High Conflict Divorce/Parental Alienation in the News in Detroit

[VIDEO: "What is parental alienation?"]

www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/07/09/siblings-thrown-juvie-hall-refusing-see-dad/29898491/

www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/07/09/children-detained-rejecting-dad/29935383/

What do you all think of this? 

[Panda39]

www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/07/09/siblings-thrown-juvie-hall-refusing-see-dad/29898491/

www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/07/09/children-detained-rejecting-dad/29935383/

What do you all think of this? 

[Slate78]

I was going to post this too. I think the judge way overstepped. Whether Mom is alienating or not (and it sounds to me like the kids have good reasons for not wanting to see Dad) the kids are not in a place where they feel good about seeing Dad. Forcing them in this way is the worst thing to do, not sure what purpose it could possibly serve for anyone. And what the judge said in her statement seemed to me to show no understanding of the nuances of a custody situation with a personality disorder (which it seems likely one or both parents must have). Maybe I am coloured by the fact that my SS doesn't want to see his BPD mom right now and being ordered in a courtroom to do so, and then sent to a detention centre - that would devastate me and him and would not make him want to see Mom anymore than he does now.

[Panda39]

There are a lot of angles to this for me... .

High Conflict Divorce - 5+ years! (miserable for everyone)

I tend to believe there is parental alienation going on. (my perspective is colored by this happening to my SO part of a previous post below)

My SO other went through something similar, he was accused by his ex of child abuse because he threw a phone (what is it about the phone?) into the couch (guess who he was talking to?).  Throwing the phone into the couch became, throwing the phone and shattering it (really? he's still using it today 3 years later), then it became taking the phone from the kids so they couldn't call their mom, finally morphing into he wouldn't allow the girls to leave his apartment when they wanted to leave.  I should add that mom was running a Parental Alienation Campaign so even though the kids saw something different they 'believed" moms exaggerated version of events even though she wasn't even there!

My SO was dragged into court to defend himself.  The oh so concerned uBPDmom did not even go to the hearing, the judge was told she was ill, what was she doing? Out getting a manicure with their younger daughter.  The charges were found unfounded and dropped however he too had to attend therapy for anger management.

I'm happy the judge is at least is aware of/recognizes parental alienation and tried to do something.

I'm not sure I think it was a bad thing to put the kids in a place for abused children because alienation is abuse.  It removes them from the mom who has created the alienation (hopefully - gets them out of the FOG) and gives them a supervised place to see dad.

But I can also see how this would be traumatic for the kids.  They believe what they believe whether or not it really happened and are fearful of their father.

Then I think maybe dad should just let go for the sake of his kids and then I think but why should he they are his children too. 

What a horrible mess 

[livednlearned]

From the court transcript:

Judge to the 15-year-old boy: "I ordered you to have a healthy relationship with your father."

[Thunderstruck]

I hate it when people say "well, the children are fearful of their father so there must be a good reason... .". NO! That's the alienation! Even children who have witnessed DV (or are abused themselves) love their parents. Like a kicked puppy that keeps coming back. The total rejection of the parent (and their own half brother) is a big  that it's PA.

When I was a snotty 15 year old I wanted to stop seeing my parents. It had nothing to do with divorce (they're still married) or abuse (never any DV)... .I was just a jerk face teenager who thought I knew better.

I respect the heck out of this dad. When uBPDbm was working over SD10 to the point where she would cry hysterically when we tried to pick her up from school and NO ONE was helping us legally, we thought very often of throwing in the towel. Now we're at 50/50 and their relationship is great. This poor dad has been trying to battle alienation on limited visitation which is really tough.

I think the judge made a tough call but I think it was the right one. Typically the order would have been to remove the children from the mother and place custody with the father. However, the children vehemently refuse to go with the father. So where does it leave them? I think somewhere neutral with a chance to deprogram is a good idea.

[Slate78]

I hate it when people say "well, the children are fearful of their father so there must be a good reason... .". NO! That's the alienation! Even children who have witnessed DV (or are abused themselves) love their parents. Like a kicked puppy that keeps coming back. The total rejection of the parent (and their own half brother) is a big   that it's PA.

When

Thunderstruck, this hit me hard and I've been thinking a lot about it, and about how a lot of what we see are two sides of the same coin. For example - what we call low or no contact can be seen be a BPD as refusal to communicate. In my situation, I am a stepmom with a UBPDBM and SS13/SD15. SD has a lot of BPD traits that I hope are just learned behaviours. SS started seeing things were not ok with his Mom when he was about 9. He asked to go to therapy with her "to help mom be better" at that age, and then didn't want to go anymore because Mom twisted everything with the therapist and he had no voice. Mom and SD always fought hard but SS is much more calm and internalising. They have both been saying for at least four years that they wanted more time with us but that enraged Mom and we were afraid to pursue. Things steadily deteriorated at Mom's house. She kicked SD out last year and SS followed a few days later. They have lived with us ever since. In the beginning they would try to visit Mom but her family piled on and there were a lot of emotional scenes. We had to let it play out. Now SD will see her if it is in public and Mom can't rage, but SS is just done for now. He won't see her family either because the few times he did go to meet them, they were acting as advocates for BM, lecturing him about how he had destroyed their family by living with us, that his mother was an amazing person and no one respected his decision. He was very upset and felt very pressured to move back. BM and her family believe that my step kids are too close to me and I am to blame for not respecting the fact that she carried them for nine months. DH and I have been harassed by her and her H for years and years. I actually am afraid of them both, and they moved a block away from us four years ago. I live in a state of anxiety.

BM tells everyone (especially the kids) that we have brainwashed them and they are victims of parental alienation. It's devastating for us - it's a small city and she has recruited all our neighbours. She actually said exactly what you did - children don't reject even the most abusive of mothers. It's true that I hate how she has treated them but DH and I don't ever say anything bad about her, even though she tells them we are jerks, have no friends, have destroyed her life, stolen her children etc. I carry a lot of guilt because I wonder if it is our fault. We have lived in terror of her and what she will do to the kids - have they picked up on that to the point of being parentally alienated? I guess what it comes down to for me is this - I believe her abuse of them has caused them to alienate from her. I don't really believe we had any part in it. She tried to alienate them from us and it backfired. That's the truth of our situation. I guess there is a lot of pain in all our situations but I don't think we can really make blanket declarations that fit them all. With BPD it's never that simple. I would love for my step kids to have a healthy relationship with their Mom. I quite liked having half my time free :-). We are all just trying to negotiate the minefield. She pays no child support or expenses, and we are afraid to push because she tells the kids she is poor and we don't want to put them through that ($1m house but doesn't work) I can see the pain BM must be in and I understand that for her it is always easier to blame us instead of seeing what she has done to her kids. I wish SS would see her, selfishly, so that we could avoid these accusations. I can't imagine how hard it must be for you guys when you haven't caused the estrangement. These PDs destroy lives. But one thing it has taught me is that there is always more to whatever story you hear! I love my step kids but I am counting down the days till college

[Panda39]

Slate78,

My SO and his children have a very similar situation to yours.  D18 is no contact with her mother and D14 will see her mother if someone else is present and both went to live with dad on their own. They have come to these decisions because of the actions of their mother.  Their uBPDmom alienated them from herself by her own actions, behaviors, neglect, instability and emotional abuse.

This is not a case of my SO brainwashing his children to hate or be fearful of their mother, mom did it all on her own.

The detroit case is about mom brainwashing the kids to be fearful of their father.  I don't beleive there is any evidence that the wife or children's alligations against dad are true. 

I guess the question is what do we think about how the judge handled this, the kids being in contempt of court for not seeing dad?  The kids being placed in a facility for abused children and not allowed to see mom and forced to see dad? Was the judge's solution a good one? Did she over-step?  What are other possible options/solutions?

Panda39

[Sunfl0wer]

There is another thread around here on this event too.

Craig Childress explains that when kids are not driven to bond with a parent, the child's bonding motivational system has been damaged by PAS.  Kids feel loss and hurt over parents that abuse them.  On a scale of 1-10 in differing forms of abuse... .damaging a kid in this way is a 10.

He describes features that are very different in abused vs PAS kids.  Mainly... .even abused kids are sad that they are losing a parent that abused them vs actively trying to eliminate the parent as a parent.

Edit:  Childress also explains how PAS progresses into the child becoming defiant... .ODD.  The child becomes an independent abuser... .without the help of the alienating parent.  (Independently shunning dad is a form of abuse)

(This happened with my SD)

[Slate78]

The detroit case is about mom brainwashing the kids to be fearful of their father.  I don't beleive there is any evidence that the wife or children's alligations against dad are true.  

I guess the question is what do we think about how the judge handled this, the kids being in contempt of court for not seeing dad?  The kids being placed in a facility for abused children and not allowed to see mom and forced to see dad? Was the judge's solution a good one? Did she over-step?  What are other possible options/solutions?

