Status of Women Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 126 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I would like to remind all members of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name prior to speaking. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on Monday, November 27, 2023, and Monday, October 7, 2024, the committee is continuing with its study of coercive behaviour.

Thank you for your co‑operation.

Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide a trigger warning. We will be discussing experiences related to violence and coercive control. This may be triggering to viewers who have had similar experiences. If anyone present feels distressed or needs help, please advise the clerk.

For all witnesses and all members of Parliament, it is important that we recognize that these are very difficult discussions. Let's try to be as compassionate as we can be in our conversations.

I would like to note that we have one witness appearing anonymously. They will be referred to as Witness 1. I kindly ask that all members refer to the witness as such.

For today's panel, appearing first as an individual by video conference, we have Jean Mercer, professor emerita of psychology at Stockton University. Second, we have Witness 1. Third, from One Mom’s Battle, we have Tina Swithin, advocate for family court reform, who is joining us by video conference. From Western University, also joining us by video conference, we have Lisa Heslop, associate of the centre for research and education on violence against women and children.

At this point, we will begin our opening statements. You'll have up to five minutes.

Professor Mercer, you have the floor for up to five minutes. Thank you.

[Dr. Jean Mercer, Professor Emerita of Psychology, Stockton University, As an Individual]

I'm here to talk about the connection between the parental alienation concept and coercive behaviour as part of the discussion on the criminalization of coercive behaviour.

Parental alienation is a hypothetical phenomenon whose proponents believe that children who want to avoid a parent have often been persuaded by the preferred parent to take that attitude. They propose that children alleged to have been alienated must be separated by a court order from their preferred parent, subjected to reunification therapies and put in the custody of the avoided parent.

Proponents of the parental alienation system have, over the last several years—

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I'm sorry for interrupting you, Professor Mercer. Could you kindly move your boom just above your mouth?

[Prof. Jean Mercer]

It slipped. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

That's okay. Move that boom and we'll try the audio for a minute to see if the translator can.... Try speaking now. You can even just say your name and where you're from.

[Prof. Jean Mercer]

My name is Jean Mercer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Where are you calling in from today?

[Prof. Jean Mercer]

I'm calling from Concord, Massachusetts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Can you move it up just a snap? Between your mouth and your nose is ideal.

[Prof. Jean Mercer]

How is this? Is it any better? Should I put it further up?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

I think we're good. Thank you.

Don't worry about your time. We're good. You can continue.

[Prof. Jean Mercer]

I'll start from where I was.

Proponents of the parental alienation system have, over the last several years, put forward the argument that parental alienation is a form of family violence and, therefore, can be classified as coercive behaviour. Although that argument is based entirely on analogy and has not been supported by empirical work, it's possible that courts could accept the argument and treat as criminals those parents alleged to have alienated children. To prevent this unwanted outcome, the use of parental alienation arguments in family courts must be prohibited before criminalization of coercive control takes place.

A cottage industry of lawyers, mental health professionals and court officials has grown to use the parental alienation concept as leverage in divorce and custody cases. They resist the idea of prohibiting use of parental alienation arguments, and want preferred parents to be seen as criminals practising coercive behaviours. I am here to counter that viewpoint.

To briefly state my qualifications to comment on this topic, I have a Ph.D. in psychology from Brandeis University. I have been working for a couple of decades on the subject of potentially harmful psychosocial treatments for children, and for about 10 years on parental alienation issues. I have published critiques of parental alienation ideas in peer-reviewed professional journals. I'm co-editor of the book Challenging Parental Alienation, and I have another book, Someone Said Parental Alienation, currently in production.

I interviewed seven young adults who were alleged to be alienated from a parent, most of whom had been ordered into some form of reunification therapy. All of them regarded the treatment situation and the treatment itself as insulting, frightening and ineffective. None of them had the good relationships with both parents that the parental alienation proponents claim as treatment outcomes. One had no contact with either parent. None had a good relationship with the formerly avoided parent. All had left the avoided parent's home at the first legal opportunity. In addition, several of the interviewees had not refused contact with one parent to begin with, but had asked for schedule changes or other modifications that would not avoid contact: Their attitudes later toward one parent were actually worse than they had been before the treatment.

Young adults who experienced parental alienation allegations reported ongoing anger toward one parent, and depression and anxiety. One of the interviewees was treated for PTSD after her reunification therapy experience, which had included the use of youth transport service workers. All expressed concern about threats that they would be sent to residential treatment or wilderness camps if they did not co-operate. Tragically, we are now seeing a number of cases in which children who were coerced into contact with a parent were murdered by that parent. Their stated fears of that person were all too justified, but the courts and court professionals interpreted them as evidence of parental alienation.

