From the Times-Globe evening newspaper
Saint John,
New Brunswick, Canada
Thursday, September 25, 1997

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME - PART I

When families break down and the spouses go their separate ways, the children almost always go with the mother. This occurs for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the mother is usually the main day-to-day 'care giver' of the children. The Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, deals very effectively with the issues of child custody, child and spousal support and property division. Once custody has been determined, either by the Court, by mediation, or by agreement, then the parties usually leave the lawyers and Court behind and life goes on. However, in many, many instances the squabbling continues over access.

Although the law and the Court consider that fault should play no part in determining property division, custody, access and child and spousal support, custodial mothers often think and act otherwise. This attitude even has a name: Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).

Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a child psychiatrist at Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, first identified the syndrome in his 1992 book on the subject, but those of us working in the family law field have been aware of it for many years.

PAS is described by Peggy Ward, Ph.D. (a member of the Advisory Council of the Professional Academy of Custody Evaluations) and J. Campbell Harvey, J.D. (doctor of law) as:

" ..... the creation of a singular relationship between a child and one parent, to the exclusion of the other parent. The fully alienated child is a child who does not wish to have any contact whatsoever with one parent and who expresses only negative feelings for that parent and only positive feelings for the other parent. This child has lost the range of feelings for both parents that is normal for a child."

PAS will occur when the custodial parent, in the most severe cases, forces the child to experience the same feelings of blame for the breakdown on the non-custodial parent as she does. The mother, in an effort to denigrate the father in the eyes of the child, makes statements which are not supported by any evidence:

"Your father doesn't pay support." "Your father does not love you." "Your father is an alcoholic." Or goes to the extent of including the child as a victim of the father's bad behaviour: "Your father abandoned us." "Your father has another woman and her children now." Or makes sure the child knows the father's problems: "Your father is no good." "Your father just spends his money on drugs and gambling." "Your father was in jail before we were married." This latter category may, in fact, be true but a 6 - 11-year-old does not need this knowledge.

Although the above examples are the most blatant forms of encouraging the child to hate his non-custodial parent, the custodial parent uses other techniques to bring about the desired effect, which are all the more insidious for their subtlety. These are more common because the custodial parent appears (at least to herself) to be giving the child some say in his feelings toward the other parent: "You can go with your father but you know how I feel about it." "You know that going to your father's house is your decision." "How can you go with him when he is with HER."

"Another tactic is refusing to listen to any good news about the other: "I don't want to hear what you did with your father." "What you do when you are with your father is his business; leave me out of it."

My favourite, and most recurring, is how the mother deals with the "bad Dad" when he telephones. She gives the telephone to the child before acknowledging the other with the icy words: "It's him" or "Talk to your father" or, best of all, "Tell him not to call this late and you can only talk for ninety seconds."

Other examples of showing the child she should dislike her non-custodial parent include (in my experience): - not allowing him to come to the house or apartment door; not allowing him to get out of the car; not allowing other members of his family to pick up and deliver; not being understanding of unavoidable, infrequent schedule changes; insisting on absolute times of return (to the minute) and telephoning the police if he is twenty minutes late. (I agree with the need for punctual pick-ups so as not to ruin the evening waiting for the very late or no shows, but common sense and some flexibility should prevail.)

The saddest thing about PAS is that, very often, the custodial parent does not understand that it is the child whom she is affecting negatively as well as her own long term relationship with the child. Ward and Harvey define the harm to the child:

"The persistent quality of the conflict combined with its enduring nature seriously endangers the mental health of the parents and the psychological development of the children. Under the guise of fighting for the child, the parents may succeed in inflicting severe emotional suffering on the very person whose protection and well-being is the presumed rationale for the battle. It is psychologically harmful to children to be deprived of a healthy relationship with one parent."

This idea is not new. In 1986, William Hodges wrote in Interventions for Children of Divorce:

"Visitation agreements must ensure that the emotional bond of the child with both parents is protected. There is substantial research that indicates that children need contact with adults of both sexes for balanced development."

When a child is forced to demonstrate his loyalty to his custodial parent and participate in the vilification of the non-custodial parent, the effect on the child is debilitating.

"To have to choose between parents is itself damaging to the child, and, if the end result is the exclusion of a parent from the child's life, the injury is irreparable."

At the conclusion of most custody or access hearings the judge explains the importance of good relations and communication between the parents in the best interests of the children. Perhaps they should be required to take notes, because all too often it is not heeded.

Studies have shown that children from situations of PAS have more emotional problems than those whose parents were able to separate more amicably. A 1991 study, Buchanan and Maccoby, found :

Children whose parents are in conflict "are more likely to feel caught, and children who feel caught are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and, to a lesser degree, participate in deviant behaviour."

