The question then arises: Why would a parent deprive their child of love, knowing that it is harmful?
The answer is complex and multifaceted, as there are many factors that can contribute to a parent’s inability or unwillingness to provide love. Let’s explore some of the reasons behind this heartbreaking phenomenon.
1. Unresolved Trauma and Emotional Baggage
One of the most common reasons why a parent may be unable to offer love is because they themselves have not experienced healthy love in their own lives. Many parents, especially those who experienced abuse or neglect as children, struggle to give love in the way their children need.
-
Emotional numbness: For parents who were emotionally neglected or abused in their own childhoods, they may not know how to express love in a healthy, nurturing way. The emotional numbness they developed as a survival mechanism can make it difficult for them to connect with their children in the way they need.
-
Generational trauma: Generational trauma is the transmission of trauma from one generation to the next. Parents who were deprived of love or faced emotional abandonment may repeat these patterns with their own children, often unknowingly. Without proper healing or self-awareness, these parents may struggle to break the cycle of neglect or emotional distance.
For these parents, the lack of love they express is not necessarily intentional, but rather a byproduct of their own unhealed wounds.
2. Mental Health Struggles and Emotional Unavailability
Mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and personality disorders can significantly affect a parent’s ability to be emotionally present for their child. Some common mental health challenges that can lead to emotional unavailability include:
-
Depression: Parents who suffer from depression may be so overwhelmed by their own emotions that they are unable to focus on or respond to their child’s emotional needs. They might feel emotionally exhausted, numb, or disconnected, which makes it hard to provide the nurturing care a child needs.
-
Anxiety: Parents struggling with severe anxiety may focus so intensely on their own worries that they cannot offer their children the emotional support and attention they deserve. In extreme cases, anxiety can cause a parent to withdraw or become overly controlling, creating an emotionally distant or tense home environment.
-
Personality disorders: Disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder can complicate the ability to form healthy, loving attachments. Narcissistic parents, for instance, may prioritize their own needs and desires over their child's emotional well-being, leading to neglect or emotional manipulation.
In these cases, the parent’s mental health challenges may prevent them from engaging in positive, loving interactions with their child. This doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t love their child, but their ability to express that love is severely impaired.
3. Toxic Parenting Styles and Lack of Emotional Awareness
Some parents may unintentionally deprive their children of love due to their own toxic parenting behaviors or a lack of emotional intelligence. These behaviors can arise from ignorance or a failure to recognize how their actions are affecting their child’s emotional development.
-
Authoritarian Parenting: This rigid and controlling parenting style emphasizes obedience, rules, and discipline but often lacks warmth and affection. Authoritarian parents may set high expectations without providing emotional support or love. The focus is on control rather than connection, leading to children who may feel unloved or emotionally abandoned.
-
Neglectful Parenting: Parents who are neglectful (whether emotionally or physically) may be physically present but emotionally unavailable. They fail to meet their child’s emotional needs, offering little affection, praise, or encouragement. Children raised in these environments often feel invisible or unimportant.
-
Over-controlling and critical behavior: Some parents, particularly those who were themselves raised in highly controlling environments, may impose strict rules without fostering emotional closeness. They may criticize their child’s behavior or achievements instead of nurturing them. The child, in turn, may struggle with self-esteem and feel disconnected from their parent.
While these parents may still care about their children, their parenting style is emotionally harmful and does not provide the warmth or love necessary for healthy development.
4. External Stressors and Life Circumstances
External pressures, such as financial stress, marital problems, or a demanding career, can also impact a parent’s ability to show love to their children. When parents are overwhelmed by life’s challenges, they may unintentionally withdraw or become emotionally unavailable.
-
Financial hardship: Parents who are struggling to make ends meet may be so consumed by the pressures of providing financially that they become emotionally distant. The stress of worrying about bills, job security, and other financial concerns can take a toll on a parent’s mental health, making it harder to provide the emotional connection children need.
-
Marital conflict or divorce: Parents who are experiencing marital issues, particularly those going through a divorce or separation, may become emotionally withdrawn or focused on their own needs, leaving their children feeling neglected. They may be too preoccupied with their own emotional turmoil to adequately nurture their children.
-
Work-related stress: Parents who work long hours or are constantly stressed at work may be physically present at home but emotionally unavailable. Fatigue, burnout, or job-related frustrations can drain the emotional energy a parent has to give, leading to a lack of connection with their child.
These external stressors often contribute to emotional neglect. Though the parents may still love their children, their capacity to show that love becomes limited by their own stress and struggles.
5. Intentional Neglect or Emotional Abuse
In some unfortunate cases, intentional emotional abuse or neglect may occur. This can be the result of severe anger, resentment, or toxic belief systems held by the parent. In these situations, the deprivation of love is a deliberate attempt to control, manipulate, or hurt the child. This can manifest in a range of behaviors, from verbal abuse to withholding affection as a form of punishment.
-
Parental alienation: Sometimes, one parent may intentionally try to alienate the child from the other parent, using emotional manipulation or coercion to turn the child against the other parent. This can involve not only withholding affection but also planting seeds of distrust and fear in the child.
-
Punishment by neglect: In extreme cases, a parent may consciously withhold love as a form of punishment, believing that it will make the child more obedient or compliant. This can have devastating consequences for the child’s sense of self-worth and emotional development.
In these instances, the deprivation of love is a form of abuse, and it can cause long-lasting emotional damage to the child.
So, Why Do It?
The simple answer to the question, “Why do it?” is that no parent sets out to intentionally harm their child. In many cases, parents are unaware of the damage their behavior is causing, or they may be acting out of their own unresolved pain, stress, or emotional limitations. They may not realize that their actions—or inaction—are depriving their child of the love and emotional support that is essential for healthy development.
However, regardless of the reasons behind it, depriving a child of love is indeed a form of abuse. Children need love to thrive, to develop healthy emotional connections, and to grow into emotionally stable adults. Parents must recognize the profound impact their behavior has on their children and take steps toward healing, whether it’s seeking therapy, learning about healthy emotional communication, or working to break harmful cycles of neglect.
Conclusion: The Path to Healing and Change
While there are many complex reasons why a parent might deprive a child of love, the good news is that healing is possible. Parents who recognize their own emotional struggles or toxic patterns can take proactive steps toward improvement. Therapy, self-reflection, and support systems can help parents become more emotionally available, offering their children the love and support they need to thrive.
Children, especially those who have experienced emotional neglect, can also heal through therapy, strong supportive relationships, and environments that encourage emotional expression and self-esteem.
Deprivation of love is devastating—but awareness, support, and change can help parents and children break free from cycles of emotional harm and foster healthier, more loving relationships.
Post by Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - PAAO.
Custody and Visitation Interference: Alternative Remedies
ReplyDeleteAAML Journal, Winter 1994, Volume 12, Number 2, p 271-284, publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, By Joy M. Feinberg and Lori S. Loeb
The potential for psychological and physical damage to children of divorce and the parental relationship looms as a potential harbinger of doom over every divorce case. This specter becomes reality when one parent interferes with the rights of custody or visitation of the other parent by preventing the child from visiting the other parent, or by kidnapping or secreting the child from the parent who has the right to custody or visitation. This article will discuss the visitation and custody interferences that occur during divorce and alert practitioners and judges to the psychological damage to the children. This article will review the alternative remedies available to circumvent custody and visitation interference and address the problems associated with enforcing these remedies. This examination will reveal that the available remedies lose effectiveness proportionate to the severity of the interference with custody and visitation rights. There are numerous types of visitation and custody interferences that courts must address: modest abuses related to timeliness and access for telephone contact and visitation; issues of child protection when allegations of physical and sexual abuse occur, such as eliminating or limiting contact with the other parent; and in the most severe cases, loss of a relationship due to actions characterized as kidnapping. In addition to these described interferences, more subtle actions occur which create problems. Parents involved in serious custody and visitation disputes frequently engage in programming and brainwashing techniques directed at the child to the detriment of the other parent, thereby interfering subtly or overtly with the parent/child relationship.
This behavior is frequently referred to as the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Although such behavior is a common occurrence, what is clear is that a dilemma exists in cases involving brainwashing: risk to the child when a change of custody is imposed for parental alienation syndrome or programming cases may not be in the best interest of the child; yet the court may be powerless to stop the offending contact from occurring.
Programming behaviors range from the simple to the complex. They often begin with ignoring any discussion of the other parent; speaking negatively about the parent in front of the child; criticizing or attacking the parent's lifestyle or character; not informing the other parent of dates for the child's school activities, plays, conferences and sporting events; ignoring the other parent in front of the child; destroying or desecrating photographs of the other parent or refusing to allow the child to have a photograph of the parent in his/her room; speaking to the child about issues that should be first discussed with the other parent; and using the child as a messenger. More severe techniques include attempting to get the child to side with one parent against the other; instilling in the child the belief that the other parent does not genuinely care for the child; and communicating to the child he or she will suffer rejection or loss of love from a parent if the child expresses love or the desire to be with the other parent. The child, either implicitly or explicitly, understands that to be loved by one parent the child must turn against the other parent.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Parental_Alienation_Syndrome_Canada/Custody_Visitation_Interference-Alternative%20Remedies_AAML_Journal_1994.aspx#FN73
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.
Thank you,
Tom Lemons
Founder, www.falsedvireports.com
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."