------------------
------------------
Ira Daniel Turkat, Ph.D.
It is
common in custody and access disputes to hear parents accuse the other parent
of turning their mutual offspring against them.1 Denials of engaging in alienation
activities are also asserted with regularity.
As such, the validity of an alienation allegation often becomes hotly
contested in pertinent litigation.
Modern
concepts of parental alienation stem in large measure from the work of the late
The
literature on Parental Alienation Syndrome is controversial.4 For example, there is considerable
debate as to whether Parental Alienation Syndrome should be considered a
psychiatric disorder.5
However, there is virtually no debate that in certain family disputes,
one parent may engage in behaviors designed to alienate the other parent from
his or her offspring. Accordingly, this
article focuses exclusively on aspects of parental alienation, be they part and
parcel of Parental Alienation Syndrome or not.
When a
parent charges that the other parent is engaging in alienating behaviors, that
allegation is either true or false.
While there are numerous professional articles regarding the clinical
specification, diagnosis and treatment of parental alienation, there is a
glaring void in the literature regarding false allegations of parental
alienation. The purpose of this article is
to begin to address this neglected area.
CLINICAL
DEFINITION
Parental alienation occurs
when one parent turns his or her offspring against the other parent. Such behavior may be justified or
unjustified. An example of justified
alienation occurs when a parent properly teaches his or her child about the
dangers of interacting with the other parent who has an extensive history of
sexually and physically abusing that child.
An example of unjustified alienation is when a parent convinces his or
her child that the other parent has not provided any financial support for the
child when proper financial support was actually provided. In the case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, the alienation is always
unjustified. Unjustified parental
alienation is a form of child abuse.6
A false allegation of parental alienation
is defined as an enduring erroneous claim by one parent that the other parent
has engaged in behavior designed to turn their mutual offspring against the
parent making the charge. This
definition has several components worth examining.
First, a false
allegation of parental alienation (FAPA) means that the parent charged with
alienating the offspring is not
engaged in parental alienation. By
definition, the claim of alienation is erroneous.
Second, the
definition of a FAPA does not dictate whether the alienation has been
successful or not. All that is required
for definitional purposes is that a parent has been accused wrongly of engaging
in behavior designed to alienate the
offspring from the parent making the claim.
Third, a
transient counterfactual declaration of parental alienation does not meet the
present definition of a FAPA. In an
acute false complaint episode, the parent is typically upset over some recent
event or misimpression, and makes the charge against the other parent without
proper consideration. Such accusations
are usually fleeting and malleable, typically offered in a moment of emotional
upset. In a short-lived allegation of
this kind, the charges are abandoned upon proper reflection and/or review of
evidence contradicting the charge. In
contrast, the definition of a FAPA as provided in this article,
indicates that the accusations are enduring.
Finally, a
FAPA is never justified; at the core of its clinical definition is the fact
that the allegation is incorrect.
CLINICAL
DESCRIPTION
False
allegations of parental alienation (FAPAs) may emerge in a variety of shapes
and forms, but the end result is the same: An enduring erroneous charge that
the other parent is poisoning the children against the claimant. A person making a FAPA must be viewed with
serious concern given that it is not normal to promulgate untrue assertions
that someone has committed child abuse.
The content
of a FAPA can vary from case to case.
For example, one parent may claim unjustly that the other is teaching
the children that he or she is mentally disturbed, whereas another parent may
declare incorrectly that the other parent is cleverly “bribing” the children to
form a deleterious impression of the accuser.
Other examples of FAPA based content include counterfactual charges
involving alcohol and/or drugs (e.g., “she’s turning the children against me by
saying that I am an alcoholic”), financial deprivation (e.g., “he’s telling the
children that I have taken all his money and he’s now destitute because of
me”), suspension of reasonable disciplinary actions (e.g., “he lets the kids do
anything they want so that they hate me for having to play the tough parent”),
mental or physical cruelty (e.g., “she keeps telling the children that I was
always very mean to her”), and/or other poisoning information. FAPAs containing multiple content streams
appear with regularity.
The ways in
which FAPAs are presented vary across cases as well. For example, some accusers may limit their
alienation claims to specific audiences, such as relatives, friends and/or the
legal professionals involved in the case.
On the other hand, some may express the FAPA to anyone willing to
listen, be it on the sidelines of the soccer field, the supermarket, the hair
salon or the golf course. FAPAs may be
presented in a variety of ways, ranging from histrionic displays of anger and
tears, to emotionally flat, well composed presentations.
MOTIVATIONS
AND CONSEQUENCES
The motivations generating FAPAs have yet to be
studied scientifically but it would seem useful to divide the allegations into
two pertinent categories: (1) those made by persons who fully believe the FAPA;
and (2) those made by individuals who know the allegations are baseless.
