Parental Alienation: The Hidden Harm Courts Must Confront
In recent cases I’ve handled, the outward behavior of an alienating parent often appears harmless — even reasonable — yet the impact on the parent-child relationship is devastating.
Take this example: a mother “delivers” her three sons, ages 15, 13, and 11, to the hallway outside her apartment when their father arrives for parenting time. The boys refuse to go. The mother shrugs, saying, “I’m sorry, they just don’t want to go with you,” and ushers them back inside.
Her attorney asks, “What else is she supposed to do?”
The answer is simple: the children would not have reached this point without the mother’s influence. Alienation does not happen in a vacuum. Undoing the damage is extraordinarily difficult, because once children are conditioned to reject a parent, even neutral settings — like a school pickup — may not break the cycle.
The Brutality Beneath the Surface
What looks like passive compliance is, in reality, brutal manipulation. The mother has subtly — or aggressively — conveyed to the children that time with their father is unnecessary, even undesirable. This is parental alienation: a process that erodes affection and convinces children that one parent is irrelevant.
Alienating parents often justify their actions by pointing to alleged flaws in the other parent: anger, laziness, dishonesty, infidelity, even violence. But children raised by imperfect parents still love them, seek their affection, and cherish their presence. A truly “bad” parent drifts away naturally. Alienation is not needed. The fact that the targeted parent is deeply involved is precisely why alienation must be manufactured.
Remedies That Actually Work
So, what can be done? Courts often hesitate, asking what the alienating parent could do differently. The first step is accountability. If a father must bring the issue to court, the mother should pay his attorney fees. Without consequences, alienation continues unchecked.
But financial penalties alone rarely suffice. Realistically, only three remedies have proven effective:
Financial sanctions — awarding attorney fees or offsetting child support.
Incarceration — drastic, but often necessary when fines fail to deter alienation.
Change of custody — the most effective remedy, giving children the chance to rebuild their relationship with the alienated parent.
Anything short of these measures leaves the alienating parent in control, and the children deprived of what they need most: a genuine bond with both parents.
Courts Must Stop Reinforcing Alienation
Too often, courts craft “band-aid” solutions that reinforce the problem. They delay meaningful remedies until the alienated parent is financially drained and unable to continue the fight. By then, the parent is erased from the child’s life. Both lose.
Attorneys representing alienated parents must educate the courts. Judges need to understand that alienation is not a minor inconvenience — it is internal bleeding in the parent-child relationship. Superficial remedies will not stop it. Strong, decisive action must be taken early, before the damage becomes irreversible.
The Call to Action
Parental alienation is one of the most insidious forms of child abuse. It thrives in silence, cloaked in seemingly benign actions. Courts must recognize it for what it is and respond with remedies that truly protect children’s right to both parents. Anything less is not justice — it is complicity.
 Millions of Daughters do not have contact with their biological fathers in the U.S and around the globe, and can not benefit from the positive influences this core relationship provides.3-Types of Father-Daughter Alienation:Its impact on Paradigm Development By Karen Davis-Johnson, M.A.,
Editor for The Journal of Father Daughter Communications |
Contrary to what most people might think, a father’s “willful absence” or the stereotypical “deadbeat dad issue” are not the largest contributing factors to this statistic. Millions of daughters do not have the relationship and contact they WANT and NEED from their fathers, largely due to a form of ALIENATION which is often accompanied Father-Emotional Detachment; an emotional response behavior subconsciously employed by fathers who are distraught, and experience a strong sense of helplessness in their failed efforts to visit, interact with or remain connected to their daughter.
ReplyDeleteSo, what does all this alienation stuff mean?
Father Alienation: this generally manifest itself in one of three ways
Delete1) A mother will often systematically degrade the father in the presence of the daughter, with the intent to emotionally manipulate her, turn her affection and attention toward her, and ultimately against the daughter’s father. This type of behavior generally occurs during heighten disagreements, during separation and after divorce.
2) Close family members, in support of the mother who often do not have a clear understanding of the important role a father plays in his daughter’s life, in many cases prevent the daughter from interacting with her father. Particularly in cases where the mother and daughter move back into the home of family members. Grandparents, and other relatives often act as a wedge between the father and his daughter, pushing her further apart from him physically and emotionally. This damaging behavior contributes to her ever shaping paradigm (a group of beliefs, ideas and behaviors past to you from others embedded in her subconscious mind) and influences the way she thinks about her father and men in general. Alienation from her father ultimately, can rob her of one of the greatest gifts she could ever receive; a loving father-daughter relationship; key to female healthy psychosocial-emotional development.
3) While the judicial system in some cases is fair, oftentimes they are not, and fathers are treated unfairly, are demoralized, and unfortunately are seen as nothing more than a CASH MACHINE. After frequent failures in the courts system, heightened disagreements with the daughter’s mother and or family members, many fathers become despondent, distant and emotionally-detached. They subconsciously, detach themselves emotionally in an effort to avoid re-experiencing the pain of being ripped apart from their daughter and frustration from the failed attempts to continue fighting for visitation.
A Father’s involvement or lack of involvement with his daughter and emotional connection or lack of emotional connection to his daughter, significantly influences her developing paradigm. Her paradigm will ultimately control what she thinks about herself, how she interacts with the outside world, and how she will interact with other men, as an adult.
Fathers have the right and responsibility to parent their daughters, role model for her through consistent and frequent interactions, what men are like and show HER and the WORLD her VALUE, her STRENGTH and her WORTH.
While mothers offer their daughters many things psychologically and emotionally, they CAN NOT replace that which their daughter receives through a bonded, loving healthy relationship with her father. Learn more…http://eepurl.com/AmBHn
Fathers’ have specific tasks that “must” be accomplished over their three phases of the father-daughter relationship which spans from birth to age thirty. Research shows that when these tasks are not met, daughters can suffer greatly, (depression, low self-esteem, low self-worth, daddy hunger, promiscuity, dating violence/abuse, substance abuse, underdeveloped communication skills, inability to form and maintain healthy male-female intimate relationship and more; throughout their lifespan. Learn more…. http://eepurl.com/AmBHn
Karen Johnson
I work with mothers who would like to replace old, destructive behaviors with new, uplifting behaviors that support their daughter’s well being. Email Karen at karen@1karenjohnson.com
FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
ReplyDeleteIn controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’ Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)
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?
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."
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
ReplyDeleteRedress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS