Examining Parental Alienation in Child Custody Cases: A

An Internet survey was conducted to examine the views of mental health and legal professionals about parental alienation (PA) in child custody cases. Findings from 448 respondents revealed much awareness about the PA concept and controversies, along with the need for further research in the field. In general, respondents were cautious and conservative/moderate in their view of PA and very reluctant to support the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Also, they did not view PAS as meeting admissibility standards. Respondents viewed domestic violence (DV) as an important issue to assess, although they did not usually find/suspect DV in such cases. Further, respondents varied according to professional role (evaluators, trial attorneys/judges, and court facilitators) on the relative importance attributed to various assessment factors. Moreover, evaluators' assessment procedures and the frequency of recommended interventions by trial attorneys/judges and evaluators closely paralleled those typically used in child custody cases. Results are compared to past literature in the field, with hopes of clarifying misconceptions. In 1976, Wallerstein and Kelly identified in their sample of divorcing families a clinical phenomenon that they termed pathological alignment. They Address correspondence to James N. Bow, Hawthorn Center, 18471 Haggerty Road, Northville, MI 48168. E-mail: bow@michigan.gov and website: www.drjamesbow.com described a child living with one parent who irrationally rejected the other parent and who refused to visit or have contact with that other parent. Wallerstein and Kelly attributed this behavior to the dynamics of the parent-child separation and later used the term "embittered-chaotic" parent to describe this phenomenon Many published articles have examined the pattern of one parent's intentional manipulations of a child's feelings and beliefs about the other parent and many authors have offered different labels to describe this phenomenon. These labels include, but are not limited to, parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome, and child alienation. The lack of a single definition has contributed to an ongoing debate about the existence, etiology, and characteristics of alienating dynamics and, in the case of specific formulations of alienating behavior, whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support the use of the term "syndrome" when describing alienating behaviors. In this article and study, we chose the term "parental alienation" (PA) to represent the variety of models and concepts currently being discussed when describing alienation dynamics. We chose the term "parental alienation" in an effort to underscore our lack of alignment with any specific alienation model or concept and to encourage respondents to consider the broadest possible range of models and concepts in the alienation literature. The vast majority of authors who have written articles describing parental alienation present theoretical, descriptive approaches to defining the phenomenon rather than results from empirical research. Recently, some empirical studies have been reported HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT Drawing on his years of clinical experience working with high conflict, post-divorce families, Gardner (1985) described a set of dynamic factors he observed in custody disputes and labeled it Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). He viewed PAS as a conscious or unconscious attempt by one parent to behave in a manner that undermines the child or children's relationship Examining Parental Alienation 129 with the other parent (e.g., target parent). Gardner further argued that PAS was a diagnosable disorder that occurred in mild, moderate, and severe forms Several other authors have written in support of the concept of PAS, including Cartwright (1993), A group of detractors have criticized the concept of PAS In a comprehensive reformulation of alienation dynamics, Kelly and Johnston On the negative end of the continuum, the children reject the target parent and show no ambivalence. This applies to estranged children who have been exposed to family violence, abuse, and/or neglect. Generally, the children's anger and fears are understandable and their estrangement is an adaptive, protective stance, creating distance between themselves and their violent parent. These children commonly refuse to visit the violent parent. The next parent-child relationship on this end of the continuum describes alienated children, who openly express rejection of a parent with no apparent guilt or ambivalence. Their views of the target parent are distorted and exaggeratedly negative. These children appear to be responding to complex and frightening dynamics within the divorce, exacerbated by their own vulnerability. In the alienation process, Kelly and Johnston (2001) outline some common beliefs exhibited by the aligned parent. First, the aligned parent sees no value to the other parent's presence in the child's life. Second, the aligned parent strongly believes that the rejected parent is dangerous, commonly alleging abuse or neglect on the part of that parent. Third, a belief on the part of the aligned parent that the rejected parent never has, and currently does not, love or care about the child. The behavior of the rejected parent may contribute to the alienation process as well, according to The debate over PAS and the reformulation of the concept has waged for over 15 years. The present study examined the concept of parental alienation by surveying mental health and legal professionals involved in child custody cases to assess their training in parental alienation, understanding of the concept of alienation, and views of assessing alienation dynamics. Further, child custody evaluators were surveyed about assessment procedures and frequency of recommended interventions; trial attorneys/judges were surveyed about the latter area as well. It is hoped this study will provide valuable information about how professionals view the issue of parental alienation, thereby assisting the court in addressing this important topic. METHOD A national Internet search was conducted to locate e-mail addresses of professionals involved in child custody cases, including the following groups: child custody evaluators, family attorneys, family court judges, court-ordered therapists, parenting coordinators/special masters, mediators, researchers, consultants, and advocates. Public access referral lists, a child custody listserv list, Internet sites, and Yellow Pages search were all used. After a thorough review of the literature, a comprehensive online survey was developed using SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey consisted of 37 questions and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. In an effort to eliminate missing data, respondents were almost always required to answer each question before proceeding to the next question. Respondents were allowed to return to previously answered items to review or revise their responses. An e-mail message explaining the study was developed with two links: one for participating in the study and another for declining participation; the message was sent to all potential respondents. At the beginning of the survey, the purpose of the study was described and informed consent information was provided, as well as noting that the study was approved by an Institutional Review Board. Potential participants were offered the opportunity to review the findings if they sent a separate e-mail to the first author. Approximately two and four weeks after the initial e-mailing, another e-mail message/link was sent to those professionals who had not responded. It is also important to note that the SurveyMonkey program only allowed one survey to be completed per e-mail address, which prevented individuals from responding more than once to the same link. Thus, integrity of the sample and data were maintained. A total of 1,172 professionals received the e-mail and survey link. Five individuals indicated that they did not practice in the child custody/family area, and 61 declined to participate. Of the remaining group of 1,106 potential participants, 512 professionals responded to the survey that resulted in an adjusted return rate of 46%. A review of the data indicated that 58 respondents completed only about one-fifth of the survey, and stopped responding when the concept of parental alienation was introduced. This group of respondents was therefore eliminated from the analysis. Also, six respondents practiced outside the United States and were excluded from the analysis. Consequently, the final sample was 448. Of the sample analyzed, the mean age of respondents was 54.52 (S.D. 8.04), with a range of 30 to 78. Females comprised 57.6% of respondents. Almost all respondents were Caucasian (93%), with 2% African American, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other. The following distribution was found for respondents' primary role within child custody cases: 50% child custody evaluators, 18% trial attorneys, 11% mediators (no distinction was made between courtordered or voluntary mediation), 6% parent coordinators, 5% court-ordered therapists, 3% judges, 3% advocates, 2% consultants, 1% researchers, and 2% other. A comparison of gender and professional role indicated significant differences, χ 2 (9, N = 448) = 29.36, p < .001, with females dominating all professional roles except for evaluators (see Regarding professional degrees, 52% held doctoral degrees, 27% law degrees, 23% master's degrees, 1% medical degrees, 1% bachelor's degrees