The impact of PA on the Child:

There are clear associations of pervasive negative emotional, psychological, and physical outcomes for children and young people across their life span when exposed to the dynamics of parental alienation in their childhood.

For example, in parental alienation we see fractured attachments between a child and a normal range healthy parent (as well as his or her extended family). We see this parent being defined as uncaring, unloving, unavailable to the child with a clear message this parent is to be considered dangerous. Famous developmental psychologists Bowlby and Ainsworth articulated the importance of childhood attachment and experiences in the provision of crucial foundations for optimal development from birth across the life span.

For Bowlby and Ainsworth children who do not experience warm and nurturing environments are left with a dysfunctional internal working model of the world and their place in it resulting in unstable attachments, reduced coping and resilience as well as over developed fear centres in the brain (Bretherton et al, 1992 & and Van Der Kolk, 2003).

Further examples relating to the impact on the child include depression, anxiety, ADHD, personality issues, self-harm, suicidal ideation, eating disorders, body image issues, premature sexual activity, academic under achievement, post-traumatic stress disorder (Verhaar, 2022), Substance and alcohol misuse (Baker, 2005) as well as shame, guilt, poor self-esteem, loneliness, helplessness, anger, abandonment, trust issues, grief and loss (Bentley et al, 2020).

In cases of parental alienation, the child/ren are exposed to a range of abusive behaviours such as coercion, control, manipulation, and neglect Haines et al (2020) resulting in learning difficulties, memory loss, problems reading social cues and intense fear reactions.

Yet further harms for the child/ren subjected to parental alienation relates to complex post-traumatic stress into adulthood when social and emotional needs are neglected. The latest revision of the International Classification of Diseases – 11 recognises the impact of repeated inter-personal trauma and disturbances for the child across their lifespan into adult hood (Ford et al, 2021).

How might PA be responded to in future

The subcommittee of the DSM – V (2013) categorised parental alienation as a relational phenomenon. This places systemic family practitioners in a unique position to work with families and professionals navigating relational phenomenon such as parental alienation. These practitioners are the only profession that spend four years post graduate training focusing exclusively on families as well as the relational dynamics that are a source of psychological, emotional, and physical harms across their life span. Additionally, specialised systemic family interventions have been acknowledged as the only effective therapeutic approach to ameliorate the dynamics of parental alienation and optimise the outcomes for children and young people across their life span. Appendix 1 sets out a model that has been used successfully here in Ireland since 2019 to ensure children navigate back to a relationship with both of their parents. It must be acknowledged it has worked when supported by firm, pro-active decisions by the Judiciary with no deviations or dilutions of the program by Judges, Solicitors or Social Workers.

It is a glaring anomaly that such experts in relational phenomenon and pathologies would have been omitted from the statutory instrument 587/2018 relating to section 32 1 (b) reports. This requires an immediate remedy in any comprehensive response to children and families experiencing the phenomenon of parental alienation in the context of early intervention and assessment.

On a broader level, there may be focus upon providing early interventions that optimise the outcomes for children and young people. There may be focus upon four pillars of reform: “The harm reduction pillar (locating parental alienation within the child protection context); the prevention pillar (family law reforms in the direction of a presumption of shared parenting as preventative measure to parental alienation); the treatment pillar (early intervention and implementation of reconnecting programs for severe cases as well as the enforcement pillar (dealing with parental alienation as a breach of law)” (O’Sullivan & Guildea, 2020, p.21).

Work and research on the PA prevention can continue to support front line professionals, including psychologists, schoolteachers, counsellors, GPs, family therapists, lawyers, mediators, and social workers to prevent severe Parental Alienation. Systemic Family Therapists in particular, but all the professionals who are working with couples in conflict may come into contact with these families early in the separation process or often, before the decision to separate has been made. From this vantage point, professionals can intervene very early to mitigate signs and impacts of Parental Alienation. The development of preventive practice is paramount as professionals capitalise on the current experience and knowledge of PA. They may utilise current risk assessment and management strategies that can be used to help front line professionals detect the potential risk of PA and act to ameliorate it very early on in the separation process. Pursuing this very early detection, intervention and prevention pathway may ameliorate the progression of PA to the severe end of the spectrum.