A parent who
sincerely believes the other parent is turning their mutual offspring against
them when it is clearly untrue, would appear to be suffering from a
delusion. A delusion is a fixed belief
that does not change in the face of contradictory data.7 This means that the individual
interprets information in the environment idiosyncratically which fits the
delusional content. In other words, it
almost doesn’t matter what the other parent actually says or does----the
accuser has his or her interpretation and the delusional FAPA remains
intact.
A parent
who makes a FAPA while knowing it to be counterfactual, is acting in a
malicious manner8. Such an
individual makes the false allegations with a conscious determination to
generate certain consequences. These may
include trying to:
1.
Hurt the other parent
2.
Modify access
3.
Isolate the children
4.
Gain a litigation-based advantage
5.
Elicit others’ support
6.
Provide cover for his/her own misbehavior
7.
Eliminate perceived threat from the other parent
8.
Elevate one’s feelings of control and/or
9.
Obtain other benefits
The
negative consequences for asserting a FAPA can be serious. Children may be
ripped apart in loyalty conflicts, experience unnecessary damage to parental
relationships, be forced to endure painful separations from a loving parent,
and suffer behaviorally and emotionally.
The parent falsely accused may not only bear immeasurable emotional pain
and loss of relationship quality, he or she is placed on the defensive and may
be forced to incur significant financial obligations in order to try to
establish his or her innocence.
Finally, the accuser also may face negative consequences, some of which
may not have been anticipated. These may
include:
1. Acting out
by the children
2. Disapproval
from certain relatives and/or friends
3. Episodes of
guilt and/or regret
4. Heightened
hostility from the parent falsely accused
5. Unwanted
legal actions and
6. Other
unintended events
PSYCHOLOGICAL
INTEVENTION
The
primary tasks facing mental healthcare providers in a FAPA case seem relatively
straightforward:
1.
Help the accuser to stop making the
erroneous complaints to any and all
persons;
2.
Assist those who have suffered from the
FAPA campaign; and
3.
Provide remediation to the wrongdoer in
order to prevent a relapse.
In the
field of medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires generally that
interventions offered to the public must first be demonstrated scientifically
to be effective and safe. Unfortunately,
no such requirement applies to mental health treatment. At present, there is no scientific evidence
that a FAPA can be treated successfully.
In addition, the author is unaware of any well developed psychological
treatment program for modifying a FAPA.
Accordingly, once a person has promulgated a FAPA, referral to a mental
health practitioner provides uncertainty regarding clinical outcome.
Many
attorneys and other professionals seem to operate under the impression that
even in the absence of scientific evidence any treatment may be preferable to
no treatment. That assumption is not
without risk. For example, there is
significant scientific evidence that psychotherapy can produce iatrogenic
effects in certain cases.9
Furthermore, complaints about the competence of mental health
professionals in dealing with parental alienation related issues in custody
litigation are not uncommon.10
Thus, at the present time, it would seem imprudent to expect mental health professionals to be highly effective
in modifying FAPAs, and it is possible that psychological intervention in some
cases could prove harmful (e.g., when a court ordered psychologist believes the
false allegation to be true).
Confidence
in treatment efficacy will increase when proper scientific evidence on FAPA
management accumulates.
CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE LITIGATOR
In light of
the above, what should litigators do when confronting a FAPA?
First and
foremost, a strategy must be developed for how to deal with the FAPA. Here, a plan of action should be designed
individually to confront the FAPA and its consequences. Failure to adapt one’s strategy to the issues
imbedded in the particular case could lead to an increased likelihood of
ineffective management. For example, if
one uniformly takes the approach in every case to attack the accuser at every availability related to the FAPA, one could miss
opportunities to trap the malicious or delusional parent into errors that gain
litigation advantages. One could also
imagine that in select circumstances, such an approach could be taken out of
context and painted as evidence of the “chronic hostility problem” of the
person being accused. Additionally, it
would seem at a minimum, that a FAPA based on a
delusion is a different entity than one based on maliciousness; such a
distinction may lead to heterogeneous paths for tackling the baseless
charges. Carefully crafted strategies
designed idiosyncratically would seem to provide a better alternative than a
“one size fits all” approach.
Unless one
is facing an opposing client prone to making obvious errors, proving an allegation
of parental alienation to be false requires considerable discipline, diligence,
and cleverness. Significant “brain
power” is most likely required if the allegation is to be properly confronted
and managed. Specialized expertise may
need to be consulted. Failure to
allocate sufficient resources of time, budget and proper personnel may leave
the litigant and legal counsel at a distinct disadvantage. Trapping the accuser would seem more likely
to occur from a well executed plan as opposed to relying solely on momentary
reactions to unfolding events. Effective
case preparation is typically essential for combating a FAPA successfully.
