by Dr. Deborah O. Day, Psy.D. & David L. Hirschberg, Esq., AAML
As family law practitioners, we are often presented with a family dynamic where one parent has a fractured relationship with a child or multiple children. A frequent and quick conclusion is that parental alienation is the cause of the fracture, especially when we perceive that the other parent is engaging in certain harmful behavior, or failing to take action, which we conclude is detrimental to the other parent’s parent-child relationship. As this article details, a fractured parent/child relationship is not a “good guy, bad guy analysis.” It is not a question of “alienation or not alienation.” Fractures to a parent/child relationship must be analyzed as part of the complex family system in which they occur.
The “Continuum of Family Dynamics” is a useful framework for analyzing a family system. Immediately below is a summary of the different stops along the continuum.
Healthy attachment: The child in question has healthy attachments to both parents, and possibly to extended family members, such as grandparents.
Preferred attachment: The child in question has a stronger attachment to one parent over the other, but the child still maintains a good relationship with each parent.
Alignment: The child in question is aligned with one parent. This alignment may be the result of several different reasons, or a combination of reasons. While the child may be aligned with one parent, the child still maintains a relationship with the other parent.
Enmeshment: The child in question is inseparable from one parent to such an extreme that the child will give up some of their own self-identity. This is the point on the continuum where we begin to see resistance and refusal to be around the other parent whom the child is not enmeshed with.
Estrangement: A parent has engaged in certain behavior(s) causing the fracture of the parent’s own relationship with the child. Examples include, but are not limited to, a parent with substance abuse issues, a parent who commits child abuse, or a parent who has abandoned the family for an extended period of time.
Parental alienation behavior: A parent’s actions influence the child’s relationship with the other parent. This behavior is at the furthest end of the continuum, compared to “healthy attachment.”
It is important to note that the above continuum is not static. Parental behavior and actions during the case can move the child(ren) along the continuum either towards, or away from resist/refuse dynamics within the family. Intervention, as further discussed below, can also impact how the child(ren) move along the continuum. The age and developmental stage of the child at issue can also impact the child’s movement, or the lack thereof, along the continuum. For example, the parents might separate when a child is ten years old. At the time of separation, the child may not have formed their own opinion and judgment as to the events and circumstances surrounding their parents’ separation. But, as the child progresses into adolescence, the child’s own opinion and perspective about the separation may take shape and affect where the parent-child relationship falls on the continuum.
Even after a case concludes, the child(ren) may continue to move up and down the continuum. Again, this may be influenced by a myriad of factors, including parental behavior and actions, the introduction of third parties such as a significant other and/or
the significant other’s own family (i.e., stepsiblings), the evolving developmental stage of the child in question, or a combination of any of these factors.
In assessing a family system using the Continuum of Family Dynamics, the natural first question that arises is, “How can I understand where a particular family is positioned along the continuum?” The answer lies in understanding gatekeeping. Parental gatekeeping refers to how parental attitudes and actions affect the quality of the relationship between the other parent and the child, either negatively or positively. In this regard, gatekeeping has its own continuum, with the various stops on the continuum summarized immediately below:
Very facilitative: A parent takes a proactive role with respect to the other parent’s relationship with the child and is inclusive of the other parent, boosts the image of the other parent, and engages in ongoing efforts to communicate with the other parent.
Cooperative: A parent is flexible with timesharing to accommodate the other parent and takes active steps to ensure the child has the opportunity to develop a relationship with the other parent.
Disengaged: A parent is “stuck in neutral,” meaning he or she is failing to take any active steps, whether positive or negative, to impact the other parent’s relationship with the child.
Restrictive: A parent engages in behavior aimed at interfering with the other parent’s relationship with the child. Examples of this behavior include a parent’s rigid adherence to a schedule. These behaviors include marginalizing the other parent, speaking negatively about the other parent, and/or refusing to communicate with the other parent.
Very restrictive: A failure to demonstrate any flexibility or recognition of the other parent, as well as a parent that blocks all attempts made by the other parent to engage with the child.
Determining where a parent falls on the gatekeeping continuum does not tell the whole story. It is equally, if not more, important to also analyze the reasons why a parent is engaging in the gatekeeping behavior. For example, protective gatekeeping, often identified as a form of restrictive gatekeeping, arises when one parent acts to limit the other parent’s involvement with the child, or one parent is critical of the other parent’s parenting skills, perhaps due to said parent’s concern about possible harm to the child from interacting with the other parent. This concern about the other parent can be born from domestic violence, substance abuse, child abuse (physical, emotional or sexual), mental health concerns, and other serious issues.
In assessing whether the parental gatekeeping at issue is justified or unjustified, the following criteria may prove helpful.
Justified gatekeeping based upon the other parent:
• Corroborated history.
• Harsh discipline.
• Confirmed substance abuse.
• Mental health diagnosis and medication management.
• Inappropriate parenting impacts on the child(ren).
• Negative co-parenting behavior.
Unjustified gatekeeping:
• Belief that one parent is of greater importance. For example, a mother who engages in maternal gatekeeping.
• Questioning the competence of the other parent without adequate foundation.
• Emotional dependence on the child to the point that the gatekeeping parent is reluctant to share the child with the other parent.
• Anger at the other parent.
• Intention to punish the other parent.