Panda39

I didn't see in the article that Mom had brainwashed (except that the judge seemed to believe she had). I did think it was a red flag that Mom had a neighbour defend her - all our neighbours would defend BM too and the people who seek out that validation worry me! I didn't read the transcripts but have seen that others say they indicate Mom is definitely at fault. Honestly - I think a child who has really undergone parental alienation (not just based on what two warring parents say) has undergone horrific abuse. They do need to be removed from the parent who is at fault, but I'm not sure a detention centre is the place to do it (I read initially that it was a detention centre, not a centre for abused kids? The type of facility makes a big difference) - wouldn't that cause more trauma? They are fearful enough. Take them away from Mom who is abusing them and put them with Dad who they are afraid of because of Mom? No good solutions here. We were at a loss when BM was doing it to us, and I still don't have any answers.

[Slate78]

There is another thread around here on this event too.

Craig Childress explains that when kids are not driven to bond with a parent, the child's bonding motivational system has been damaged by PAS.  Kids feel loss and hurt over parents that abuse them.  On a scale of 1-10 in differing forms of abuse... .damaging a kid in this way is a 10.

He describes features that are very different in abused vs PAS kids.  Mainly... .even abused kids are sad that they are losing a parent that abused them vs actively trying to eliminate the parent as a parent.

Edit:  Childress also explains how PAS progresses into the child becoming defiant... .ODD.  The child becomes an independent abuser... .without the help of the alienating parent.  (Independently shunning dad is a form of abuse)

(This happened with my SD)

My SS tried really hard to bond with Mom, and I would say that in the early years he did - he was so sweet and loving but she never seemed terribly connected to him. Then he started to get angry. Then he just gave up in the last year. I have no doubt that he feels the loss acutely but he just doesn't trust her. I do believe he is now trying to eliminate her as a parent and independently shunning her. We try so hard to get him to see her that I wonder if that is the completely wrong tack to take - should we be trying to get him to go back to a place where he feels so unhappy? He says all she wants is to make people feel bad and guilty and he will go there when he has to - Xmas and birthdays etc. I think by what Childress etc say, SS is alienated, so is SD - but the difference is the mechanism by how they got to that point. Is it not the case that they can get past the sadness and loss, which they have both experienced, and feel that their lives are better without the abuse of the BPD? What can we do to make it better for him if it is indeed our fault? I realize I have completely taken over this thread to my own ends :-) I apologise Panda! I lurk here a lot but our situation is so hard that I find it difficult to post. It's death by a thousand cuts, every day, and I have really been struggling lately and questioning everything.

[Slate78]

WOW I did some more digging on this. Should have done so before I answered initially. Mom has some serious problems. Those poor kids. How frustrating for all involved. I am starting to side with the judge... .

[Sunfl0wer]

Thanks Slate,

I believe I should have said that a child is driven to bond to "a normal range parent."

Even parents that abuse, leave kids in a state of wishing and hoping for things to be better vs eliminating the parent as a parent.

In your situation, I'm sorry, your SS is not dealing with a normal range parent.  It is a different situation.

My SD rejected her "normal range parent/dad,"  this was due to PAS.  Her dad, although with N/BPD traits did not do anything to deserve this.  She is safe visiting him, more emotionally safe than with mom.  (even if I think he is invalidating to her and has PD traits) However, she cannot express exactly why, but she now hates him just because "he is a bad person."  Mom put her up to gathering "evidence" that our home was unsafe.  SD reported how she didn't like the way we played a game, didn't like getting the smaller room, didn't always get to pick the outings.  SD felt that these actions were abusive as her mom over-sympathized and treated her like a victim for these things vs helping her.

[Thunderstruck]

He describes features that are very different in abused vs PAS kids.  Mainly... .even abused kids are sad that they are losing a parent that abused them vs actively trying to eliminate the parent as a parent.

Edit:  Childress also explains how PAS progresses into the child becoming defiant... .ODD.  The child becomes an independent abuser... .without the help of the alienating parent.  (Independently shunning dad is a form of abuse)

This is a really good way of explaining it, and what I was looking for! I feel like I can glaringly see the comparison between this case and an abuse/DV case. I think to the unfamiliar they must look the same.

(I'm sorry about your SD  :'( )

Father has been on supervised visits. If he was causing the alienation himself, or showing some kind of PD/abusive behavior toward the children to warrant their ill feelings then it would have been observed. Mother has shown a pattern of not following the court orders and trying to disrupt the father and children's relationship. I read in the transcript that the judge identified that it was PA, but since judge's don't diagnose mental disorders I'm guessing she's heard testimony from experts (psychologists? CE? GALs?) identifying this behavior.