Both clinical presentations and literature have demonstrated that marital breakdown progresses over years through definite and identifiable milestones. This process is a rather predictable one (Gottman, 1993; Dominian) involving various stages of detachment and landmarks summed up as Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling (Gottman, 1993). The sequence of these milestones is thought to be: 1. An initial sense of lack of support by one of the partners, 2. Escalating Conflict, 3. Develop a Cycle of Conflict, 4. Emotional Flooding, 5. Failed Reparation Attempts, 6. A Negative Love Story and 7. Detachment/Individuation. With marital breakdown being on the increase, and with more couples in trouble seeking the professional help of couple and family therapists very early before separation, couples and family therapists as well as other professionals may be uniquely placed to identify early the risk of PA and intervene to ameliorate it.

Children begin manifesting symptoms to metaphorically alert the family system about the dangers of marital separation very early on. Neuroscientific research (Lacobini, 2009) has been key in helping us identify the process of the child’s assimilation of parental difficulties early on. Current findings of operational mirror neurons confirm earlier findings on the link between language and mirror neurons (Mottonen, et. al., 2010, 2016) and the role mirror neurons play in emotional connectedness between children and their parents (Wicker, 2003).

The development and implementation of a risk assessment and management tool makes increasing sense in the early identification and prevention of PA, especially severe PA. Using current measures of PA at a very early stage to predict and prevent PA is also fundamental to the work we do. Many authors have provided us with evidence-based models of assessment and intervention (Balmer et. al. 2018; Gardner, 2006; Baker, 2020). Targeted children have been observed exhibiting psycho-social disturbances due to exposure to PA including disrupted social-emotional development, lack of trust in relationships, depression, anxiety, difficulties controlling their impulses, social isolation, and low self-sufficiency (Baker, 2007; Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Godbout & Parent, 2012; Johnston, et. al., 2005; Kopetski, 1998). The ability of front-line practitioners to assess for the risk of parental alienation and develop therapeutic strategies to mitigate the progression towards severe PA is paramount.

In terms of existing severe cases presenting where, one parent is pathologically determined to erase a normal range healthy parent out of the life of a child as well as covertly (and overtly) sabotaging any process where the aim is to reconnect a child with a normal range healthy parent there must be clear sanctions for that parent such as interim residency transfer of the child and the placement of the family into a reconnecting model of re-unification where the aim is the child is provided with protected time and space to reconnect with their healthy normal range parent without the undue influence and coercive control of the alienating parent and then the child navigates to a relationship with both parents as part of a specialised systemic family therapeutic intervention. See appendix 1 for a brief outline of the reconnecting model used successfully here in Ireland since 2019.

Is Parental Alienation Recognised?

Critics suggest PA has never been recognised by any professional body. They further assert it is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, 2013) nor in the European equivalent the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) published by the World Health Organisation.

However, in terms of professional bodies, the American Academy of child and adolescent psychiatry published practice parameters for child custody evaluations as an official document in 1997 see link here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9334565/

Further, the Child and Family Court Advisory Service (CAFCASS, U.K) have publicly acknowledged the challenges of parental alienation. They have published practice parameters for their social workers working with families where parental alienation may be a factor.

In relation to the DSM-V (2013). The subcommittee in 2013 were very clear they did not include the label “parental alienation” into the DSM at that time not because it does not exist but because they view it as a relational problem as it involves a disturbance in the child’s relationship with one or both parents rather than a pathology to be located within a child.

Some examples of codes allocated by the DSM-V (2013) include the following: V61.20 – Parent Child Relational Problem, V61.8, Upbringing away from parents, V61.29 – Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress, V61.03, Disruption of family from separation/ divorce and Child psychological abuse (p. 716, 718,719).

The ICD-11 (2021) has included similar labels as the DSM-V (2013) above to describe the dynamics of parental alienation for example, care giver child relational problem (QE 52.0) where they describe “substantial and sustained dissatisfaction within a caregiver-child relationship, including a parental relationship”.

Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights made a significant decision placing an onus of “exceptional due diligence upon social workers and judges” across Europe once an allegation of parental alienation was made often, referred to as the Moldova decision. This link provides a case analysis by Mr. Brendan Guildea (BL), Law Library, Dublin – https://parentalalienation.eu/part-2-of-case-note-on-pisica-v-the-republic-of-moldova/

“By far the greatest impact this decision will have regards the positive obligations, or positive steps now required of national authorities (including Courts) in alienation cases. Where alienation is present, a duty to act with exceptional due diligence applies. Two immediate consequences of this are”

“Once a judge or social workers in any case become aware of an allegation of alienation, they must conduct an appropriate investigation and ensure that there is a prompt follow-up to the findings of the investigation. Adherence to recommendations, even extreme ones, must be monitored and policed”. “Where children have been separated from one or more parents, preparatory measures must be taken to facilitate reunification” Guildea (2020).

