6/1/2009

1

ALIENATION:

EFFECTIVE & INEFFECTIVE

LEGAL AND CLINICAL

INTERVENTIONS

Barbara Jo Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych., AccFM

Linda Chodos, MSW, RSW

Mr. Justice Clifford Nelson

Jacqueline Vanbetlehem, MSW, RSW

AFCC New Orleans, 2009

OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOPslides available at www.familysolutions.ca

• Concepts, assessment and impact (Fidler)

• Legal and judicial perspective (Nelson)

• Remedies for mild and some moderate (Chodos)

– Court Orders and Treatment Contract

– Treatment Approaches

• Remedies for some moderate and severe (Vanbetlehem)

– Custody Reversal: Different Perspectives

– The Family Workshop (Rand and Warshak)

CONCEPTS, ASSESSMENT AND

IMPACT

Barbara Jo Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych., AccFM

drbarbarafidler@sympatico.cawww.familysolutions.ca

CHOCOLATES?

“High conflict/alienation families are like a box

of chocolates. You never know what your

going to get!”

4

CHILDREN CAN REJECT/RESIST ONE

PARENT FOR MANY REASONS

• Relationships exist on a continuum (Kelly and Johnston):

– Affinity (preference, but not rejecting)– Alignments (consciously taking sides to

avoid loyalty conflict)– Estrangement (justified and often healthy

coping mechanism to trauma—realistic fears or anxiety caused by violence, abusive or neglectful parenting of RP

– Pathological or Irrational Alienation (unjustified due primarily to pressure of one parent)

Child’s

Response

Intense Marital

Conflict

Divorce Conflict

and Litigation

Aligned Professionals,

Extended Families

Personality of

Rejected Parent

Personality of

Aligned Parent

Humiliating

Separation

Child’s

Vulnerability

Aligned Parent’s

Negative Beliefs,

Behaviors

Rejected Parent’s

Reactions

Sibling

Relationships

Kelly and Johnston’s Multi-Factorial Model

6/1/2009

2

Definitions

• No longer use PAS (Gardner, Parental Alienation Syndrome)

• Parental Alienation is not considered by most as acceptable

• Kelly & Johnston: Alienated Child: “child who freely and persistently

expresses unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger,

hatred, rejection, and/or fear) toward a parent that are

disproportionate to their actual experience of that parent”

• Warshak: Pathological or Irrational Alienation“a disturbance in which children, usually in the context of sharing a parent’s negative attitudes, suffer unreasonable aversion to a person or persons with whom they formerly enjoyed normal relationships or with whom they would normally develop affectionate relations”

ASSESSMENT

• Thorough assessment required

• Need to differentiate:

– Actual refusal (alienation) from lesser

forms of: resistance/reluctance (affinity,

alignment, etc.)

THEN

– Irrational (Pathological) Alienation from

Realistic Estrangement

MIXED CASES COMMOM

• “Kernel of truth”

• May be some abuse/poor parenting by RP

• May be counter rejecting behaviour, passivity, alternating of each by RP

• More the result of the alienating parents’ conduct—what they do AND don’t do

– e.g., “spin”, repeat negatives, embellish, “legends” kids come to believe (see work of Ceci et al.), failure to support relationship, exploit RP’s shortcomings

ASSESSMENT

• See Handout: Baker (2005a): Process and Strategies Used by Alienating Parent

• See Handout: Clawar & Rivlin (1991-700 cases): 8 Stages of Programming

– Process of Severe Alienation (Next Slide)

• See Handout: Table 15 (from Fidler et al., 2008)

– List of behaviours commonly exhibited by favoured/alienating parent; child and alienated/favoured parent

• See Handout: Selected Reading List

CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS &

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS (Johnston et al.)