One of the father’s visits was at the court. The children refused to go into the courtroom. They had armed officers telling them they needed to comply and they obstinately refused. I don’t think any children of BPDs (or children who have witnessed abuse or been abused) who choose NC would go to this extreme. 

I think the judge’s motives were to try to stop the alienation and give the kids a “wake up call” that this behavior was unacceptable. I think I already said this, but removing the kids from the mother and placing them with the father would have been my first choice, but since the kids refuse to even “have lunch” with the father it wasn’t exactly a realistic option. I think next I would have moved on to placing the kids with a paternal family member, but I’m guessing either dad doesn’t have any family local in MI (since he’s from Israel, right?) and/or the kids have painted his entire family black (which happens with PA) so that wasn’t a realistic option either. I don’t think it’s a good idea to place the kids with a maternal family member, because I doubt that would stop the alienation. I think the judge really had no other options available.

[livednlearned]

Is it possible that the dysfunction extends to more than just the mother?

The judge could be narcissistic (child's disobedience = narcissistic injury)

The judge may not understand PDs or parental alienation from a therapeutic perspective

The father may be the other half of a high-conflict couple (i.e. both parties have a PD, or PD traits)

The father may have struck the child at some point (we can't really know)

The mother may be alienating the kids (this seems to be a given)

The older teen may be exhibiting early traits of BPD

It's a tragic story.

:'(

[Sunfl0wer]

I didn't read all the details about the story, however, from what you guys say... .it sounds horrible.

Living this... .

It was horrible.  I believe SD was plotting to kill us independent of her mom.  She joked about poisoning us and told us she would not tell us what ingredients she was using in foods... ."just try it"... .even knowing I am highly allergic to some things.  She carried odd herbs/ingredients in her purse. 

In my case... .

SD appeared very controlled emotionally. However, if you got a hold of her txts and emails, she was furious with us... .the kid was secretly plotting and covering her tracks about it.  I believe she had the power/lack of empathy/desire to poison us with something and pretend it was an accident that the ingredient got into our food.

[ForeverDad]

I thought a huge factor was that the children have been primarily with mother and apart from the father since late 2009, that's over 5 years.  The girl would have been about 3-4, the boys about 4-5 and 8-9 at the time.  Being so adamant and determined not to visit doesn't sound normal.  Even if there was a hit, not substantiated of course, that alone wouldn't create such a determined stance in all three children.

If I were a custody evaluator there, I'd try to get the children to discuss father's relatives.  If they've all black-listed, then that would be a good indicator of programming or brainwashing the children.  Children may reject a few people, but not by groups.

I seem to recall a Law & Order (?) rerun where the grown or nearly grown son and daughter were convinced their father was wonderful and mother  was a clutch and uncaring (and mother gaslighted to believe it) when it was the father who was the ultimate mental manipulator and controller.  These extreme disorders really depend upon shifting the blame onto the target.

How is it the courts are so powerless to get it figured out before the children's lives are so impacted?  My own case, baby steps of improvement going from temp non-custodial and minority time age 3 to custodial and majority time age 11, took some 8 years.   Precious years of childhood so impacted... .

[MaybeSo]

Dr. Craig Childress is probably the leading expert on PA, but he is using already accepted principles (attachment, family systems etc.) and is really trying to launch an education campaign for mental health and legal experts. From his work:

The initial “presentation” is one of parent-child conflict caused by the targeted-rejected parent. However, as I collect the clinical data, the parent-child conflict is not being initiated by the parent’s problematic behavior, but is being initiated by, dare I say provoked by, the child.

Furthermore, the child’s attachment system display is not authentic. Child protest behavior is an “attachment behavior” designed to increase parental involvement (commonly referred to as seeking “negative attention”). In this situation, the child is showing “detachment behavior,” a motivated desire to sever the parent child bond. An authentic attachment system never shows “detachment behavior” except under an extremely limited set of severely abusive parenting (e.g., incest or chronic and severe parental violence), or in response to a cross-generational coalition with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent (i.e., attachment-based "parental alienation" -

[Sunfl0wer]

An authentic attachment system never shows “detachment behavior” except under an extremely limited set of severely abusive parenting (e.g., incest or chronic and severe parental violence), or in response to a cross-generational coalition with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent (i.e., attachment-based "parental alienation"

You summarize Childress so well!


Help me understand better please... .

