The Silence and Denial by the Family Therapy Association Ireland and the European Association of Psychotherapy regarding Parental Alienation (FTAI, EAP)

Theoretical Incoherence and Selective Application of Systemic Principles

In this blog a systemic family therapist critiques the silence of professional bodies like the FTAI and EAP on parental alienation, exposing the ethical, clinical, and theoretical inconsistencies that endanger children and compromise systemic integrity.

Both the Family Therapy Association of Ireland (FTAI) and the European Association of Psychotherapy (EAP) present themselves as grounded in systemic-relational paradigms, yet their avoidance or rejection of parental alienation (PA) represents a glaring theoretical inconsistency.

• Systemic family therapy is predicated on the idea that family problems are relational and co-constructed (Minuchin, 1974; Bowen, 1978). It incorporates concepts like triangulation, enmeshment, coalitions, and scapegoating—all of which are hallmarks of parental alienation.

• By refusing to apply these systemic tools to families where children unjustifiably reject a parent, these organisations undermine their own epistemological foundations.

“The systemic paradigm, when properly applied, cannot ignore the relational patterns that lead to unjustified rejection of a parent. To do so is to selectively abandon the core principles of the field.”
— Templer, Matthewson & Haines, 2016

2. Ethical Neglect and Child Welfare Compromise

Professional codes of ethics—whether from the FTAI or EAP members—highlight the primacy of non-maleficence, beneficence, and respect for all family members. In failing to acknowledge or assess PA:

• They leave children exposed to emotional manipulation, identity diffusion, and developmental distortion (Baker & Ben-Ami, 2011; Verrocchio et al., 2016).

• Alienated children often internalise distorted views of reality, experience relational ruptures, and carry trauma-like symptoms into adulthood (Harman et al., 2018).

• Ethical oversight bodies appear to abdicate their safeguarding responsibility by passively permitting the alignment with dominant narratives that prioritise parental rights over child developmental health.

3. Epistemic Injustice and Ideological Capture

Both FTAI and EAP reflect signs of epistemic injustice—the act of delegitimising certain types of knowledge, especially those outside dominant ideological frameworks (Fricker, 2007).

• Parental alienation scholarship is often dismissed as “pseudo-scientific”, “anti-feminist”, or “judicially misused” without serious academic engagement.

• This mirrors what Harman and Lorandos (2021) call the “cancel culture of parental alienation,” wherein professional resistance is based not on evidence but on ideological positioning—particularly concerns that alienation claims undermine women’s voices in family violence allegations.

• The refusal to even reference PA in guidelines or training frameworks contributes to a culture of silence, reinforcing systemic bias and academic suppression.

4. Reinforcement of False Dichotomies: Abuse vs. Alienation

There is a deeply flawed binary positioning at play in much of the discourse fostered or unchallenged by FTAI and EAP: either a parent is abusive and the child’s rejection is justified (estrangement), or the alienation claim is an attempt to cover up abuse.

• This zero-sum framing obscures complex family realities, where coercive control, psychological splitting, or high-conflict enmeshment may be present alongside past relational ruptures (Lorandos et al., 2013).

• Such a dichotomy prevents nuanced case formulation, ignoring systemic perspectives where both parents may contribute differently to a child’s conflicted loyalty dynamics.

“The simplistic conflation of parental alienation with abusive rhetoric ignores the empirical literature and silences the experiences of thousands of children and rejected parents.”
— Harman, Kruk & Hines, 2018

5. Neglect of International and Empirical Developments

FTAI and EAP’s refusal to engage with PA places them at odds with global clinical and judicial developments:

• The World Health Organisation’s ICD-11 includes Caregiver-child relationship problem codes that encompass dynamics characteristic of alienation.

• Court systems in Spain, Brazil, Italy, Germany, and the U.S. have increasingly recognised PA as a relational dynamic requiring systemic intervention.

• The European Court of Human Rights has made several judgements against a variety of European states regarding their failure to respond effectively in cases of parental alienation. One example can be found here: https://changes.ie/mother-alienated-from-her-child-by-the-father-european-court-of-human-rights-decision/

• Empirical research has surged, with peer-reviewed studies showing the psychological harm of alienation and validated measurement tools (e.g., Baker Strategy Questionnaire; Baker & Verrocchio, 2013).

6. Impact on Training, Clinical Competency, and Therapeutic Outcomes

• The omission of PA from family therapy training curricula leaves practitioners ill-equipped to recognise or manage relational abuse through enmeshment or gatekeeping.

• Practitioners are not trained to differentiate between:

  • Developmentally appropriate alignment

  • Justified estrangement

  • Alienation based on influence

• This results in poor clinical formulations, increased litigation, and worsening child outcomes, as therapists may inadvertently collude with alienating behaviours.

7. Political Neutrality Masquerading as Ethical High Ground

Professional bodies often claim that neutrality on PA protects the field from misuse or oversimplification in adversarial court contexts. However:

• True neutrality involves open engagement with all clinical possibilities—not silencing or omitting contested phenomena.

• The avoidance of PA resembles political risk management, not ethical leadership.

References

• Baker, A. J. L., & Ben-Ami, N. (2011). Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52(7), 472–489.

• Baker, A. J. L., & Verrocchio, M. C. (2013). Journal of Family Therapy, 35(1), 63–78.

• Bernet, W., von Boch-Galhau, W., Baker, A. J. L., & Morrison, S. L. (2010). The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(2), 76–187.

• Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. Jason Aronson.

• Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.

• Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275–1299.

• Harman, J. J., & Lorandos, D. (2021). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(2), 184–208.

• Johnston, J. R., & Roseby, V. (1997). In the Name of the Child. Free Press.

• Lorandos, D., Bernet, W., & Sauber, S. R. (Eds.). (2013). Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals. Charles C Thomas.

• Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard University Press.

• Templer, K., Matthewson, M., & Haines, J. (2016). Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1240818.

• Verrocchio, M. C., Marchetti, D., & Fulcheri, M. (2016). Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61(5), 1232–1237.

• Warshak, R. A. (2015). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(4), 235–249.