I hear from concerned people in the Netherlands that a
new issue about “parental alienation” (PA) has arisen. Not only are some divorced
parents accused of “alienating” children who do not want to have contact with
the other parent, even though many factors other than alienating behavior are
likely to be responsible for the children’s attitudes, and not only is notional
PA argued to be a reason for prohibiting contact between children and their
preferred parents. Now, in addition, it has been proposed that policemen can be
trained to identify PA cases!
Let’s examine this proposal under a strong light.
The first question we need to ask is a simple but
critical one: can anyone identify PA? Is there any established, evidence-based
protocol that can be used to differentiate PA cases from other cases in which
children’s refusal can be based on a range of causes, from domestic violence
and abuse to dislike of a step-parent or step-sibling to situations where
contact with one parent interferes with sports or friendships?
No, there is no such method. Identification of PA
cases is a subjective process based on the opinions of PA proponents. In no
case does such identification involve observation or even corollary evidence
for alienating behavior by preferred parents. In a few cases known to me, the
PA identification did not even consider whether a child had refused contact. In
one I can think of, a girl actually asked to have contact with her father and
he refused on the ground that she would accuse him of molesting her if he saw
her; he stated that he planned to send her to boarding school if he got
custody. In another case, a 17-year-old who had for years been alternating
weeks at her mother’s and father’s houses said she needed more stability and
wanted to have a “home” at her mother’s house while continuing to visit her
father, and this was alleged to be a PA case.
Interestingly, Richard Warshak, a long-term proponent
of PA and supporter of the Family Bridges treatment, has written of his
concerns about false positive identifications of PA and about the need to
discriminate between PA and other causes of contact refusal. He appears to recognize that children have been identified
as PA cases when in fact they were not. (Although Warshak did not express
concern about this point, the consequences of PA identification can include
custody change and prohibition of contact with the preferred parent as well as
court orders for that parent to pay extravagant fees for PA treatment. As PA
proponents also argue that PA is child abuse, such parents are in danger of
being affected personally and professionally when mistakenly identified as
abusers.) However, Warshak did not mention false negative cases in which PA was
not identified even though it was present. I assume that this means that he
feels all PA cases—and then some—are being identified, and that only one kind
of mistake is being made: the mistake that has the most obvious and serious bad
consequences for the child and the preferred parent.
So it seems that nobody can clearly identify PA in a
way that would allow others to confirm the identification. On the contrary,
people are concluding that PA is present when even its proponents admit that
this may not be correct. Among the undesirable consequences of this situation
are possibilities that a child’s custody may be given to a genuinely abusive
parent—and research has already indicated that this has happened.
Let’s get back to these policemen in the Netherlands.
Can they be trained to assess PA? Well, it’s possible that they could, IF
anyone else was able to make this assessment. As there is no one who can
identify PA validly and reliably, with some known proportion of false positives
and false negatives, it would appear that we have nobody to train the
policemen. You can’t teach what you don’t know.
One more point: when child custody evaluations are
done, they are supposed to include information from corollary sources. What do
neighbors, teachers, grandparents, family friends think about the parents and
children? Has domestic violence formed part of the background for the child’s
refusal? Gathering this kind of information takes time and expertise. No doubt
policemen could be trained to do this, but it hardly seems like their job. Of course,
PA proponents are not doing this kind of investigation either, even though it
should be part of their job.
Perhaps the conclusion here should be that policemen
are just as capable as PA proponents of identifying PA: in other words, not
particularly capable at all, and possibly not particularly interested in doing
the job as they should.
No comments:
Post a Comment