It was my interpretation that even in sever cases of abuse/incest... .that the child still does not want to severe the bond forever.  The child in those cases actually is sad to lose the parent because of the abuse and has to go through a grief period.  If a therapist gave that child a real sense of hope to "cure" that parent, the severely abused child would always want the parent to be cured to resume a r/s with the parent.

However, in the case of the alienated child... .They do not wish the parent to be cured and a bond reestablished.  They have rejected that this parent is ever worthy of them being their child no matter what.  (Unless PA addressed) Their grief process has been mislabeled to the child as PA and their ability to grieve and miss the parent has been damaged and exploited for the sake of PA... .And is now proof that the alienated parent is bad.

[MaybeSo]

I am just finishing his new book Foundations, and I have a good understanding of childhood attachment so I am thrilled that someone is finally pointing to already firmly established, well studied principles to explain PA... .b/c the original Garnder PA Syndrom has been in controversy for years as not being scientifically grounded and therefore not especially useful to families.  But if one applies the principles of attachment science and family system theory which have been accepted for decades... .those are the foundations that help us to understand what is really going on in cases of PA.  

So, I think Childress would say it would only be in extreme cases of neglect and abuse that a childs attachment system would 'move away' permanently from a parent.  After all, we have seen what children look like when there is abuse or neglect.  We see "disroganized" attachment.  It's not organized, as "I never one to see my parent again". It's disorganized.  The child is disorganized because their attachment system is telling them to move toward the parent for nurturing but an abusive parent may harm them so at the very same time they fear the parent.  But the attachment system still drives them to seek the parent!  That's why is "disorganized", they seek out the very person who may harm you.  Lay person's think if a child has been abused or neglected that a kid will just figure out on their own... .I hate that parent and never want to be with them ever again.  It is nothing like that.  Children are hard-wired to seek out and be with their parents... .it is an evolutionary imperitive... .it's how we survived.  It would take a tremendous rupture to sever that drive and often it has to be supported by others... .in cases where there is actual severe abuse and the parent is too dangerous to be in the child's life... .the child would still move into grief if ALLOWED to.  

Children do not on their own... .permanently and with rigor... .reject a normal range affectionate parent.  

Childress is saying this only happens when there is a personality disorder in play.  The sick parent actually uses the childs grief over distance or loss, and turns it into something else. And that the personality disordered parent is re-enacting their own childhood trauma by subtly using the child's attachment drives (fear of losing the sick parent) to reject the target parent who is overtly and covertly painted as dangerous, which activates the child's attachment system to seek the sick parent, because something is 'dangerous' about the other parent.  What is more dangerous is that the child understands what is needed to secure their ongoing attachment bond with the sick parent which almost always looks enmeshed (but lay people see it and think, oh, look how close they are!)... .and the child complies with the sick parent... .b/c of attachment needs, too.   If they do not comply they risk anhiliation/rejection by the sick parent, another attachment disruption.  

His thesis is that PA is a child protection issue, not a custody issue.  To understand what is really happening and to stop it and rescue the child and the family,  both mental health professionals and family law professionals have to understand childhood development and attachment, family systems, and the underlying trauma that supports the behavior of a pw BPD/NPD.

He is demanding that mental health professionals become educated about this or refrain from taking these cases... .because legally mental health professionals are NOT suppose to take cases outside their scope of practice.  Having a therapist get involved that has no understanding of attachment or personality disorders who work with families where this might be going on... .would be unethical and usually is just exacerbates symptoms.

His 'cure' I have not read yet... .but it is swift and to the point.  It has to do with getting the child away from the sick parent completely for a short period of time, later to be reunited AFTER a short NON Therapy program is complete.  The child goes back with the target parent if PA is happening.  An educated person can tell if PA is going on based on attachment principles.  He stresses that the child in these situations not do therapy as usual... .therapy tends to just make it worse.  I work in this field, and I cannot tell you how many times a parent comes in bringing a child for therapy... .where I get the sense, this parent is not well, and I don't like the way the parent is painting the co-parent 'black'... .this parent is seeking therapy for a custody related issue, and therapy doesn't HELP a kid who is stuck in a custody battle in my opinion, anyway.  This has got to change... .and I am hoping Chiildress's work will get some traction.

One of my biggest fears, and something that does occur... .is when both parents are clearly presenting with a personality disorder... .which is not all that uncommon.  I emailed Childress about this and got a long response back... .basically... .yikes.  Poor kids.   


   

[MaybeSo]

In a quick read of the case that started this thread... .