Restrictive (or very restrictive) gatekeeping and a parent’s prevention of the benefits a parent provides in the form of social capital to a child poses a risk to that child. From this perspective, the concept of parental alienating behavior and estrangement are seen as by-products of restrictive gatekeeping. Parental alienating behavior are the actions a parent takes to distort the parent-child relationship in the direction of a pathology. In moderate to severe form, parental alienating behavior can be
psychologically detrimental to a child as said child loses what the other parent has to offer.Immediately below is a summary of characteristics of a parent engaged in alienating behavior, a summary of characteristics of an alienated child, and a summary of some characteristics that might be seen in the non-custodial (alienated) parent.
General Characteristics of an Alienating Parent’s (favored parent’s) Behavior:
• Portrays the target parent as dangerous.
• Does not believe the child needs the other parent.
• Allows the child to make decisions about visits with the other parent.
• Denigrates the target parent to the child.
• Exaggerates and discusses flaws of target parent.
• Removes references to target parent from the home.
• Says target parent “left us” or “does not love us.”
• Does not give the child presents, letters, or messages sent to the child by the target parent.
• Allegations of sexual or physical abuse are common.
• If the child visits the target parent, the alienating parent will engage in behavior to interrupt that visit, such as continually calling the child.
• Creates barriers to phone contact between the target parent and the child.
• Considers the target parent’s attempts to see or communicate with the child as harassment.
• Finds excuses to cancel scheduled visits between the child and target parent.
• Reviews/questions the child’s visits with the other parent to detect “negative” occurrences or feelings.
General Characteristics of an Alienated Child:
• Intense dislike or hatred freely expressed for target parent.
• Resists or refuses contact with the target parent.
• Disproportion between child’s perception and target parent’s behaviors or reality.
• Presents trivial reasons to justify the child’s hatred for the target parent.
• Talks to anyone about target parent’s perceived shortcomings.
• Guilt or ambivalence is not evident.
• Seems rehearsed in interviews.
• Stories about target parent have little depth.
• Descriptions are wooden, brittle, repetitive.
• Extends hatred of target parent to objects and/or pets.
• Speaks glowingly of alienating parent.
Some Potential Characteristics of the Non-Custodial (Alienated) Parent:
• Hard/rigid parenting style.
• Passivity.
• Immature and self-centered.
• Angry, demanding.
• Counter rejection of child.
• Lacks empathy.
In summary, parental gatekeeping can be a major force in moving a family along the Continuum of Family Dynamics —whether towards, or away from resist/refuse dynamics. As discussed above, when parental gatekeeping becomes so restrictive, the
gatekeeping can lead to contact refusal. The reality is that these resist/refuse dynamics can have a detrimental effect on the child(ren). However, not all gatekeeping is restrictive in nature, and not all gatekeeping is unjustified. Accordingly, there are a variety of questions that a family law practitioner should ask when addressing and analyzing resist/refuse dynamics. These questions include, but are not limited to:
• When helping separate families with infants and toddlers, how do we differentiate protective gatekeepers from restrictive gatekeepers?
• How can a lawyer distinguish justified from unjustified gatekeeping at the outset of a case, when a parent makes allegations that the other parent denies?
• How does gatekeeping fit in a more specific type of case, such as a relocation case?
• What are corroborative collateral data points that assist with determining gatekeeping?
• What is social capital?
• How do you separate attitudes from behaviors in a gatekeeping analysis?
• Do all allegations in a case involving children belong in a gatekeeping analysis?
• How does a lawyer educate the court about gatekeeping before a hearing or trial?
Fortunately, there are tools at the practitioner’s disposal to assist with answering these questions, analyze the overall family dynamics, and even to provide intervention. These tools include:
• Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem;
• Social Investigation;
• Judicial intervention;
• Psychological evaluations of the parties and/or child(ren); and
• Family systems therapy.
In conclusion, as family law practitioners, we are rightfully taught to believe that children benefit from having a positive relationship with both parents, as well as frequent and continuing contact with both parents. As such, when we encounter a situation involving a parent’s fractured relationship with a child, we may be quick to jump to the question, “Is this a case of parental alienation?” However, as discussed above, properly answering that question requires undertaking an analysis of where the parties and the child(ren) fall on the family dynamics continuum, the nature of parental gatekeeping, and an evaluation of whether the gatekeeping is justified or unjustified. The result is a better understanding of the resist/refuse dynamic in the family.
***Dr. Deborah O. Day, Psy.D. is in private practice with Psychological Affiliates, Inc., of Winter Park and Palm Beach, Florida. Her practice specialties include forensic psychology, including divorce/Social Investigation Evaluations, forensic case
consultations, collaborative process practice, child abuse, and personal injury matters. She has testified regarding numerous psychological issues. She presents professional workshops and seminars throughout the country, including for the Florida Bar Family Law Section, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), and the Florida Judicial College.
***David L. Hirschberg, Esq. is a Principal/Shareholder at Gladstone Weissman Hirschberg & Schneider, P.A. in Boca Raton, Florida. He is Florida Bar Board Certified in Marital and Family Law, a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, a Fellow of the International Academy of Family Lawyers and is AV Preeminent Rated by Martindale-Hubbell. He is licensed to practice law in both Florida and Illinois, is a Florida Supreme Court certified family mediator, and is trained in collaborative law.
References:
Waters, Marjorie Gans and Friedlander, Steven. July 2016. “When a Child Rejects a Parent: Working with the Intractable Resist/Refuse Dynamic.” Family Court Review, Vol. 54, No. 3, 424-445