Lorandos and Bernet (2020, p. 29) tell us there is a vast international literature related to parental alienation that is not routinely available to frontline social, legal, and mental health professionals. Parental alienation has been described in the professional literature of at least 30 countries on six continents

History of PA

Parental alienation refers to a process by which a child – usually in the context of a high conflict separation or divorce – aligns strongly with one parent favouring that parent and rejecting a relationship with the second parent without legitimate reason (Harman, Bernet & Harman, 2019). Albert Einstein (1914) was probably the first to use the term alienation when he wrote about the fractured relationship between his children and himself after his marriage to Elsie broke down. The term first entered the psychiatric literature in the 1940’s in the book titled Character Analysis by William Reich.

In the mid 1980’s the term of parental alienation is attributed to Gardner in 1985 who described parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Richard Gardner was a child and adolescent psychiatrist who identified the term within the context of family custody evaluations. He had observed a frequent pattern of behaviour in his work in which a child would reject a second parent without a justifiable reason. He hypothesised that one of the spouses was causing the child to reject the other spouse. He observed and categorised the behaviours in the children that he was observing and formulated his theory in his seminal paper (1985). However, Gardner’s model has proved controversial and highly divisive. The debate following the publication of his work in 1985 was largely and possibly unhelpfully focused on the existence or otherwise of pathology within the child or adult (due to Gardner’s attempted characterisation of parental alienation (PA) as a syndrome). This has resulted in debate that is ongoing to this day with respect to the pathological component of parental alienation and PA proponents have argued that this has resulted in stagnation with respect to producing evidence-based support and intervention for those struggling in this area (O’Sullivan, 2018).

Since Dr. Gardner first used the term PAS, it has come to be used interchangeably with terms such as the alienated child, parental alienation (without ‘syndrome’) and parental alignment amongst others (Rand, 2011). The term most commonly used now is ‘parental alienation’, commonly shortened to PA. However, although the term PAS was first alluded to in 1985, the concept of parental alienation has been used in family therapy for many years before this; indeed, systems theorists and practitioners have long realised the negative impact that parent-child alignments can have on family dynamics (O’Sullivan, 2018). In fact, there is a robust and well-documented history of family therapy taking these dynamics into account. Furthermore, since the early 1800’s cases in the family courts in which alignment with one parent over another has been described have been documented in both the UK and in the US (Harman et al., 2019). In the 1940’s, there were reports of clinicians documenting their clinical experience of working with parents and children whereby the first parent would attempt to recruit a child as an ally against the second parent (Rand, 2013). Therefore, although the terms of PAS and parental alienation are relatively new, the concept of children aligning with one parent over another due to the coercive control exerted by that parent over them is not a new concept, either in the legal, clinical, or therapeutic fields.

Some helpful concepts in shaping our current understanding of parental alienation hail from the field of family therapy. For example, in 1967, Haley identified what he termed a ‘perverse triangle’ which could cause severe emotional and behavioural difficulties in children. Haley characterised this as one parent co-opting their child into an aligned state and excluding the other parent. Bateson et al. (1956) further identified the double bind that this placed the child in. He identified that there were no good options for the child – they could either reject one parent or be rejected by the second parent who was attempting to alienate them from the first parent. The covert nature of this alliance was highlighted by Haley and other authors. To the casual observer, the complex dynamics underpinning this alignment would not be obvious. Another helpful concept related to PA and derived from family therapy is that of ‘pathological triangles’ as identified by Bowen (1966). The idea of the triangle was that one family member would co-opt another family member to the exclusion of a third member. The pathological nature of the triangle becomes apparent when the pattern is repeated, predictable and routine and it disempowers and demeans the second parent. The process of alignment is thought to be inter-generational which makes it even more potent as children who have become aligned and thus less individuated are thought to grow up to perpetuate the same dynamics in their own families.

An interesting exploration of parental alienation from the perspective of enmeshment comes from Garber (2011). Garber points out that there are three types of enmeshment’s that may be associated with parental alienation. These are adultification, parentification and infantilisation. Healthy adult child boundaries are essential for children if they are to grow up as autonomous and individualised adults however the process of divorce and parental conflict can lead to a situation in which these types of enmeshment’s occur.

In summary, there is a robust history in the field of family therapy supporting the existence of such a phenomenon whereby one child is coerced to reject a parent without justifiable reason. It is worth mentioning forty per cent of the contemporary literature and studies regarding PA has emerged since 2016.