There is more to this story than we can possibly know from reading that article.  One or both of the parents is likely sick. What would account for the level of "splitting" going on other than borderline pathology?  The kids refuse to see, talk, or even look at their father?  Splitting is was drives these cases.  Even if one parent did 'hit' the other parent... .which was never proven... .children do not reject a normal range parent with this kind of histrionics and drama all on their own.

[livednlearned]

An educated person can tell if PA is going on based on attachment principles.  He stresses that the child in these situations not do therapy as usual... .therapy tends to just make it worse.

Thanks for an excellent summary of Childress's work, MaybeSo.

One thing I've been thinking about is the degree of BPD, and how that affects the degree of PA. Some of the BPD parents here are likely sub-clinical, and might not be nearly as high-conflict as other parents. Even though lesser amounts of PA are awful, they may not reach the level of toxicity that can sever a parent-child relationship. I think it was Gunderson, one of the leading researchers of BPD, who suggested researchers should develop a system that describes BPD in terms of degree of severity, and that this would be more helpful than just the straight-up DSM criteria used to diagnose BPD.

And then there is the question of whether the BPD parent is considered a high-conflict personality (HCP) according to Bill Eddy's definition. M ex would be considered an HCP, and "not cooperative, dangerous" according to Eddy (The other levels are "generally cooperative, not dangerous" and "not cooperative, not dangerous." Yet, despite ex being HCP, I had more custodial time and a stronger bond with S14, which had an antidote effect. And the nature of our dynamic (ex fighting a lot, but not being hands-on involved in S14's life) and me having majority custodial time meant that even with PA going on, therapy was very effective for S14.

My SO has an ex-wife who appears to have BPD traits, and even though she might be considered "generally cooperative, not dangerous" she alienated the youngest (age 16, with intellectual disabilities) from SO. From my vantage point, it seems like the PA is present, though somewhat neutralized by SO using validation skills and applying techniques suggested by Dr. Warshak (Divorce Poison). I get the impression from reading Childress' work on his blog that he has severe cases of PA in mind, which might explain why the only cure he recommends would be incredibly difficult and expensive from a custody perspective.

Like levels of BPD, we don't have a way to gauge how severe the PA might be. I notice with my SO that he dialed down the conflict by sacrificing certain things with his son, and to a lesser extent with his middle daughter, and the PA seemed to dial down too. Or, at the very least, the PA took root but didn't bloom.

For the rest of us who have dealt with lesser degrees of PA, there is a lot we can do using some of the more standard resources like Divorce Poison, and Coparenting with a Toxic Ex, not to mention Eddy's book, ":)on't Alienate the Kids" that helps the non-BPD parent hold up a mirror so we can model good behaviors for our kids.

[MaybeSo]

I get the impression from reading Childress' work on his blog that he has severe cases of PA in mind, which might explain why the only cure he recommends would be incredibly difficult and expensive from a custody perspective.

He views PA as a child protection issue, not a custody issue.

Childress is involved in embattled court cases where high levels of pathology similar to that described the original post is present. He is arguing that there shouldn't be embattled court cases... .we have all the theory we need to understand what is going on already, and that the mental health profession needs to get it's act together and start applying already accepted principles to swiftly and ethically address PA and stop it in its tracks.  He is arguing that we have an obligation as professionals to protect children, only practice within or scope of expertise, and he is arguing this is currently not the case.

The cure he recommends actually wouldn't be expensive or all that difficult... in fact, he if offering just the opposite.  It's swift and does not take years in court or years in therapy.

It's the years the family is stuck in a ridiculously embittered non-productive custody battles that is expensive and difficult, and he is arguing that the child is being harmed and abused while this is going on.  In deed he has suggested using RICO to go after the mental health professionals that ignore already accepted psychological research  that could swiftly address these issues and stop the pathology in its tracks... .and he is arguing there may be financial incentive for them NOT to. The legal professionals and custody evaluators all get paid big money to drive these embittered cases through the courts for months and years while children are being harmed.

All families can have times in the aftermath of separation or divorce where elements of what we view as PA may be present in some degree, because there can be cross generational coalitions and splitting dynamics during times of extreme stress in families.  There are no perfect families. We can all regress when upset or stressed-out.  All people if looking closely enough could find pockets of 'sub clinical' borderline or narcissistic defenses operating in their lives.   There are no perfect people.

Childress is tackling cases where extreme pathology is obviously in play and the family is obviously extremely ill because of it.

I think he would argue that with proper education and adherence to legal and ethical mandates,  these cases could be handled swiftly and with much less cost both emotionally and financially to the family members involved.  He expects the mental health profession to educate themselves and in turn to educate the legal system.  