The custodial parent was given custody because the Court found, at the time of the hearing, that parent was best able to care on a day-to-day basis for the young child's needs. However, in order to continue acting in the best interest of the child, the custodial parent needs to understand the ill-effects of PAS on that very child and needs to positively involve the other parent in the child's life. A custodial parent who fails to involve the non-custodial parent in the life of the child not only risks a variation in the Order awarding custody, but any attempt to alienate the child from the non-custodial parent is a proven recipe for difficulty in raising the child. Resentment, rejection, resistance to authority, hostility, obstinacy, and a "sea of troubles" await. Why is it that there is virtually unanimous support for the proposition that the welfare of the child is the paramount concern and yet, PAS brings about such terrible consequences.

First of a two-part article; next week - how to overcome PAS.

COMMENTARIES BY David M. Lutz, Q.C.

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME - PART II

The Divorce Act of 1985 and the Family Services and Marital Property Acts decree that fault is not to be considered on issues of custody, access, child and spousal support and division of property. Unfortunately, too often the spouses spend the next several years trying to punish the other for their behaviour during the relationship. By far the best way to "get" the other is through the children. This desire to punish the former partner is called "Parental Alienation Syndrome" or PAS.

At the conclusion of almost every contested family court hearing, the judge explains to the parents their rights and responsibilities, with the emphasis on responsibilities toward one another and the children. Where the contest has been particularly bitter, the judge must be all the more emphatic in addressing the parents on how one should act toward the other. The Court, it is explained, is required by law to determine custody and access rights with the best interests of the children in mind but can only encourage the parents in these few moments to always think of the effect upon the children when they are dealing with the other parent or discussing the other parent.

The person to prevent PAS is the custodial parent. The custodial parent, by definition, controls the access of the non-custodial parent to the children. If there is going to be healthy access, then it will be the custodial parent who will make it happen.

Assuming there has been no physical or sexual abuse of the spouse or children during their co-habitation, and no serious drug or alcohol problem on the part of the non-custodial parent, then that parent is entitled to generous and regular access to the children. To deny that parent, for any other reason than above, is to injure the child's psyche.

The custodial parent is the parent who has made the sacrifices for the benefit of the family in the past during their co-habitation and she (and the use of the pronoun is intentional) will have to continue making the sacrifices in the future. She should do this, not to give in to the non-custodial parent but to help the children know (in most cases) their father.

The custodial parent must be like the boy in the Bible (Matthew 5:41) who, when ordered by the Roman soldier and required by law to carry his shield one mile (1.609 kilometers), volunteered at the end of the first mile to carry it the "extra mile." For that matter, the custodial parent would do well to apply Matthew 5, generally. The "extra mile" will include, but not be limited to:

(1) not insisting on the children being returned at exactly "7.00 p.m." as per paragraph "3(b)(I)" of the Divorce Order;

(2) understanding that sometimes work requirements do not allow following the letter of the Order to a "T;"

(3) taking or picking up the children when the other's car isn't working or, in fact, has no car;

(4) allowing the "new" woman or man to pick up the children if the children already know that person (children regularly accept the non-custodial parent's new relationship long before the custodial parent does);

(5) allowing unlimited telephone access. I usually recommend the non-custodial parent pay for the children's telephone so as not to interfere with the home telephone. This comes with two caveats:

(6) encouraging the non-custodial parent's extended family to be involved in the children's lives. I have found that the non-custodial parent's parents are the best and least expensive baby-sitters. They take it as an act of generosity as opposed to an imposition;

(7) not equating payment or non-payment of child support with access to, or love of, the children. We finally have mechanisms in the justice system which will collect child support from those who can pay at the appropriate level and recognizes that some non-custodial parents have no means to pay. I suggest there is no greater shame than the inability to provide for one's children and denying access in such circumstances reflects badly on the custodial parent;

(8) not quibbling over the items of clothing not returned with the children.

Many readers will be able to add to this list from their own experiences. The list is not meant to be exhaustive but the spirit of these suggestions is what will make the access work to the benefit of the children.

One sometime consequence of PAS for the custodial parent is the child deciding to leave to live with the "bad" parent. A child can just take so much PAS before he rebels and decides to go try life with the other parent. The more the custodial parent puts down the other parent, the greater the likelihood the child will decide to "go see for himself."

Just as the Court awarded custody to the custodial parent in the first place, based upon it's assessment of her responsibility, the custodial parent will have to continue to show that same responsibility daily when dealing with the non-custodial parent. Custody of children is a big responsibility and part of that responsibility is ensuring access.