Progression of research

Interest in the topic of PA has grown exponentially and there are now over 1000 journal articles, books and book chapters published on this topic. The interest in parental alienation spans continents and has been documented in 35 countries (Bernet, 2013). The parental alienation study group web-page (PASG) provides a database of all research on PA. There are 913 qualitative studies and approximately 225 quantitative studies contained within this database. In research terms, the research field of parental alienation is considered to have moved from a “greening” phase to what is known as a “blossoming” phase which is a phase characterised by an improved development and integration of hypothesis testing and theory (Simpson and Campbell, 2013).

PA as a concept?

In their submission to the DSM-5 committee, Bernet et al. (2010) cite convincing arguments for the validity of parental alienation as a concept. They argue that a valid concept “refers to one for which there is general agreement regarding the meaning or definition of the concept” (pp. 86). They argue that the validity of the concept can be proved by the extent to which independent researchers independently gathered similar data and arrived at similar conclusions. They cite the research of Wallerstein (1976, 1980, 1989), the research of Gardner (1985), Clawar and Rivlin (1991), Johnston (1993, 1997) and Bricklin (1995) amongst others. In contrast there are also a lot of papers claiming that PA does not exist however very few papers convincingly disprove PA. There is a call from PA proponents for research to be conducted by critics to disprove PA (Morrison & Ring, 2021).

One other common critique of PA research historically has been that there are not sufficient large-scale quantitative studies on it. However, a counter argument to this is that PA fits well within a grounded theory methodology whereby theory is gathered through professional practice and through observing relationships between variables. Gardner’s initial research is considered to fit within a grounded theory methodology (Morrison & Ring, 2021). Furthermore, subsequent research has supported the validity of the eight behaviours identified by Gardner as reliable in the identification of PA (Morrison 2006, Baker and Damall, 2007). Baker (2018) subsequently developed the Four-Factor model which is an assessment tool for PA. If the four factors or criteria are identified, this is an indication that PA is present. The model was subsequently modified by Bernet (2020) and is now referred to as the Five-Factor model. The validity of this tool has been supported by research (Morrison & Ring, 2021). In addition, the field of PA research continues to grow and increasingly high-quality quantitative research is being added to it. This has coincided with the change to considering PA as a process with multi-factorial influencing factors as opposed to a within-person syndrome.

Despite the growing evidence base, much misinformation has been spread about parental alienation over the past 40 years (Bernet, 2021). Bernet identified a trail of recurrent misinformation about this topic in the academic literature, in books and in presentations about parental alienation. Unfortunately, this has led to a demonisation of the concept and in extreme cases, the conflation of parental alienation with support for domestic abusers. Since Gardner first published his seminal work in 1985, criticism of parental alienation has been vociferous. Critics of PA have ranged from those who deny the existence of PA altogether to those who disagree about the definition of it. Some critics for example deny that there is a causal link between the alienating parents’ behaviour and the behaviour of the child. Unlike contact refusal where often the causal agent cannot be identified, core to the idea of parental alienation is the idea of the child being indoctrinated by a parental figure. In order for a diagnosis of PA to be made, there are strict criteria that must be followed, and this is often what appears to be misunderstood in impassioned debate about using PA in a family law context (Bernet, 2021). Alienating behaviours must be identified in the favoured parent as well as behavioural indicators in the child (Bernet, 2020c) in addition to consideration of many other factors. Bernet has identified this strand of misinformation that is perpetuated about PA in the literature. This is, that fundamentally no identifying behaviours need be identified in the alienating parent in order for PA to exist or be diagnosed. This is not in line with PA theory and has possibly been misconstrued from writings by proponents such as Gardner. The current situation is that there are deeply polarised views about PA which has led to diminished credibility for the concept and a lack of progression with expanding the research base. If PA proponents and critics can work more collaboratively, it would seem likely that they could find agreement on many areas of concern and advance the research base much more quickly (Bernet, 2021).

Prevalence

Bernet estimates that PA occurs in 20% of high conflict divorces and separations and that 1% of children and adolescents in the US context have experience of PA (Bernet, et al., 2010). More than 22 million Americans are estimated to have witnessed alienating behaviours on the part of one of their parents towards the second parent (Harman, Leder-Elder & Biringen, 2016).

Furthermore, Clawar & Rivlin (1991) found PA to be present in 80% of cases in their study.

Interestingly, in terms of false or unsubstantiated allegations of abuse 70 % of cases were identified where there have been false and wrongful allegations of abuse in the context of high conflict divorce & separations (Kay,2014; Brown et al,1998; Faller & De Voe, 1995; Theonnes & Thjaden,1990; Trocme & Bala, 2005; Kopetski, 2006; Rand & Rand, 2006 and Rand 1997a). However further research is needed both internationally and within different countries and cultures to determine accurate prevalence rates.