An excerpt from his blog:

Child custody evaluations are a professional abomination.  And I am a conservative “old-school” psychologist.  I’m not some radical psychologist.  I teach graduate level courses in Assessment and Psychometrics, in Diagnosis and Treatment Planning, in Research Methodology.  I was on medical staff at Children’s Hospital of Orange County and served as a clinical supervisor in their APA internship program.  I was the Clinical Director for a children’s assessment and treatment center operated under the auspices of Cal Sate University San Bernardino’s Institute of Child Development and Family Relations.  I was the Clinical Director for a FEMA/DOJ project to develop a national model for the clinical assessment of juvenile firesetting behavior.  I’m a conservative “old-school” psychologist who held my interns’ feet-to-the-fire in justifying their diagnosis and treatment plan.

And I am appalled by child custody evaluations.

So, in essence, the highly relevant clinical psychopathology of parental narcissistic and borderline personality pathology is not even assessed, and is entirely irrelevant to the conclusions and recommendations of custody evaluations.  Are you kidding me?  I am professionally astounded.

[Sunfl0wer]

His 'cure' I have not read yet... .but it is swift and to the point.  It has to do with getting the child away from the sick parent completely for a short period of time, later to be reunited AFTER a short NON Therapy program is complete.  The child goes back with the target parent if PA is happening. 

From my recollection/understanding from reading this over a month ago... .

He said that at the point the child is fully rejecting, looking down and judging the target parent... .that the diagnosis of the child is ODD.

So why does the kid behave SOOoo well with the alienating parent?  It must be the fault of the target parent that the kid misbehaves?

No

The child is driven for survival and to not loose the bond with the alienating parent.  The child is suppressing full blown ODD when around the alienating parent in order to not damage that bond.

If the child is simply removed from the alienating parent... .  That is no good.  Full blown ODD will take effect and that is not good either.

His solution is to have judge/T/intervening person tell parents that if child misbehaves with target parent, then child gets more time with target parent, "as punishment."  If child behaves with target parent, child may return to alienating parent as usual.

The idea is that this gives alienating parent a motivation to encourage child to behave with target parent vs feeling abandon by child bonding... .alienating parent will see child having fun with target parent as a result of their desire to love and please them vs angry for betrayl.

It also give target parent a role of authority/respect in the dynamic in reporting on child's behavior.

[livednlearned]

He views PA as a child protection issue, not a custody issue.

I am trying to think of a PA situation in which custody (ie. family law) would not be involved one way or another. Do you mean instead of a custody evaluation?

For example, in the case mentioned in this thread the judge would investigate PA in terms of child protective measures, instead of (one example) getting custody evaluators involved?

[MaybeSo]

This is his proposal, from www.drcraigchildressblog.com/ 

Once we achieve the paradigm shift from the old Gardnerian model to the new attachment-based model, the solution to the pathology of “parental alienation” becomes available immediately:

1.)  The practice of assessing, diagnosing, and treating this type of pathology will be restricted to only mental health professionals with the established professional competence in personality disorders, family systems principles, and attachment system trauma pathology.

2.)  All mental health professionals assessing, diagnosing and treating this form of pathology (attachment trauma reenactment pathology) will assess for the three definitive diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model of the pathology, as well as the associated clinical signs indicative of the pathology, as defined and predicted a priori from the description of the pathology in Foundations.

3.)  When the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” are present in the child’s symptom display, all mental health professionals will make a DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, they will document this diagnosis in the child’s treatment record, and they will file a suspected child abuse report with the appropriate child protection services agency in order to appropriately discharge their “duty to protect.”

4.)  The social worker at the child protection services agency who receives this child abuse report from the mental health professional will then apply the same model for the pathology (attachment trauma reenactment pathology) and will assess for the three diagnostic indicators of the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation”.

5.)  When the three diagnostic indicators of attachment-based “parental alienation” (attachment trauma reenactment pathology) are present in the child’s symptom display, the social worker will confirm the DSM-5 diagnosis made by the mental health professional of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed and will initiate a protective separation of the child from the pathology and pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/borderline parent.

6.)  The social worker with the child protection agency will place the child in the care of the normal-range and affectionally available targeted parent, and treatment will be initiated under the expert guidance of a knowledgeable and competent mental health professional.

7.)  Once the child’s symptoms of pathology are resolved and the child's normal-range development has been restored and stabilized, the pathogenic parenting of the narcissistic/borderline parent will be reintroduced under careful therapeutic monitoring to ensure that the child’s symptoms do not return with the reintroduction of the parent’s pathology.