Certain U.S. states are beginning to pass laws outlawing aspects of reunification therapy, and these laws are being named in honour of the murdered children who experienced coercive behaviour by the courts as well as by the parent they wanted to avoid. These murders are, of course, far from typical of parental alienation cases, but they demonstrate the most serious end of the outcomes possible when the parental alienation concept becomes a part of judicial thinking.

I also interviewed over a dozen parents who were alleged to have caused parental alienation, although there exists no established method for ascertaining whether this has happened. The impact of this experience on the preferred parents was enormous. They experienced no-contact orders that originally were for 90 days' complete separation, but which could be and were extended for months or even years without so much as a phone call with the child. The preferred parents, usually the mothers, were ordered by the reunification therapist to write letters to their children, in which they were to falsely confess that they had caused the children to avoid the other parents and that they regretted this deeply. The letters had to be approved by the therapist, who often demanded multiple rewrites or did not accept the letter at all.

The preferred parents were ordered to pay exorbitant fees for the children's and their own treatment. In some cases, they had to sell their houses and other assets to manage this.

In my opinion, use of the parental alienation concept in family courts is potentially harmful to children and families and should be prohibited. I would recommend that the courts be prevented from giving orders for reunification therapy by that or any other name, custody reversals based on parental alienation beliefs, no-contact orders in response to allegations of parental alienation, and the use of youth transport service workers in cases where parental alienation is alleged.

These recommendations, similar to those suggested by the United Nations special rapporteur, are intended to prevent undesirable outcomes of the proposed criminalization of coercive behaviour. Such outcomes could occur if the claim were to be accepted by courts that alleged parental alienation is equal to family violence and if the recommended steps are not taken.

Thank you for your attention.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Point of order, Madam Chair.

We can hear the witness on the floor channel and in the earpiece, and we can hear the interpretation on top of that. It's really annoying.

Are you experiencing the same problem?

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

She will be contacted after this statement to fix the echo before we have an opportunity to ask her questions, okay?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Chair, it's not only happening with the witness, I am hearing you and the interpreter speaking simultaneously through the earpiece. That's not normal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Okay.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

When I speak, I hear myself too. There's an echo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Pam.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks.

When you were speaking, I could hear it here and in the room. There's something wrong with the echo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Okay.

Prior to proceeding to the additional witnesses for testimony, I'll suspend for a few minutes to see if we can sort out the echo, and then we'll circle back to the witnesses.

I'll just suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

At this point, I would like to offer my apologies to the witnesses, who are generous with their time this afternoon.

I do thank Professor Mercer. You were at the helm of this, and I appreciate your working through it with us.

At this point, I would like to open the floor to Witness 1 for up to five minutes.

[Witness 1, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I come before you today to address the weaponization of parental alienation accusations against protective mothers by sharing my personal experience.

“Don't mention abuse. I know it sounds wrong, but don't bring it up. Mothers who are victims of domestic violence don't fare well in family court.”

This jarring warning was the first legal advice I received. It proved prophetic.

Abusers are masters at deflecting blame. Their primary tool is accusations of parental alienation. The family court is pro-contact at any cost. Alienation accusations are taken more seriously than abuse when raised by fathers in family court.

These accusations are designed to allow abusers to masquerade as victims. In my case, I was shocked that my abuser presented the abuse he inflicted as being perpetrated by me, his victim. He projected his actions onto me to reduce the case to a he-said-she-said situation for the court.

Despite his saying he didn't want the child to live and the fact that I had suffered severe physical violence, such as strangulation—a precursor to homicide—I was told he'd still be getting parenting time.

Despite proof of his having missed or rescheduled nearly half of his supervised visits, all he had to do was file again to get unsupervised visits and overnights, based on the assumption that a child should have more time with their father. Abusers just file again until they find a judge to give them the result they want.

When unsupervised contact started, my daughter began disclosing abuse. This disclosure began at two years old. Naively, I filed a motion before the family court, seeking protection to reinstate supervised parenting time. I provided third party proof from our child's family doctor, an emergency room doctor and her day care staff. His proof was letters from his mom and girlfriend, and alienation allegations.

Guess who won. He did.

I was punished through court costs, meaning that I had to pay money to my abuser. Child abuse disclosures give leverage or benefit to abusive fathers, because they are allowed to use the junk science of parental alienation to their benefit. In fact, the father filed for custody reversal, citing parental alienation. The legal advice was to settle to avoid her being given to him full time. She had never lived with him at any time.

Unverified sexual abuse allegations from the child implicating the father increase the likelihood of a custody reversal. Court and social services professionals are taught to be suspicious of mothers when children disclose abuse. That is the power of parental alienation claims. They effectively silence women and children who are victims of abuse.