Gender

Contrary to much public opinion on parental alienation, research does not support the idea of gender differences when considering which parent is more likely to alienate a child. However, the ways in which men and women engage in alienation behaviours appear to be qualitatively different. For example, men are more likely to use direct forms of aggression and women to use indirect forms of aggression (Lopez, Iglesias & Garcia, 2014). However, gender differences do exist in how parents are perceived. Women tend to be perceived more favourably than men when they do engage in alienating behaviour (Harman, Biringen et al., 2016). This has important implications for the family law courts and other contexts. Research by Lorandos in 2017 indicated that gender biases, out of date institutional practices and other social factors greatly impact on how parental alienation is perceived and the weight it is given situations.

Future research

A systematic review by Templer et al. (2017) sought to review the literature on parental alienation to determine what was best practice for therapists and legal practitioners. The authors concluded that changes in custodial or residential arrangements in favour of the targeted parent were effective in ameliorating parental alienation. Specialised family therapy was also recommended. Of equal importance perhaps was the need for a coordinated approach from therapists and legal practitioners to address parental alienation and this is a very important area for future research. Effective intervention in parental alienation appears to require a joined-up approach in which legal specialists and therapists work collaboratively to ensure best outcomes for children and families (Poustie et al., 2019). Other directions for future research include studying prevalence rates in more detail, establishing predictors of parental alienation, establishing more longitudinal studies, and pursuing further research on alienating parents.

Harman, Bernet and Harman (2019) have also identified the following areas for future study: establishing what patterns of alienating behaviours will most strongly predict PA outcomes, establishing the most effective methods to assess and treat PA at different severity levels, further establishing and categorising how PA differs from estrangement and establishing which groups are likely to be most susceptible to PA, for example members of the military.

The study by Poustie et al., (2019) also found important implications for future research. Arising out of this research was the recommendation that mental health professionals and legal professionals need to work better together in order to provide a unified solution to this issue. There was also a call for greater dissemination of information and research on PA. This was further supported by research by O’Sullivan in 2020 in which the lived experiences of 5 alienated parents were documented. In addition, O’Sullivan makes the important point that there is very little known about the experiences of alienated parents in an Irish context. Increasing the awareness of friends, family and professionals who come into regular contact with this group about PA is important for facilitating supportive networks, minimising feelings of shame in the alienated parent and enhancing collaborative working across agencies and contexts.

Other important questions for the PA research field to consider are:

What are the predictors of parental alienation? Are there any within-child factors or characteristics which makes a child more susceptible to being alienated? Is there an age factor
Can more longitudinal studies be done – we need more longitudinal studies which enable follow up of people over time as many of the studies consist of snapshots of individuals at one point in time.

Narratives provided by children

All the following refers to children who have been denied a relationship with their other healthy parent for a period of 1 + years. All the following presented with an initial narrative “I do not want to see him/her because he/she abused me”. On further exploration the following were disclosed and yet not documented in previous reports. Previous reports simply documented the” voice of the child is they do not want to have contact”. Details changed to protect confidentiality.

Many of these children presented with profound grief, distress, trauma often recoiling into a foetal position as they delivered the message they were directed to in the scripted and adult language.

It is striking to see such distress in a child as they denigrate and insist, they never wish to see their mum or dad ever again. Their behavioural and emotional presentations were inconsistent with the narratives provided.

Others presented with clear indications of disassociation, yet the vast majority engaged well with the alleged “hated” (once they knew they were not being observed or over heard by the alienating parent) parent they had spent the previous hour working so hard to tell me they never wanted to see again.