• Alienating behaviour (denigration) in high

conflict separated couples is virtually the

norm by both parents– Yet many children do not become alienated--age,

gender, sibling role affect, vulnerability (special needs)

• Role reversal + alienating behavior highly r’d• Aligned parent’s warm/involved

(overprotective) parenting predicts rejecting behaviour by child

• Abusive and alienating behaviour related

ASSESSMENT

• Assess nature and degree of alienation

– Determined by extent to which alienating

behaviour by AP successfully manifest in child

• Intervention dependent on degree- mild, moderate

or severe

• Assess effect of previous interventions

– Often, our attempted “solutions” become the

problem

– Don’t try what has already failed

6/1/2009

3

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT-

CONSIDER:

• How the assessment findings will be delivered?

• The appropriateness of a disclosure meeting?

• The possibility of an iatrogenic effect?

• The inevitable lag between the delivery of the assessment report and court hearing?

• Recommending definite timelines?

• Recommending custody reversal if parenting time and treatment does not commence immediately?

NEGATIVE EFFECTS

What are the negative impacts on children and adult children?

Do the potential negative effects warrant mandatory reporting to child protection agencies?

NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN

• Irrational (Pathological ) alienation = psychologically abusive

– denigration of loved adult is emotionally harmful to child’s self esteem, well being

– loyalty conflict is emotionally harmful to child

– most kids want relationships with both parents (and extended families) (and often/even with abusive parents); grieve over what they missed

• 6 types of psychological maltreatment (Rand):

• rejecting ; terrorizing; ignoring; corrupting; interference

with social competence and self esteem

NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN

Johnston et al.• Loss of half their family (aunts/uncles,

grandparents, ext. family, cousins)• Psychological control, intrusive parenting (child

development literature, not divorce lit per se)• Feel guilty• Self hatred, self esteem issues—parent didn’t

care about them, abandoned them• Enmeshed relationship (folie a deux) with FP

• Inability to develop and sustain healthy relationships (lacking in empathy, tolerance, give and take)

• Information processing problems

NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN

Johnston et al.

• Behavioural effects: aggression, conduct disorders, poor impulse control

• Anti-social behaviour (e.g., lack of regard for authority, social rules, deceitful)

• Emotional construction, passivity, dependency

• No shame or guilt

• Inability to delay gratification

NEGATIVE EFFECT ON ADULTS ALIENATED AS

CHILDREN (BAKER, 2007)

• Depression, substance abuse, alienation from own children, conflict with AP

• Guilt for abandoning younger sibs

• Low self esteem, feel unworthy, internalize negatives of rejected parent

• Secretly wished someone would have figured it out, knew they were not telling the truth, called their bluff

• Other studies: retrospectively adults wished they had more time with NCP; angry at mothers

6/1/2009

4

19

EARLY INTERVENTION IMPERATIVE

• Longer problem exists, harder it is to resolve

• “Cooling off” makes it worse

– delays reinforce phobic rejection by child

• Even if parent walks away (thought to be best

solution at the time) child still feels abandoned

etc.

– these feelings likely to impact possible

reconciliation at later time

19

WHAT DO WE DO?

• Different interventions depending on the

nature and extent of the parent-child

contact problem

–Mild, moderate or severe

• Return to this after we hear from Justice

Nelson on legal approaches

Judicial Remedies to

Parental Alienation

Mr. Justice Clifford Nelson

May 2009

Overview

The Role of Courts

When Judicial Intervention May Be Sought

Types of Remedies / Orders

Enforcement of Orders

The Role of Courts

• Divorce Act, s. 16(10) (Canada): “the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.”

• Divorce Act, s. 16(6) (Canada): court has the authority to impose “terms, conditions or restrictions in connection therewith as it thinks fit and just.”

• Provincial legislation

When Judicial Intervention May Be

Sought

1. Case management: early intervention –

e.g. asked to order access, an assessment

or get the OCL involved

2. Motions: temporary orders for access, also

for an assessment or to get the OCL

involved

3. Trial: final orders

6/1/2009

5

Types of Remedies / Orders – Judicial Tools

• Involvement of OCL

• Assessment

• Counselling / Treatment

• Changing Access / Supervision of Access

• Police Enforcement

• Contempt

• Joint Custody / Parallel Parenting

• Remedy (Last Resort): Custody Reversal

Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL)

• Views about the role of a children’s lawyer vary

ON (OCL)

– Most extensive child representation program.

