In the 1990s, the United States and other countries
saw much excitement about the idea of recovered memories (RM) and associated
psychological treatments. The basic idea of RM was that memories of traumatic
childhood experiences can become unavailable to conscious experience in one of
several ways, but can continue through unconscious influence to make the victim
unhappy or unable to function normally. RM therapists said they could help
people recover their lost memories of traumatic events, after which they would
feel better, and if possible confront those responsible for their trauma.
Following RM treatments, some individuals believed they could identify people
who had harmed them; the people were often their parents, the harms were often
sexual in nature, and the identification was often followed by confrontation
and estrangement from the parents who denied that any such things had happened.
In some case, victims reported their recovered memories to the police, and
arrests sometimes followed. In some cases the arrested parents offered
confessions and were convicted, saying they had no memory of the events but
they were now convinced that they must have done these things. Courts accepted
these arguments and the principle that when experiences were too traumatic,
people could not remember them, and that the absence of memory for many years
was proof that a recovered memory was valid evidence of something that had
happened. Over time and with systematic research, however, it became evident
that “recovering” a memory with the help of a therapist was not evidence that
the memory was correct, because the experience of memory is easily constructed
under the right circumstances and may well not reflect a person’s actual
history. Claims of RM are still present today, but courts demand much more
evidence of past wrongdoing than sometimes was required during the RM heyday.
In the later ‘90s, and after the beginning of the
present century, similar excitement began to occur about the idea of parental
alienation (PA) and the treatments purporting to treat it. The basic idea of PA
is that following divorce, some children resist or refuse contact with one of
their parents and have a strong preference
for the other parent. When this situation occurs in the absence of any “good reason” named by the child, or of
substantiated physical or sexual abuse by the nonpreferred parent, proponents
of this idea say that PA is present and has been caused by actions (also called
PA) of the preferred parent, who has somehow manipulated or exploited the child
in order to cause rejection of the nonpreferred parent. Family courts have
sometimes accepted this argument and in spite of the denials of child and
preferred parent have followed the recommendations for a custody reversal and
orders against contact of the child with the preferred parent, as well as PA
treatments for the child and PA-themed counseling for the preferred parent. A
group of lawyers and mental health professionals continues to argue for the PA
position, although opposition to that position is increasing in professional
circles.
Are there parallels between these two psychological
concepts and their influence in the courts? I believe a number can be
presented.
1.
Both
RM and PA are possible but not common. There are many reasons
why a person may not remember or think about an event for years at a time,
including conscious attempts to suppress thoughts about a disturbing
experience. New experiences may call the “forgotten” event to mind in a
pressing way; these might include having children of the age the victim was at
the time of a trauma, or suggestions made by a RM therapist, or renewed contact
with someone who was for years not available. It is also distinctly possible that
PA can and no doubt does happen—that a parent works on a child’s attitudes and
beliefs in order to shape the child’s attitude toward the other parent. (At a
low level, such efforts occur in intact, low-conflict families too, as parents
and children form shifting alliances that emphasize virtues and faults of each
family member.)
2.
RM
and PA behaviors and thoughts have possible causes in addition to those
stressed by RM and PA proponents. Memories in general are
constructed from available information, rather than existing somewhere intact
like a non-digital photograph. Memories of all kinds, traumatic and otherwise,
are “photoshopped” in the process of recall. Frequent recall and rehearsal of
some memories changes them, omitting some features, emphasizing others, and
adding or subtracting details that “must have” or “couldn’t have” happened. As
for the traumatic aspect of RM, it appears that people do not forget or lose
traumatic memories more easily than ordinary memories, and we would expect that
because the vividness of an experience strengthens its memory. The idea of
repression of memories and consequent emotional distress is not well supported.
Sudden RM can thus be caused by factors other than real past experiences of
trauma. Similarly, PA, or children’s rejection of a nonpreferred parent, may
result from past abuse or domestic violence that has not been substantiated but
nevertheless existed, from poor parenting skills on the part of the
nonpreferred parent, from conflicts with parents’ new romantic partners or with
stepsiblings, with developmental events like puberty, or simply with the
child’s wish for a stable home and control of scheduled activities and friend
or romantic relationships. Children rejecting a parent may also be responding
to the parent’s own rejection or criticism or demands for time together that do
not jibe with the child’s increasing need for autonomy and peer contacts.