“I feel unsafe, scared and angry when I see him” (10 y/o male)
“I do not need her in my life” (10 y/o female)
“I will tell the judge I never want to see him again” (9 y/o female)
“My Mum’s grandparents spoil us”. “It is not good for children to be spoilt” (12 y/o female).
“Under article 12 of the UN Convention of the Rights of a Child. I do not have to see her again if I do not want to” 11-year-old female (when asked what UN initials mean child unable to respond).
“He drinks loads of alcohol” (17 y/o male) unable to name brand of alcohol, (52 alcohol tests clear of alcohol)
“He left us with no money” – 7 y/o female (pays more than 1,000 euros per month)
“When I was one year of age, she would not change my nappy” – 13-year-old male (inconsistent with human biology, hippocampus is not fully developed until 4 years of age)
“Before I was born, she wanted me aborted” (7-year-old female)
“Mum lets me stay up later than dad”
“Dad lets me have more time on my computer games”
“I have dreams of him strangling me” (10 y/o female) I wondered what was said to this child for it to be intruding in her unconscious in this way
“He put Avocado on my toast” (9 y/o female)
“I remember when I was two, he was mean to mammy – 17-year-old male, unable to describe “mean” replies “I do not remember”
“She makes funny food such burgers out of mince from the butchers, I prefer the frozen ones out of ALDI, she puts honey on my porridge” 8 y/o female – (no contact with mum for 2.5 years in this case
“She always invades my space by kissing me” (5 y/o female) no contact for 1 year
“Mum has a set time for me to go to bed and dad lets me stay up late playing on my X-box” (8 y/o male)
“Mum will give me a letter for not having my homework done and he won’t” (10 y/o female).
“I never had a bond with him anyway” (12 y/o male) yet previous warm loving relationship evidenced
“Dad gives me chores and Mum does not” (7y/0 girl and 9 y/o male)
“He is selfish, he always works” (15 y/o female)
“She had an affair” (7 y/o female)

Other comments observed in children:

“I was told the Judge was keeping me away from my mam to keep me safe”, 10-year-old female” no safety / risk concerns found. Parent had been stating child did not wish to see parent
“It would be easier if the Judge told me I had to see mum because I cannot say I want to do this”, 8-year-old female.
“They both just need to cop on” 8-year-old female
“I was really scared when the gardai found the gun and drugs in my home” 7-year-old female
“Dad would kick and punch me, I used to think mum could protect me, but she cannot” “but I am older now so I can punch back”, “I think that is why we left” 8-year-old male (offending parent here claiming to be alienated from child).
“I am not allowed to hug mum in front of dad” 6-year-old female
“Let’s cut to the chase, give us some ice cream and we will stay in the room with him” 12-year-old female.
“I have secrets I am not allowed to tell anyone” Male 8 years
“I am only allowed to watch my favourite movie when I am supposed to be with dad, this makes me feel bad” – female 6 years.
“My mam is changing my school, I am not allowed to tell anyone, I will miss my teacher and friends in school” – 7-year-old female.
“I just wish the Judge would decide” 11-year-old male
“Please do not make me talk to the Judge” – 9-year-old female
“I feel unsafe, scared and angry when I see him” – 10 y/o male
“I do not need her in my life” – 10 y/o female
“I will tell the judge I never want to see him again” – 9 y/o female
“My Mum’s grandparents spoil us”. “It is not good for children to be spoilt” – 12 y/o female.
He left us with no money – 7 y/o female (pays more than 1,000 euro per month)
“I have dreams of him strangling me” (10 y/o female)
He put Avocado on my toast 9 y/o female
He twisted my arm when I was 1 year old (17 y/o male) and I remember when I was two, he was mean to mammy.
She makes funny food (i.e.) burgers out of mince from the butchers, I prefer the frozen ones out of ALDI and she puts honey on my porridge 8 y/o female
She always invades my space by kissing me 5 y/o female.
Mum has a set time for me to go to bed and dad lets me stay up late playing on my X-box (8 y/o male)
Mum will give me a letter for not having my homework done and he won’t (10 y/o female).
I never had a bond with him anyway (12 y/o male).
Dad gives me chores and Mum does not (7y/0 girl and 9 y/o male)
He is selfish, he always works (15 y/o female)
She had an affair (7 y/o female)

References:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1997) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9334565/ and J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997 Oct 36 (10 Suppl 57S-68S. doi:10.1097/00004583-199710001-00005

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Baker (2005) The long-term effects of parental alienation on adult children, A qualitative research study, American Journal of Family Therapy, 33. 289 – 302.

Baker, A.J.L. (2006). The power of stories: Stories about power: Why therapists and clients should read stories about the parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy,34(3), 191-203.

Baker, A.J.L., & Darnall, D. (2006). Behaviours and strategies of parental alienation: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 45 (1/2), 97-124.

Baker, A.J.L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Baker, A. J. L., & Damall, D. C. (2007). A construct study of the eight symptoms of severe parental alienation syndrome: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47(1–2), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v47n01_04

Baker, A. J. L., & Sauber, S. R. (Eds.). (2013). Working with alienated children and families: A clinical guidebook. New York: Routledge.

Baker, A.J.L, Bone, M. & Ludmer, B. (2014). High conflict custody battle survival guide. Oakland, CA: New Harbingers.

Baker, A.J.L. & Eichler, A. (2014). College student childhood exposure to parental loyalty conflicts. Families in Society, 95,59-66.

