 |
| Suzanne Zaccour |
Alienation theory is based on the stereotypical assumption that mothers are responsible for keeping the family together (even post-separation) and for developing the father-child relationship (even in situations of family violence).
Even prominent proponents of parental alienation theory admit its weaknesses:
- empirical studies of alienation are “methodologically weak,” have “unreliable” results, fail to provide a basis for distinguishing “alienation” from the effects of family violence and offer “inconclusive or unreliable” bases to justify interventions (see Saini, Michael, Janet R. Johnston, Barbara Jo Fidler and Nicholas Bala. 2016. “Empirical Studies of Alienation.” In Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court, edited by Leslie Drozd, Michael Saini and Nancy Olesen, 2nd ed., 423–24. Oxford University Press. See also Simring Milchman, Madelyn. 2019. “How Far Has Parental Alienation Research Progressed toward Achieving Scientific Validity?” Journal of Child Custody 16 (2): 115–39; and Doughty, Julie, Nina Maxwell and Tom Slater. 2020. “Professional Responses to ‘Parental Alienation’: Research-Informed Practice.” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 42 (1): 68–79.);
- courts should not be reversing parenting time allocations based on a finding of parental alienation (see Johnston, Janet R. and Joan B. Kelly. 2004. “Commentary on Walker, Brantley, and Rigsbee’s (2004) ‘A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court.’” Journal of Child Custody 1 (4): 85);
- in the absence of intervention, children will most often spontaneously reconnect with the rejected parent, making dramatic and traumatic interventions counterproductive (see Johnston, Janet R. and Judith Roth Goldman. 2010. “Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children Who Resist Visitation: An Addendum to Friedlander and Walters (2010).” Family Court Review 48 (1): 113);
- and, perhaps most importantly, there is no objective or proven way to determine that a child is “alienated” rather than a victim of family violence (Saini et al. 2016, 423), making the parental alienation label speculative, and making false positives (forcing children who are victims of family violence to live with their abuser) unavoidable.
Parental alienation theory penalizes victims of domestic violence
Parental alienation presents a catch-22 for victims of family violence:
- If the child fears or rejects the father, the mother is suspected of alienation. If the child loves the father, the mother is blamed for asking for primary parenting time despite a positive father-child bond.
- If the mother does not voluntarily grant additional parenting time to the father, she is framed as intransigent. If the mother voluntarily grants additional parenting time to the father, her safety concerns are seen as exaggerated.
- If the mother does not go out of her way to repair or even create a positive father-child bond (which may not even have existed pre-separation), she is blamed for not prioritizing the father-child bond. If she does, her allegations of violence or lack of paternal parental capacity are not credible.
- If the mother acts unilaterally (e.g., by relocating with the child or refusing to allow parenting time with the father), she is harshly judged and even punished. If she instead goes to court, her pleadings themselves are taken as evidence of hostility or alienation, even in the absence of denigration of the father.
Our critics accuse us of being simplistic. But when a concept causes extreme harm and its basic tenets have not been scientifically proven, it is not simplistic to call for that concept not to be used to make life-changing decisions about vulnerable children.
What about victims of domestic violence who claim alienation?
People who are genuinely concerned about victims of family violence understandably wonder about mothers who claim alienation when the violent father attempts to sabotage their relationship with the child.
It is important to understand that just because the parental alienation theory is unproven and unsound doesn’t mean that denigration doesn’t exist. In fact, contrary to the alienation hypothesis, research suggests that denigration turns the child against the denigrator (see Rowen, Jenna and Robert Emery. 2018. “Parental Denigration: A Form of Conflict That Typically Backfires.” Family Court Review 56 (2): 258–68). And, of course, denigration can be part of a pattern of family violence.
We keep hearing the question: What will women who are victims of domestic violence use in court if they can’t claim alienation?
That this question can even be asked shows how powerful the parental alienation framework is at diverting attention away from domestic violence.
The answer is clear: In situations of family violence, courts should consider family violence. Family violence is a rich concept backed by credible science rather than assumptions and stereotypes.
Like a broken clock that twice a day happens to give the right time, the alienation rhetoric may occasionally help a victim who argues “alienation” instead of family violence. But at what cost? Given that the alienation framework has been proven to lead courts to ignore family violence, this occasional gain to the detriment of countless other victims is not a workable strategy.
We don’t need “parental alienation” to address family violence. Quite the opposite: Moving away from “parental alienation” will move us closer to a system that is responsive to family violence.
Take down the broken clock
Myths and assumptions don’t belong in court.
In the past 50 years of our organization’s existence, we have fought against myths about consent, marriage and women’s mental health in various areas of the law. We owe it to all victims of family violence to continue insisting that there is nothing simplistic about wanting legal decisions to be based on fact, not fiction.
This is part two of a two-part series. Read part one: Parental alienation: The one-size-fits-none theory.
Suzanne Zaccour is the director of legal affairs for the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL). She is also a family law and domestic violence researcher with a doctoral degree in law from Oxford University. She is leading NAWL’s campaign to ban parental alienation accusations from being used in family law cases.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at Yvette.Trancoso-barrett@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.