WARNING SIGNS OF ALIENATING BEHAVIORS EXHIBITED BY CHILD
Child behaviors:
∗ View of parents one-sided, all good or all bad; idealizes one parent and devalues the other
∗ Vicious vilification of target parent; campaign of hatred
∗ Trivial, false and irrational reasons to justify hatred
∗ Reactions and perceptions unjustified or disproportionate to parent’s behaviours
∗ Talks openly to anyone about rejected parent’s perceived shortcomings
∗ Extends hatred to extended family and pets (hatred by association)
∗ No guilt or ambivalence regarding malicious treatment, hatred, etc.
∗ A stronger, but not necessarily healthy, psychological bond with alienating parent than with rejected parent
∗ Anger at rejected parent for abandonment; blames him/her for divorce
∗ Speech is brittle, a litany; obsessed; has an artificial quality; affect does not match
words; no conviction; unchildlike, uses adult language; has a rehearsed quality
∗ Stories are repetitive and lacking in detail and depth
∗ Mimics what siblings report rather than own experience
∗ Denial of hope for reconciliation; no acknowledgement of desire for reconciliation
∗ Expresses worry for preferred parent, desire to care for that parent; or, defensive
denial that child is indeed worried about parent
http://ssrn.com/link/Queens-U-LEG.html
Alienating Parent Behaviours:
∗ Allows and insists that child makes decisions about contact
∗ Rarely talks about the other parent; uninterested in child’s time with other parent
after contact; gives a cold shoulder, silent treatment, or is moody after child’s return
from visit
∗ No photos of target parent; removes reminders of the other parent
∗ Refusal to hear positive comments about rejected parent; quick to discount good
times as trivial and unimportant
∗ No encouragement of calls to other parent between visits; rationalizes that child
does not ask
∗ Tells child fun things that were missed during visit with other parent
∗ Indulges child with material possessions and privileges
∗ Sets few limits or is rigid about routines, rules and expectations
∗ Refuses to speak directly to parent; refuses to be in same room or close proximity;
∗ Does not let target parent come to door to pick up child
∗ No concern for missed visits with other parent
∗ Makes statements and then denies what was said
∗ Body language and nonverbal communication reveals lack of interest, disdain and
disapproval
∗ Engages in inquisition of child after visits
∗ Rejected parent is discouraged or refused permission to attend school events and
activities
∗ Telephone messages, gifts and mail from other parent to child are destroyed,
ignored or passed on to the child with disdain
∗ Distorts any comments of child that might justify accusations
∗ Doesn’t believe that child has any need for relationship with other parent
∗ When child calls and is quiet or non-communicative, parent wrongly assumes
pressure from target parent, or that child is not comfortable with target parent;
evidence of bad parenting; does not appreciate that child is uncomfortable talking to
alienating parent about target parent
∗ Portrays other parent as dangerous, may inconsistently act fearful of other parent in
front of child
∗ Exaggerates negative attributes of other parent, and omits anything positive
∗ Delusional false statements repeated to child; distorts history and other parent’s
participation in the child’s life; claims other parent has totally changed since
separation
∗ Projection of own thoughts, feelings and behaviours onto the other parent
∗ Does not correct child’s rude, defiant and/or omnipotent behaviour directed towards
the other parent, but would never permit child to do this with others
∗ Convinced of harm, when there is no evidence
∗ False or fabricated allegations of sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse
∗ Denigrates and exaggerates flaws of rejected parent to child says other parent left
“us,” divorced “us” and doesn’t love ”us”
∗ Over-involves child in adult matters and litigation
∗ Child required to keep secrets and spy or report back on other parent
∗ Child required to be messenger
∗ Overt and covert threats to withdraw love and affection from child unless other
parent is rejected
∗ Extreme lack of courtesy to rejected parent
∗ Relocation for minor reasons and with little concern for effects on child
Parental Behaviours of Target Parent that Make Alienation More Likely:
∗ Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style
∗ Outrage at child’s challenge to his/her authority
∗ Passivity or withdrawal in face of conflict
∗ Immature, self-centred in relation to child
∗ Loses temper, angry, demanding, intimidating character traits, but not to level of abuse
∗ Counter-rejecting behaviour
∗ Lacks empathic connection to child
∗ Inept and unempathetic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits
∗ Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
∗ Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
∗ Induces guilt
∗ May use force to reassert parental position
∗ Vents rage, blames alienating parent for brainwashing child and takes no
responsibility
Sixteen Arguments in Support of Co-Parenting
What the Latest Research is Saying about the Best Interests of Children Post
by Edward Kruk Ph.D. on Apr 16, 2012 in Co-Parenting After Divorce
I have long maintained that a more child-focused approach to resolving parenting disputes after separation and divorce is needed to reduce harm to children and ensure their well-being. Usually, when parents cannot agree on parenting matters, they take their case to a judge for a resolution. The court then applies a "best interests of the child" standard in its decision-making in regard to kids’ future living arrangements. The problem is, however, that this standard is extremely vague and indeterminate, based on projective speculation about which parent might in future be the “better” parent, and thus subject to judicial bias and error. Judges not trained in child development and family dynamics are given unfettered discretion, and this results in unpredictable outcomes based on idiosyncratic biases and subjective value judgments.
Our current system of resolving child custody disputes rarely considers either children’s needs from children’s own perspective, or current research on child custody outcomes. What is needed is a new standard, a "best interests of the child from the perspective of the child" standard, and an approach to child custody determination that is built on a strong foundation of empirical research.
My recent article in the American Journal of Family Therapy, "Arguments for an Equal Parental Responsibility Presumption in Contested Child Custody," outlines sixteen distinct arguments in support of a shared parental responsibility presumption in contested child custody, which are presented from a child-focused perspective, with clinical and empirical evidence in support of each argument contrasted to the conflicting evidence. The shared parental responsibility alternative addresses the problems associated with judicial bias and error. The sixteen arguments are as follows:
1. Shared parenting preserves children’s relationships with both parents
2. Shared parenting preserves parents’ relationships with their children
3. Shared parenting decreases parental conflict and prevents family violence
4. Shared parenting reflects children’s preferences and views about their needs and best interests
5. Shared parenting reflects parents’ preferences and views about their children’s needs and best interests
6. Shared parenting reflects child caregiving arrangements before divorce
7. Shared parenting enhances the quality of parent-child relationships
8. Shared parenting decreases parental focus on “mathematizing time” and reduces litigation
9. Shared parenting provides an incentive for inter-parental negotiation, mediation and the development of parenting plans
10. Shared parenting provides a clear and consistent guideline for judicial decision-making
11. Shared parenting reduces the risk and incidence of parental alienation
12. Shared parenting enables enforcement of parenting orders, as parents are more likely to abide by an equal parental responsibility order
13. Shared parenting addresses social justice imperatives regarding protection of children’s rights
14. Shared parenting addresses social justice imperatives regarding parental authority, autonomy, equality, rights and responsibilities
15. The discretionary best interests of the child / sole custody model is not empirically supported
16. A rebuttable legal presumption of shared parenting responsibility is empirically supported
Many of these findings run counter to now-outdated research and prevailing practice wisdom in the field of divorce. However, there is an emergent consensus within the divorce research community that in the great majority of contested cases of child custody, where family violence is not a factor, children's needs and interests are best served by preserving meaningful relationships with both of their parents. Children need and want both parents in their lives, beyond the constraints of "visitation" relationships and "primary caregiver" arrangements. Shared parenting is a viable and desirable alternative in this regard, and “in the best interests of the child from the perspective of the child.”