Baker, A.J.L. & Fine, P. (2014). Co-parenting with a toxic ex: What to do when your ex-spouse tries to turn the kids against you. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Baker, A.J.L. & Fine, P. (2014). Surviving parental alienation: A journey of hope and healing. Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Baker, A.J.L. & Andre, K. (2015). Getting through my parents’ divorce: A workbook for children coping with divorce, parental alienation, and loyalty conflicts. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Baker, A.J.L. & Schneiderman, M. (2015). Bonded to the abuser: How victims make sense of childhood abuse. Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Baker, A. (2018). Reliability and validity of the four‐factor model of parental alienation. Journal of Family Therapy. https://doi:42.10.1111/1467-6427.12253

Baker, A.J.L. (2020). Reliability and validity of the four-factor model of parental alienation. Journal of Family Therapy 42: 100–118

Bateson, G., Jackson, D., Haley, J. & Weakland, (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioural Science, 1: 251-254.

Balmer, S., Matthewson, M. & Haines, J. (2018). Parental Alienation: Targeted Parent Perspective. Australian Journal of Psychology. Vol. 70 Issue 1, pp 91-99.

Ben-Ami, N. & Baker, A. (2012). The Long-Term Correlates of Childhood Exposure to Parental Alienation on Adult Self-Sufficiency and Well-Being. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 40:169–183. https://doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.601206

Bentley. C, et al, 2020, The not forgotten child, Alienated adult children’s experiences of parental alienation, American Journal of Family Therapy, 48, 1-21.

Bernet, W., Boch-Galhau, W.V., Baker, A.J.L., & Morrison, S. (2010). Parental Alienation, DSM-V, and ICD-11. American Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 76-187.

Bernet, W. (2013). References in the professional literature. In D. Lorandos, W. Bernet, & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Parental alienation: The handbook for mental health and legal professionals (Supplemental Reference Guide, pp. 5–77). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Bernet, W., Baker, A.J.L., & Verrocchio, M.C. (2015). Symptom-Checklist-90-Revised Scores in Adult Children Exposed to Alienating Behaviors: An Italian Sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(2), 357-362.

Bernet, W. (2020). The five-factor model for the diagnosis of parental alienation. The Journal of Family Therapy Association of Ireland, 6, 3–15.

Bernet, W & Lorandos. D, eds, (2020) Parental Alienation Science and Law, p.18, Thomson publishers.

Bernet, W. (2021). Recurrent Misinformation Regarding Parental Alienation Theory. The American Journal of Family Therapy, https://doi:10.1080/01926187.2021.1972494

Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7 (5): 345-374.

Bretherton et al, 1992, The Origins of Attachment Theory, John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, Developmental Psychology, 1992, 28, 759- 775.

Bricklin, B. (1995). The custody evaluation handbook, research-based solutions, and applications. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Chalk. R, King. P, 1998, Assessing family violence interventions, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 14, 289- 292.

Child and Family Court Advisory Service (nd) https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-ups/parents-and-carers/divorce-and-separation/what-to-expect-from-cafcass/parental-alienation

Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (2013). Children Held Hostage: Identifying brainwashed children, presenting a case, and crafting solutions (Second ed.). U.S.A.: American Bar Association.

Darnall, D. (2010). Beyond divorce casualties: Reunifying the alienated family. Lantham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.

Dominian, J. (1979). Marital Breakdown. New York: Pelican.

Drozd an Olsen (2004) Is it abuse, alienation or estrangement, A decision tree, Journal of Child Custody 65, 88.

Ford et al, 2021, Complex PTSD and borderline personality disorder, Emotional Dysregulation, 8, 16.

Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29, 3–7.

Gardner, R.A. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome, second edition. Cresskill, N.J.: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A., Sauber, S. R., & Lorandos, D. (2006). The international handbook of parental alienation syndrome: Conceptual, clinical and legal considerations. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Garber, B. D. (2011). Parental alienation and the dynamics of the enmeshed parent-child dyad: Adultification, parentification, and infantilization. Family Court Review, 49, 322-335.

Gottman, J. (1993). What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Psychology Press.

Gottlieb, L. J. (2012). Parental alienation syndrome: A family therapy and collaborative systems approach to amelioration. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Haines. J et al (2020) Understanding and managing parental alienation a guide to assessment and intervention, Routledge

Haley, J. (1967). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In G.H. Zuk & I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Eds.) Family Therapy and Disturbed Families. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.

