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.