We have undergone two separate police investigations, and they failed to find any wrongdoing. However, I faced skepticism when I met with the police, who often lack training in domestic abuse dynamics and abuser tactics. Instead of providing protection, they sometimes interpreted my efforts to protect my child as evidence supporting the false claims of alienation.

Criminalizing coercive control without banning accusations of parental alienation will simply reproduce this outcome on more women. The consequences of these institutional failures have been profound and far-reaching.

My daughter is still forced to maintain unsafe contact with her abuser, causing ongoing trauma and emotional distress. I've endured ongoing abuse through our legal system and face financial strain, job loss and health issues due to constant legal battles. The emotional toll of watching my child's distress, fearing repercussions for reporting abuse and the constant threat of losing custody of my child, is overwhelming and unbearable. I long for the day we will finally be free.

I'm not alone in this situation. Countless women are experiencing this violence.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to recognize the detrimental part that parental alienation plays in the cycle of coercive control. When you consider legislation on coercive control, I implore you not to pass any law that fails to include a ban on allegations of parental alienation by abusive fathers.

Please don't leave us behind. These accusations have become one of the most powerful tools for abusers to use to maintain coercive control and weaponize our legal and social systems against women and children seeking safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much, Witness 1, for sharing so vulnerably.

Next, I would like to welcome Ms. Swithin.

You have up to five minutes.

[Tina Swithin, Advocate for Family Court Reform, One Mom's Battle]

Thank you.

I am here about an issue that jeopardizes the well-being of children and undermines the integrity of the Canadian family courts. That is the pseudo-theory or concept of parental alienation in family court and in the context of coercive control. My organization has a Canadian chapter, so I have a front-row seat to this crisis.

“Parental alienation” is a term that was coined by disgraced psychiatrist Richard Gardner. He crafted it as a legal strategy for men accused of sexually abusing children. Gardner's views were controversial and deeply troubling. He advised that children suffering from alienation should be separated from their preferred parent and subjected to threat therapy. When asked what a good mother would do if her child disclosed sexual abuse, Gardner instructed that she should say that she doesn't believe them, that she's going to beat them for saying that, and that they don't ever talk that way again about their father.

Parental alienation is a theory that has been overwhelmingly dismissed by the medical community and governing bodies, including the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. Proponents have unsuccessfully attempted to have it included in the DSM for over a decade. The United Nations special rapporteur called for this dangerous theory to be eradicated from family courts worldwide. I agree with this recommendation.

The alienation industry, as I call it, is very lucrative, with a predictable pipeline. I know that you have been given a copy of this diagram. You will see at the end of the pipeline the big-ticket items: the reunification camps and the intensive programs.

I have personally witnessed the toll that these programs take on parents and children, and the cost of youth services is shocking. Parents face significant loss of income because of the time-consuming and costly litigation. Many lose their jobs, homes and cars and face insurmountable debt and bankruptcy. However, equally devastating is the trauma that these families endure, which will ripple through into future generations.

For the past 15 years, I have observed a troubling pattern. Each time there is exposure on the tactics of those who work in the alienation industry, they just rebrand. What started as “parental alienation syndrome” has been called many things over the years. The latest is “resist and refuse dynamics”. The constant rebranding allows them to escape scrutiny and accountability, and now they have begun to co-opt the language of coercive control. This is very dangerous.

Dr. Emma Katz is a leading expert on coercive control, and she offers vital clarification. She emphasizes that the work on coercive control prioritizes children's rights and respects their autonomy. Parental alienation proponents emphasize adult dominance over children. We must be vigilant and not swayed by those who try to conflate these concepts.

The framework of coercive control makes it clear that overriding a child's wishes is harmful and traumatizing. When asked about the reunification modalities utilized in family court proceedings, Dr. Christine Cocchiola, a coercive control expert, explained to me that children forced into these treatments are coerced to acquiesce to the clinical goal: repair of a relationship with an alleged abuser, someone they fear. Research affirms that rupturing the attachment and creating an environment of unsafety is traumatic to the developing brain and compromises healthy brain development.

Here in the U.S., we are successfully passing legislation that prevents judges from ordering children into these programs labelled as barbaric by our lawmakers. We passed one such law in Canada last year, and now, as a result, one of the most notorious reunification camp owners has relocated and is operating in British Columbia. Canada is becoming a hotbed for reunification profiteers.

It is imperative that we disentangle the pseudo-concept of parental alienation from family court altogether and from legislation surrounding coercive control. We have to take swift action and stop unscrupulous professionals from using children as revenue streams.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Shelby Kramp-Neuman]

Thank you very much, Ms. Swithin.

At this point, I would like to welcome our last witness, Dr. Heslop.

You have five minutes.