Harman, J. J., Biringen, Z., Ratajck, E. M., Outland, P. L., & Kraus, A. (2016). Parents behaving badly: Gender biases in the perception of parental alienation. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 866–874. https://doi:10.1037/fam0000232

Harman, J. J., Leder-Elder, S., & Biringen, Z. (2016). Prevalence of parental alienation drawn from a representative poll. Children and Youth Services Review, 66, 62–66. https://doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.021

Harmon. J, et al (2018) Parental alienating behaviours, an unacknowledged form of family violence, Psychological Bulletin, 144 (12), 1275 – 1299.

Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. (2018). Parental alienating behaviours: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1275-1299.

Harman, J. J., Bernet, W., & Harman, J. (2019). Parental Alienation: The Blossoming of a Field of Study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1–6.

Johnston, J. R. (1993). Children of divorce who refuse visitation. In C. Depner and J. H. Bray (Eds.), Non–residential parenting, new vistas in family living (pp. 109–135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jaafe et al (2008) Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence, towards a differential approach to parenting plans, Family Court Review, 46, 500, 503).

Kruk. E, (2018) Parental alienation as a form of emotional child abuse. The current state of knowledge and directions for future research, Family Science Review, 22, (4), 141 – 164.

Kruk. E, (2019, Janurary) Parental alienation as child abuse and family violence a form of emotional aggression and intimate terrorism, Psychology Today,

Lacobini, M. (2009). Imitation, Empathy and Mirror Neurons. Annual Review of Psychology. 10. 1146.

López, T. J., Iglesias, V. E. N., & García, P. F. (2014). Parental alienation gradient: Strategies for a syndrome. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 217–231. https://doi:10.1080/01926187.2013.820116

Lorandos, D., Bernet, W., & Sauber, S. R. (2013). Parental alienation: The handbook for mental health and legal professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Lorandos, D. (2017). Parental alienation in the United States: 1985-2016. Paper presented at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Miller, S.G. (2013). Clinical reasoning and decision making in cases of child alignment: Diagnostic and therapeutic issues. In A. Baker & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Working with alienated children and families: A clinical guidebook (pp. 8-46). New York, NY: Routledge.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morrison, S. L. (2006). Parental Alienation Syndrome: An inter-rater reliability study. Alienating behaviours – related justice system issues. Dissertation Archive. 601. https://aquila.usm.edu/theses_dissertations/601

Morrison, S. L. & Ring, R. (2021). Reliability of the Five-Factor Model for Determining Parental Alienation. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 1-20. https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqneSWcIBOtav5MhBpIsPTPp1POXzg?e=iZZ80d

Poustie. C, et al (2018) The forgotten parent, the targeted parent perspective of parental alienation, Journal of Family Issues, 1 – 26.

O’ Sullivan. B (2018), Parental alienation a systemic perspective, Context, Journal of Systemic and Family practice, special edition (UK).

O Sullivan. B, (2020), The lived experiences of alienated parents in Ireland, A phenomenological analysis, summary of findings, Irish Journal of Family Law, 23 (1).

O’Sullivan. B & Guildea. B, (2020) Clinical and Legal aspects of parental alienation, Irish Journal of Family Law, 23 (4).

Rand, D. C. (2011). Parental alienation critics and the politics of science. American Journal of Family Therapy, 39, 48-71.

Rand, D. C. (2013). The history of parental alienation from early days to modern times. In D. Lorandos, W. Bernet, & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Parental alienation: The handbook for mental health and legal professionals (pp. 291–321). Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Reay, K. (2015). Family Reflections: A promising therapeutic program designed to treat severely alienated children and their family system. American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(2), 197-207.

Schwartz, K. (2015). The kids are not all right: Using the best interest standard to prevent parental alienation and a therapeutic intervention approach to provide relief. Boston College Law Review, 56, 803-840.

Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2013). The blossoming on relationship science. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 3–12). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. https://doi:10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0001

Templer, K., Matthewson, M. L., Haines, J., & Cox, G. (2017). Recommendations for best practice in response to parental alienation: Findings from a systematic review. Journal of Family Therapy, 39, 103-122. https://doi:10.1111/1467-6427.12137

UNCHRC (1990) UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html [accessed 19 June 2022]

Van Der Kolk, B (2003), The neurobiology of childhood trauma and abuse, Child Adolesc Psychiatry, Clin, North America, 12, 293- 317.

Verrocchio, M.C., & Baker, A.J.L. (2015). Italian adults’ recall of childhood exposure to parental loyalty conflicts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 95-105.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256–269.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup. New York: Basic Books.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, & children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields.

Warshak, R. A. (2010). Divorce poison: How to protect your family from badmouthing and brainwashing. New York: Harper Paperback

World Health Organization. (2019). ICD-11: International classification of diseases (11th revision). Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/