– Policy to be independent & have its own opinion on

the child’s views & preferences, & not just mimicking

back what the child says.

– Important in alienation cases to determine when

child’s wishes are a product of parental influence or

other factors.

Assessments

• Expensive ($10,000-$20,000), but may be government-funded in certain instances.

• Debate over the types of cases that should have assessments � clinical issues v. usefulness: see Ursic v. Ursic, [2006] O.J. No. 2178 at para. 33 (C.A.) (while assessments are at the discretion of the court, it may be an error to refuse to order one where such expert testimony would be of such use and need to the trial judge).

Example of Assessment Ordered on a

Motion

• Court could not say if alienation was the case

here, but could say that it would be assisted

by an assessment & thus ordered an

assessment, even though it was strenuously

opposed by the other parent (Stewart v.

Stewart, [2006] O.J. 5135 at paras. 9-10 (Sup.

Ct. J.) (QL)).

Counselling / Treatment

• Court may order a parent to provide a child

with counselling as part of the “terms,

conditions or restrictions” of a custody/access

order or as an “incident of the right to custody

or access”.

• Court’s authority to order parents into

counselling without their consent is more

debatable.

Counselling / Treatment• Custodial parent to have the sole authority/discretion to

pursue whatever remedy is necessary for a transition of

least conflict, including participation in the Family

Workshop for Alienated Children

− e.g. J.K.L. v. N.C.S., [2008] O.J. No. 2115 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL);

Filaber v. Filaber, [2008] O.J. No. 4449 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL));

A.G.L. v. K.B.D, [2009] O.J. No. 180 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL).

− But see S.G.B. v. S.J.L., [2009] O.J. No. 515 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL).

• But, counselling may not lead to reunification (e.g. El-

Murr v. Kiameh, 2006 ONCJ 125; McAlister v. Jenkins,

[2008] O.J. No. 2833 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL)).

6/1/2009

6

Changing Access

• Detailed &/ progressive access schedule.

• Supervised access (alienated or aligned parent).

• Sometimes access will not be ordered or enforced if

not in the best interests of the child.

– e.g. no “forced” access to severely alienated father

(F.A.L.(F.) v. D.A.F., 2003 SKQB 132).

– e.g. no access to alienated father as understandable

reasons for fearing father & feeling rejected by him (Azimi

v. Mirzaei, [2007] O.J. No. 1208 (Sup. Ct. J.)).

– e.g. no access to aligned father (& restraining order against

him) (C.S. v. v. M.S., [2007] O.J. No. 787 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL)).

Police Enforcement

• By legislation or inherent jurisdiction.

• Usually a history of non-compliance with

custody & access orders.

• Order of last resort as intrusive & may be

extremely distressing for the children.– e.g. order police enforcement of access in hopes that the

threat of police enforcement would ensure compliance

with the order (R.L.H. v. G.L.B., 2002 ABQB 302 at paras.

47-48).

Contempt Order

• The “big stick of civil litigation” and thus should be

“used sparingly and only in the most clear cut of

cases.” (Fisher v. Fisher, [2003] O.J. No. 976 at para.

11 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL)).

• Restraint in family law context especially because

of “twin objectives” of protecting both the

interests of the children & the admin of justice –

“Children are better off it their parents are not in

jail or paying fines.” (Salloum v. Salloum, [1994] A.J.

No. 304 at para. 19 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL)).

Contempt Order

• Common attempted defence: child refusing contact. Some

courts impose a positive obligation for the custodial parent

to encourage the child to attend access visits (e.g. Cooper v.

Cooper, [2004] O.J. No. 5096 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL)).