3.
PA
and RM treatments are without an adequate evidence basis. Any
treatment that claims to be safe and effective must be supported by research
that involves some sort of comparison of the treatment outcomes with the
outcomes of receiving no treatment or receiving other known treatments. In
order to carry out such studies, the treatment must be standardized
(manualized) in such a way that practitioners can follow known standards and
perform the treatment in known ways. In addition, research needs to investigate
any adverse events that occur during or after the treatment, even if those
events do not seem to be caused by the treatment in any obvious way. No
evidence of this kind has been presented for RM treatments. Some published
reports claim to support PA treatments, but they do not involve treatment
comparisons, nor have they explored adverse effects. PA treatments are not manualized in forms
available to independent researchers, and one, Family Bridges, is trademarked,
suggesting an identification of the treatment methods as “trade secrets”.
4.
PA
and RM treatments are potentially harmful. RM accusations in
the past resulted in criminal charges and in some cases imprisonment. The
exclusive RM emphasis made it unlikely that persons with emotional disturbances
would receive appropriate treatment from practitioners who attributed mental
illness to traumatic experiences alone.
According to some who received RM treatment, the treatment experience alone was
distressing and interfered with normal functioning, as well as causing troubled
family relationships for many years, Similar problems exist with respect to PA
treatments, not excluding the possibility of imprisonment with which the
preferred parent is sometimes threatened. In addition to the effects of the
specific treatments themselves, PA treatment is potentially harmful because of
the use of youth transport service workers to move children to treatment
facilities, sometimes using handcuffs for restraint.
5.
RM
and PA advocacy is driven by moral panic and is persuasive to courts for this
reason. The RM concept became strong at about the time that
other treatments like holding therapy took hold among some parents and mental
health professionals, and at about the
same time that claims of “Satanic ritual abuse” became common. These attitudes
may be connected with a sense of moral panic elated to the belief that adult
mistreatment causes mental illness in children and results in ongoing evil,
dangerous behavior by the children. In order to protect ourselves from
dangerous children, we must stop adult mistreatment, or punish it if it
happened too long ago. For a relatively small number of charismatic Christians,
this type of moral panic seems to have been associated with the idea that
mental illness is caused by demonic possession, which in turn results from sin,
either by the disordered person, or by sins of his or her ancestors—especially
sexual sins. Though less obviously associated with religious or quasi-religious
beliefs, PA ideas are also connected with moral panic. From its early
popularization by Richard Gardner, the PA concept has been accused of pandering
to men’s wishes and fighting against equal voices for women, but this concern
is blurred by the fact that fathers are sometimes the preferred parents and are
alleged to have created PA by nonpreferred mothers. Although this is far from
clear, it may be that the real concern in PA comes out of an authoritarian
emphasis on family hierarchy and the threats to traditional family structures
of having children exercise choices and express criticism of parents. In a
world in which women are moving toward equality with men and a weakened
hierarchy, both men and women with authoritarian values may be panicked by the idea that control
over children could be diminished. These powerful motivating beliefs can help
lawyers and clients argue persuasively in courts despite a lack of evidence for
their claims.
RM beliefs and treatments are considerably less
powerful than they once were and have less influence in courts. How did this
change come about, and can similar methods be used to fight the influence of
PA? There seem to have been several factors at work in the diminution of RM
influence. One was simply the spread of more factual information, so people
were exposed to reports countering “news” about Satanic rituals and the recovery
of traumatic memories. Another was the effort made by psychologists and others to
examine systematically the nature of memories , yielding much information about
how memories are created and recalled. In addition, help for and coordination
of these efforts was provided by organizations like the False Memory Syndrome
Foundation. These may be the sorts of work we need to combat the increasing
influence of PA ideas: serious efforts to spread the facts and counter PA
claims, more systematic research exploring the various reasons why children of
divorce may avoid one parent and whether it is important for their development
that they have relationships with both parents, and the involvement of
organizations like the American
Psychological Association and American Professional Society on Abuse of
Children to oppose the several hybrid parent-professional groups that advocate
extensively for PA views.
No comments:
Post a Comment