Once
the falsity of the allegations is established clearly, one should consider
approaching the bench for an order requiring the person promulgating the FAPA
to stop doing so immediately. Ideally,
the court order should identify specific consequences for noncompliance. It would seem that the more immediate and
potent the consequences, the more likely the chance for success. In some cases, a change in custody or other
time-sharing arrangements may be appropriate.
One should be certain not to underestimate the skill of a sophisticated
and determined FAPA campaigner, nor the limits of the
bench’s power to control such an individual’s behavior in private encounters;
at times, innovative judicial intervention may be required.11
In
those situations where legal remedies are available and appropriate (e.g.,
tort, criminal prosecution for perjury), these should be properly
considered. Obviously, not all cases
should follow this path. However, in certain circumstances, such maneuvering
may provide a degree of control over the FAPA campaigner.
Finally,
it is important to recognize that the victims of a FAPA may need some type of
support. This may or may not mean
referral to a mental health care provider.
In some cases, the litigant may respond well to the support of the
attorney and/or his or her staff, depending on the relationships and
expertise. Research has demonstrated
that children can also be quite resilient.12 Certainly, the degree and range of
difficulties generated by the false allegations will play an important role in
determining which professionals may or may not be needed.
CONCLUSION
While FAPAs
appear to be commonly encountered in custody and access disputes, attorneys
should never lose sight of the fact that it is abnormal for an individual to
promulgate baseless assertions that someone has committed child abuse. When allegations of parental alienation are
made, they should always be taken seriously and when shown to be false, the
person who made the allegations should be viewed with considerable concern.
There is no
doubt that FAPAs create significant problems for the families forced to deal with
them. At times, litigators may find
these problems to be challenging and frustrating. Given the lack of research, the management of
false allegations faces significant obstacles.
While FAPAs
have yet to be studied scientifically, untrue allegations of sexual abuse have
begun to receive some investigative attention.
Although this research is controversial and focuses primarily on false
allegations of sexual abuse made by children13 or by adults experiencing counterfactual
memories of childhood sexual abuse,14 perhaps it will begin to lay a
foundation for better understanding of FAPAs and what can be done about
them.
Without
proper scientific research, mental health professionals are not well equipped
to modify FAPAs and are unable to offer research supported recommendations to
the court. Such a state of affairs
leaves the families so afflicted in less than desirable circumstances.
ENDNOTES
1 Ira
Daniel Turkat, Relationship Poisoning in Custody and
Access Disputes, 13 AM. J.
FAM. L. 101 (1999).
2 Richard A. Gardner, Recent Trends in Divorce and
Custody Litigation, 29 ACAD. F. 3
(1985).
3 Richard A. Gardner, Parental Alienation Syndrome:
Sixteen Years Later, 45 ACAD. F.
10 (2001).
4 Richard A. Warshak, Current Controversies Regarding
Parental Alienation Syndrome,
19 AM. J. FORENSIC PSYCHOL. 29 (2001).
5 Richard
A. Gardner, Parental Alienation Syndrome vs. Parental
Alienation: Which
Diagnosis Should Evaluators Use in
Child-Custody Disputes? 30 AM. J. FAM.
THERAPY 93 (2002).
6 Ira
Daniel Turkat, Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Review of
Critical Issues, 18 J.
AM. ACAD. MATR. LAW. 131 (2002).
7 AM.
PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF
MENTAL DISORDERS (4th ed.
1994).
8 Ira Daniel Turkat, Divorce Related Malicious Parent
Syndrome, 14 J. FAM.
VIOLENCE 95 (1999).
9 DANIEL
T. MAYS & CYRIL M. FRANKS, NEGATIVE OUTCOMES IN
PSYCHOTHERAPY (1985).
10 Kenneth Byrne, Brainwashing in Custody Cases: The
Parental Alienation Syndrome,
4 AUSTL. FAM. L. 1
(1989).
11
Ira Daniel
Turkat, Management of Visitation Interference, 36 JUDGES J. 17 (1997).
12 Ann S. Masten, Ordinary
magic: Resilience processes in development, 56
AMER. PSYCHOL. 227 (2001).
13 Sena Garven, James M. Wood, & Roy S. Malpass, Allegations
of Wrongdoing: The
Effects of Reinforcement on Children's Mundane and
Fantastic Claims, 85 J. APPL.
PSYCH. 38 (2000).
14 Jonathan D. Gordon, Admissibility
of Repressed Memory Evidence by Therapists in
Sexual Abuse Cases, 4 PUB. POL. and
L. 1198 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Turkat has
served on the faculty at the