This is the seven-step solution made available today by a paradigm shift to an attachment-based definition for the construct of "parental alienation."

[Thunderstruck]

MaybeSo, thank you so much for these posts from Childress' work! I have been trying to explain to "laypeople" these exact things, without the psychology background to explain it. They all tell me I'm some kind of monster because I "don't believe the children".    The general population want to believe that the abuse is physical (and they always believe that when perpetrated by a man) and that's the obvious answer on why these children completely rejected their father. Case closed.

It makes me so very sad how little is known or understood about mental disorders. If it were physical abuse, then the children would be protected. It stinks that it's so hard to protect children from mental abuse.

It also made me really sad to read his opinion about CEs. It's the only way we can get a mental health professional to finally get "eyes" on these situations, and so many of them "miss the mark" or are hesitant to diagnose. Our court system is completely broken.

[ForeverDad]

I haven't gotten the full sense of the difference between the approach by Dr Childress versus Gardner but it is good that someone has found a way to use current processes to deal with the alienation that is obvious to all.  Combine Childress, Eddy, Warshak, Kreger and others and the world will have a clearer and more practical way to provide help to us who are in desperate need of recognition, support and resources.

That's what was so confounding, that literally for decades the establishment has criticized and nit-picked Gardner for his attempt to describe and address extreme, abnormal behaviors and actions that clearly happened but to which many professionals seemed to turn a blind eye.

[livednlearned]

That's what was so confounding, that literally for decades the establishment has criticized and nit-picked Gardner for his attempt to describe and address extreme, abnormal behaviors and actions that clearly happened but to which many professionals seemed to turn a blind eye.

From the family court perspective it comes down to expert testimony. Gardner tried to say there was something called Parental Alienation Syndrome. He wanted it to be a clinical diagnosis. For that to be true, PAS had to be based in empirical research, and scientific theory, which it wasn't. He did not make that connection. If I remember correctly, his credentials were also sketchy at the time he wrote about PAS -- and later he wrote some weird things about pedophilia that made him a pariah in the research community.

So in court, even if the behaviors were present (alienation), expert witnesses were called in to say whether this thing called PAS existed. The Supreme Court ruled that expert testimony had to be rooted in scientific methods, which PAS was not.

There was a period when PAS was accepted, and then it was slowly, systematically debunked as a syndrome. However, most courts seem to understand that something is going on. That's why there is standard language in many orders that says, "Parents shall not disparage each other in front of the minor child/ren."

What Childress has done is link PA to attachment theory, so he has made the empirical, scientific link to a theory that other researchers/psychologists accept as scientifically legit. Warshak basically says, "I don't care if it's called a Syndrome or a snowman, it's real and here are some ways to deal with it."

It's good news that Childress is connecting PA to attachment theory and encouraging mental health pros to get educated, although it's splitting hairs imo to call it a child protection issue vs custody because in high-conflict divorces, everything gets handled through the courts. And even swift orders and hearings are expensive when it's hundreds of dollars an hour. The "cheapest" thing I've paid for is an ex parte order and even that is close to $1K, and that's just to draft and deliver the thing, and get a hearing scheduled.

Wanting there to be better mental health training among the whole therapeutic jurisprudence industry is nothing new   

I hope Childress is successful at educating even some professionals. Even if one family gets the help it needs is worth it.

[MaybeSo]

It's good news that Childress is connecting PA to attachment theory and encouraging mental health pros to get educated, although it's splitting hairs imo to call it a child protection issue vs custody because in high-conflict divorces, everything gets handled through the courts.

He is classifying it as child protection issue b/c that is what it is... .psychological abuse of a child... .and there is a DSM V-code the clinician uses for this and a mandated report to CPS is tied to it; this sets up the protocol that licensed professional are to follow. It will likely still go to court.  But there will be protocol based on grounded science and a treatment plan.

Wanting there to be better mental health training among the whole therapeutic jurisprudence industry is nothing new

He is calling for mandated training for health care professional who work in this arena on threat of malpractice/ scope of practice if they are not following proper clinical training and treatment protocol including assessment.  He is pushing this through mental health governing boards.  This area will no longer be wide open for just anyone without any specialized training any longer.  

This will likely be a game changer. He has the creds and he is not fooling around.

[Harri]

Here is an update on the case.  Apparently the kids have been with the father since mid August following intensive therapy to treat PA and there will be hearings in October to determine whether or not to end the mother's physical custody. 

Detroit Free Press: www.freep.com/story/news/local/2015/09/09/tsimhoni-children-reunite-father-therapy/71965968/