Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012 Drozd, L. (2012) [email protected]1 Estrangement & Not Parental Alienation Disorder Leslie M. Drozd, Ph.D. Editor, Journal of Child Custody www.lesliedrozd.com [email protected]949.786.7263 Our Broken Family Court System March 16, 2012 Phoenix, Arizona An individual has been described by a neighbor as follows: “Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with li;le interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and ?dy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail.” Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer? Because this descrip?on of Steve is aligned with stereotypical traits we associate with librarians, most people instantly think he is more likely to be a librarian. Sta?s?cally speaking, however, there are more than 20 male farmers for every male librarian in the United States, so Steve is much more likely to be a farmer. Our brains just don’t work this way, though. Well, some people’s brains might – in fact, I can think of a person or two I know that would probably recognize the sta?s?cal significance before answering the ques?on, but most of us rely on stories, stereotypes, and other forms of narra?ve to perform fast associa?ons, because it’s easier to process ? A Bit of History……. Parental Alienation Syndrome Alienating Behavior Parental Alienation Disorder
Transcript
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
“Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with li;le interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and ?dy soul, he has a need for order and
structure, and a passion for detail.”
Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?
Because this descrip?on of Steve is aligned with stereotypical traits we associate with librarians, most people instantly think he is more likely to be a librarian.
Sta?s?cally speaking, however, there are more than 20 male farmers for every male librarian in the United States, so Steve is much more likely to be a farmer. Our brains just don’t work this way, though. Well, some people’s brains might – in fact, I can think of a person or two I know that would probably recognize the sta?s?cal significance before answering the ques?on, but
most of us rely on stories, stereotypes, and other forms of narra?ve to perform fast associa?ons, because it’s easier to process
Gardner ( 1998 ) was the first to propose the concept of parental alienation syndrome (PAS)
He defined it as a child’s unjustified campaign of denigration against a parent that results from the combination of two contributing factors: § programming or brainwashing by one
parent, § the child’s own contributions to the
vilification of the target parent.
What is Parent Aliena.on Syndrome?
There is no consistent defini?on of parent aliena?on in the
research literature “Parental alienation” (PA) is a generic
term used broadly to refer to a child who has been influenced to reject one parent, in extreme cases “brainwashed” or indoctrinated by an embittered/malicious other parent. “Parent Alienation Behaviors” (PAB) is also been described in the literature as: those behaviors by a parent that negatively inTluence or poison the child’s relationship with the other parent.
A decade ago, Kelly and Johnston expanded the thinking of professionals to include reasons other than parent alienation that might cause a child to reject a parent or refuse contact with a parent.
Kelly & Johnston (2001) defined an alienated child as one who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, or fear) towards a parent that are disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.
They further defined Children who have reasonable cause to have such attitudes and beliefs (e.g., due to parental neglect or abuse) as “estranged” and as categorically excluded in the alienation conceptualizations.
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
Drozd and Olesen (2004, 2010) expanded on Kelly and Johnson’s theory which will be discussed after a brief sidebar.
And before we turn to a description of those decision trees, let’s turn to Parental Alienation Disorder and a look at the research.
Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD)
• Is a recycling of PAS in a
different package • PAD does not distinguish
between PAD and Estrangement
Parental Alienation Disorder
Diagnos?c Criteria for Parental Aliena?on Disorder A. The child, usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-‐conflict divorce, allies himself or herself strongly with one parent and rejects a rela?onship with the other; thus, aliena?ng one parent without legi?mate jus?fica?on. The child resists or refuses contact or paren?ng ?me with the alienated parent. B. The child maintains the following behaviors:
1. A persistent rejec?on or denigra?on of a parent that reaches the level of a campaign. 2. Weak, frivolous, and absurd ra?onaliza?ons for the child’s persistent cri?cism of the rejected parent.
C. The child manifests two or more of the following six aZtudes and behaviors: 1. lack of ambivalence; 2. independent-‐thinker phenomenon; 3. reflexive support of one parent against the other; 4. absence of guilt over exploita?on of the rejected parent; 5. presence of borrowed scenarios; and, 6. spread of animosity to the extended family of the rejected parent.
