By Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW
Perhaps the most contentious of all custody/access disputes are those involving
allegations of one parent undermining the relationship of the children with
the other parent. When escalated one sees children caught between a vilified
parent and an idolized parent. Therein any negative attributes of the vilified
parent are magnified and any attempts to redress issues raised are placed in
a context where the efforts are viewed as insincere or inadequate. Hence the
vilified parent cannot win for losing. Meanwhile any concerns that might be
raised about the idolized parent are either excused or positioned as an artifact
of the vilified parent’s behavior. In other words, nothing negative sticks
to the idolized parent; it’s the other parent’s fault. These dynamics
are the hallmark of Parent Alienation Syndrome.
While the use of that phrase remains a politically debated hot potato, the
behaviors and dynamics remain and children do take on the descriptors of the
syndrome. The social science literature suggests that traditional counseling
attempts to undo or redress the disharmony as when the children side with the
idolized parent against the vilified parent, are unhelpful. In many instances,
not only is traditional counseling unhelpful, but to the child who remains entrenched
in a position against the vilified parent, traditional counseling can serve
to support a skewed image by giving a platform to vent versus challenge misperceptions
and cognitive distortions.
Moreover, the social science literature suggests that in order to undue the
influence of the idolized parent on the children and the children’s alignment
with that parent against the vilified parent, the child must actually have more
time with the vilified parent to gain first hand experience of that parent’s
behavior through which their first hand experience challenges previously held
beliefs. The children, thus living a cognitive dissonance, experiencing reasonable
versus unreasonable behavior, resolve the dissonance by rejecting previous beliefs
in favor of accepting their actual experience of the parent as decent. Depending
on the degree to which the idolized parent supports such interventions, children’s
exposure to the idolized parent may have to be altered or restricted to control
for any undo negative influence. In the most extreme of circumstances, where
the children refuse visitation with the vilified parent and support is not forthcoming
from the idolized parent or the support is superficial, the children may have
to be placed in an alternate living situation. There, the influence of the idolized
parent is unavailable and the children can work towards reintegration with the
vilified parent without undo influence from the idolized parent.
It should be noted that in cases such as these, treatment goes against conventional
wisdom where normally the input of the children is respected and encouraged.
Further, while conventional wisdom would not condone use of force or coercion
to facilitate visitation, such is often necessary in the most extreme of these
situations. Throughout such intrusive treatment endeavors, resistance from the
idolized parent and children is to be expected. Their resistance can include
simple passivity or inaction to outright defiance including vilification of
treatment providers, Courts or any other agency or entity acting in the service
of the treatment plan. It is easy for the idolized parent and children to obtain
support from the uninitiated and hence their efforts to undo an intrusive treatment
plan can even polarize service providers, particularly those who may not have
sufficient knowledge or experience with such cases against those responsible
Not only can service providers subject to these situations be polarized, by
so too can Courts. Hence depending on the jurisdiction, service providers may
or may not align with intrusive treatment plans as Courts may or may not support
such intrusive interventions too.
A tale of two cities: In one city, child protective services supported intrusive
intervention and therein just the clear and unequivocal threat of taking the
child into care was enough to evoke the cooperation of the idolized parent.
Treatment progressed and the relationship between child and vilified parent
continues. In a neighboring city, child protective services not only does not
support the plan but set the idolized parent as the residence and place of safety
for the child. Thereafter and emboldened by child protective service support,
the child treaded further from the vilified parent and denounced any form of
relationship. In less extreme cases, simply holding the idolized parent accountable
for ceasing their undermining behavior and calling upon them to support the
children’s relationship to the vilified parent can be sufficient to restore
and maintain relationships.
The social science literature suggests that unchallenged, these dynamics tend
not to reverse themselves. Contrary to what many idolized parents would suggest
to the vilified parent, “Give the kids space and time, and they will come
back to you,” does not work. Change requires intervention.
Working with these cases takes fortitude amongst the service providers, treating
clinicians and Courts. Thus far, in many jurisdictions, it remains difficult
to align the stars.