D. The dura?on of the disturbance is at least 2 months. E. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, academic
(occupa?onal), or other important areas of func?oning. F. The child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is without legi?mate
jus?fica?on. That is, parental aliena?on disorder is not diagnosed if the rejected parent maltreated the child.
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
What Causes a Child to Reject or Resist Contact with a Parent?
Chart available: http://www.lesliedrozd.com/
articles.html
Drozd, Olsen, & Saini, in press
Hypothesis One. The child’s relationship with his or her parent is a part of Normal Development AfTinity refers to the close relationship between a parent and child based on similar temperament or interests.
Alignment refers to the close relationship between a parent and child based on the family dynamics that have caused triangulation.
Hypothesis Two. The child’s resistance to spend time with or rejection of a parent is related to the parent’s abusive behavior…..
Abusive Behaviors Estrangement § Estrangement refers to a child’s rejection of a parent based on that child’s own witnessing or experience of abuse from the rejected parent.
IdentiTication with the Aggressor § This is when the victim of abuse reacts by wanting to be most like and to be with the aggressor.
Hypothesis Three: PARENTING BEHAVIORS. The child’s resistance to spending time with his or her parent is the result of one or more of several parenting behaviors. § Alienation § Misattunment § Intrusiveness § Too lax/too rigid parent structure § Parent-‐centered vs. child-‐centered § Enmeshment
Parenting Behaviors Which Might Result in a Child Rejecting or Resisting Contract with a
Parent -‐1
§ Alienation. This occurs when a parent consciously or unconsciously; in a mild or severe manner; a subtle vs. obvious; or a purposeful or inadvertent manner fails to support the child’s relationship with the other parent when there is no basis to that in reality.
Parenting Behaviors Which Might Result in a Child Rejecting or Resisting Contract with a
Parent -‐2 § Misattunement. This occurs when a parent does not understand child development. The parent can be inconsistently sensitive and/or perceptive and thus, not attuned to the child.
§ Intrusiveness. This occurs when the parent engages in psychological control over the child as s/he inhibits and manipulates the child in a way that the child fails to learn from their own mistakes and thus, lacks some sense of ef_icacy over his or her world. (e.g. helicopter parenting or tiger parenting)
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
Child Rejecting or Resisting Contract with a Parent -‐4
Too lax/too rigid structure. § Parents who engage in parenting behaviors that are too lax may have few, if any, rules, boundaries, or limits. Children raised with lax parenting, often times _lounder. § Authoritarian parenting is often too rigid. The discipline is harsh and the boundaries or limits are too tight. The child is allowed to make few, if any, decisions. Children who endure authoritarian parenting are often very dependent and/or de_iant.
Parenting Behaviors Which Might Result in a
Child Rejecting or Resisting Contract with a Parent -‐5
§ Parent-‐centered vs. child-‐centered. Parents who are more centered on their own needs often miss out on what their child needs. They tend to be concerned solely or chie_ly with his or her own interests, welfare, etc. and they tend to be engrossed in self, are sel_ish and egotistical. They are this as opposed to being child-‐centered. They fail to put their child’s needs _irst.
Parenting Behaviors Which Might Result in a Child Rejecting or Resisting Contract with a
Parent -‐6 Enmeshment. (Janet Johnston, 2011, personal communication) § Enmeshment is an extreme form of boundary dissolution between two persons (usually a parent and a child) in which there is a lack of recognition, or acknowledgement, from at least one of the persons who is usually the adult, as to differences in feelings, perceptions. emotions and experiences of the two individuals. The term has been used fairly widely in clinical research where it is sometimes used synonymously with
(continued)
Parenting Behaviors Which Might Result in a Child Rejecting or Resisting Contract with a
Parent -‐7
Enmeshment (continued) "role reversal." "emotional intrusiveness". "inter-‐ generational boundary dissolution", and " boundary or role diffusion" in the family. It has long been recognized as a feature of some divorcing families (e.g. Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), especially high con_lict separated and divorced families (Johnston, Roseby & Kuehnle, 2009) and linked with the phenomena of the alienated child (Kelly & Johnston, 2001.)
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
Concepts that are associated with the Reformulation of the reasons a child may resist contact with or reject a parent and the relationship of that to Gatekeeping include the following:
Protective Gatekeeping
§ Estrangement § Poor Parenting § Exposure to Domestic Violence § Child Sexual Abuse
Restrictive Gatekeeping
§ Alienation § False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse § False Allegations of Domestic Violence § False Allegations of Mental Illness § Enmeshment § Sabotaging
Hybrid Cases
Typology of Cases in Which a Child Resists or Refuses Contact
q Alienation + Estrangement + Enmeshment q Neglect and/or Abuse by ”Out” Parent Note: “Hybrid” types are in italics (Walters & Friedlander, 2010)
Who is most likely to be the parent engaging in aliena.ng behavior?
• One preliminary study (Johnston et al, 2005) and significant clinical observa?ons show that it is more likely than not that it is the aggressor parent (ba;erer) who is engaging in the “aliena?ng” behavior or what I’d call restric?ve gatekeeping for no good cause.
Review of Research on
Aliena.on
Kuehnle, K. & Drozd, L. (2012) Paren.ng Plan Evalua.ons: Applied Research for Family Court, Oxford
University Press
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
Let’s Look at In.mate Partner Violence in a Way that May Help Help Us Link the Research to Paren.ng and to help clarify that not all In.mate Partner Violence comes in the same package.
!!!!!
An Integrated Conceptual Framework for the Assessment of Intimate Partner Violence in Child Custody Cases!
What Do We Do with a Family Court System That Gravitates Towards Simple Solu?ons for Complex
Problems?
The original, world-famous awareness test from Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris. selective attention test
Why is this relevant?
It is relevant because we (evaluators, attorneys, and courts) miss things, big things like gorillas in the room. We miss things that are right in front of us.
Research shows that we should not trust our gut.
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
• Nobel prize winner in economics for work in demonstra?ng that we are not ra?onal decision makers, instead we consistently make predictable errors
• This is the inspira?on for the sugges?ons I am making as well as my (and others’) experience in reviewing CCE’s
System 1 and System 2 • Kahneman’s terms for (System 1) quick, automa?c heuris?c decision making vs. (System 2) slow, ra?onal decision making
• We avoid System 2 partly because
1. we (all of us) overes?mate our accuracy using System 1 and don’t bother checking against logic 2. it is much harder work, physically, neurologically
• We can learn to use ra?onality to correct for some problems in thinking and decision making, especially if we know about the poten?al errors
System 1
• Is very efficient, fast • Is usually accurate for what it does in daily life • Is based on millennia of human experience • Feels accurate and we are confident of it
• When System 1 faces something surprising or difficult, we switch to System 2
• We can force ourselves to switch to system 2
System 2 • Only System 2 allows for thinking that:
– Is conscious – Considers more than one factor at a ?me (System 1 cannot)
– Makes orderly step by step conclusions – Requires focused a;en?on (heart rate increases, pupils dilate, more glucose is used in pre-‐frontal areas)
– Can override and “rein in” the automa?c thinking of System 1
– Can lead us to miss very obvious things The Invisible Gorilla shows the “inten?onal blindness” of sharply focused inten?on
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
• Forensic and legal rules require that you ar?culate the basis for your opinion and recommenda?ons
• Forensic and legal rules require that another person could examine your data and reach an independent conclusion
An example of System 2 demands
• Israeli judges deciding about gran?ng parole
– Decisions made amer a break for a meal are xxx% in favor of parole.
– Decisions made before a break for a meal are xxx% against a parole.
– Gran?ng parole requires more complex thinking and review of data than denying
Another example of the demands of System 2 thinking
• People are more likely to choose unhealthy tempta?on foods like chocolate cake when they have done mentally demanding tasks
• People are more likely to choose healthy foods like fruit salad when they have done easy, undemanding tasks
When Intui?on and Heuris?cs Are Not Enough
• Given the poten?al failure rates of intui?on and heuris?cs, you need to design a process that moves against the common tendencies to error – For example, balanced schedule of interviewing parents
• Given the poten?al failure rates of intui?on and heuris?cs, you must use slower, more efforoul, logical processes to sim through your data and weigh opinions and conclusions. – One example will be presented here as a chart
Family Court System Conference, Phoenix, Arizona March 16, 2012