• A variety of orders may be made, including, but not limited

to the following:

– Adjournment of the contempt issue or the sentence on terms to

determine if compliance with the order will now be observed such

that the parent has the opportunity to purge his/her contempt.

– Make up or additional access for the other parent &/

reimbursement of access costs to the other parent.

– Costs &/ a fine or other monetary penalty.

Imposing Joint Custody

• Order of joint custody (from previous sole

custody) “took appropriate account of the risk

of alienation…yet protecting the child’s sense

of stability by not requiring him to leave his

lifelong home and family” (Cox v. Stephen,

[2003] O.J. No. 4371 at para. 3 (C.A.) (QL)).

• Caution in imposing joint custody on a

motion, although it has been done.

Remedy in the Extreme: Custody

Reversal

• Common to also order suspended or supervised

access for the previous custodial parent &/

transitional counselling to help the family adjust.

• Done on an interim motion with a clear assessment

(e.g. Pettenuzzo-Deschene v. Deschene, [2007] O.J.

3062 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL)) or where there was a material

change in circumstances (e.g. C.M.B.E. v. D.J.E., 2006

NBCA 88).

6/1/2009

7

Remedy in the Extreme: Custody

Reversal

• Increasingly common in trial decisions.

– e.g. Anderson v. Anderson, 2005 NSSC 94: custody changed

incrementally over 2 months, with the children eventually

being placed permanently with their father.

– e.g. R.R.W.E.S.-V. v. S.E.D.V., 2008 BCSC 1136: principle

residence to father following mother’s frustration of access &

repeated allegations of father’s child abuse, which were

unfounded & negatively impacted her ability to parent the

children.

Remedy in the Extreme: Custody

Reversal (con’t)

• Increasingly common in trial decisions.

– e.g. J.K.L. v. N.C.S., [2008] O.J. No. 2115 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL): severe

alienation by father, who had no perception of the damage he

was causing to his 13-year old son; custody changed to mother

– e.g. A.G.L. v. K.B.D, [2009] O.J. No. 180 (Sup. Ct. J.) (QL): severe

alienation by mother; custody changed to father, who provided

a plan for re-establishing the father-children relationships & no

evidence that he was not a capable, caring parent.

Remedy in the Extreme: Custody

Reversal

Appeal Courts• In ON, AB, MB, NB, and NS, appeal courts have upheld trial

decisions that found alienation and ordered a transfer of

custody.

• In BC, appeal court ordered custody reversal when it was in

the long-term best interests of the child, even though it

recognized the short-term distress from a transfer of custody

(A. (A.) v. A. (S.N.), 2007 BCCA 363 at paras. 26-28).

• Only in extremely severe cases of alienation & after a careful

consideration of all the circumstances.

Enforcement of Orders

• Some judges will remain seized of the alienation

issues for a specified or indefinite period of time.

• May order a supervision hearing or a case

conference to follow-up.

• Difficulty in enforcing, especially if an older child

resists.

• Giving up: in extreme cases, sometimes it is in the

best interests of the child to not enforce (recall

discussion of refusal to enforce access).

ROLE OF MENTAL HEALTH

PROFESSIONALSTREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR

MILD AND SOME MODERATE CASES

Linda Chodos, MSW, RSWlindachodos@rogers.comwww.familysolutions.ca

6/1/2009

8

OVERVIEW: ESSENTIALS IN THE

THERAPIST’S TOOLBOX

1. Treatment Approaches for mild and

moderate cases

2. The Court order for treatment

3. The Parent-Child Contact Treatment

Program Agreement: order on

consent

45

MILD AND MODERATE ALIENATION CASES

• Relates to the degree of the refusal and the reasons

• Mild: Relationship between parents is reasonably healthy, and access is occurring although transitions may be difficult

– Some programming by favoured parent

– Compliance with treatment by parents and child likely

• Often good to specify favoured parent retains custody-allays fear of loss (of custody)

• Moderate:

– Relationship between parents –strained communication

– High conflict separation

– Access sporadic or recently not occurring

TREATMENT APPROACHES FOR MILD/

MODERATE ALIENATION CASESFamily Systems Approach Necessary: Individual therapy for child alone contraindicated(also need therapist for family)

• Model A: One professional (no separate counsellor for child)– Therapist /case manager/coach (not PC) for entire family– Works with entire family in various combinations

• Model B: Two Professionals– Child has own therapist– Therapist/case manager/coach (not PC) for parents– Collaboration essential

• Model C: Two Professionals– Therapist for entire family-child and family– Decision-maker /PC

EXAMPLE OF X FAMILY

• 8 year old child: Parents separated 6 months ago

• Access refusal recent and sudden: Access occurring only with mother present (at child’s insistence)

• Parental relationship reasonably healthy, some separation related anger within normal limits

• Consensus that child’s relationship with father positive prior to separation

• Both parents supportive of normalizing child's time with father

• Parents need to understand their part

-Mom’s anger and its impact of child

-Dad’s emotionality and its impact on child

WHAT NEEDS TO ACCOMPANY THE

THERAPY?

• Court Order/ Parenting Plan highlights

- parents’ accountability function to the Court and

provides a monitoring function.

• Parent-Child Contact Treatment Program

Agreement: Order on Consent highlights

- parents’ commitment to therapeutic process

• Contract augments parenting Plan/Separation

agreement/ Court order

6/1/2009

9

HANDOUTS FOR YOUR EASY REFERENCE

1. Table 16 (from Fidler et al., 2008)

• Check-List: Court Order Requirements For

Intervention And Counselling

2. Sample Parent-Child Contact

Treatment Program Agreement

KEY ELEMENTS

PARENTING PLAN/COURT ORDER(1)

• Parenting Plan: The higher the conflict,

the greater the need for structured and

detailed parenting plan,

• Outlines each parent’s roles and

responsibilities, avoids ambiguity

• Goal to disengage parents

KEY ELEMENTS

PARENTING PLAN/COURT ORDER(2)

• Includes specific Order for parenting time

• Decision-maker or not?– Therapist implements Order for parenting time,

does NOT change it in any significant way

– Therapist is not assessor, does not make recommendations, does not arbitrate parenting time.

– Therapist may assist in implementing incremental schedule.

KEY ELEMENTS OF COUNSELLING

CONTRACT/ORDER (3)

CLEARLY STATED OBJECTIVES

• Stipulation: it IS in best interests of child to have

healthy relationship with both parents

-AND NOT just about restoring relationship with rejected parent

• “To implement previously agreed to, court-ordered parenting

time, foster healthy adjustment and relationships with both

parents; restore adequate parent functioning, parenting, and

roles; correct child’s distortions and replace with realistic

perceptions to reflect child’s actual experience with both

parents; assist child to differentiate self from others, become

autonomous, etc”

KEY ELEMENTS OF COUNSELLING

CONTRACT/ ORDER(4)

• Identify family members (ALL) required to participate

• Therapist has authority to determine who attends for counselling

• Identify team of professionals by name–How will they will be determined if

parents disagree• Identify roles/functions of professionals

Key Elements of Counselling

Contract/ Order(5)• Clarify limits of confidentiality: - Can therapists report to court? - Lines of communication/confidentiality

between therapist and family members - Open communication between therapist and

other professionals involved • Imperative: Court monitoring and

accountability function- non compliance (contempt) common• Warning for change /reversal of custody in the

event of non-compliance

6/1/2009

10

Key Elements of Counselling

Contract/ Order(6)• Duration of Service (# of months)– if no duration, outline termination process,

withdrawal from services, how new professional will be selected

• Neither parent may unilaterally withdraw from this

Agreement prior to the completion of the term.

• The therapist may resign any time she determines

the resignation to be in the best interests of the

child(ren) and will make a referral to another

therapist after giving ___ weeks notice.

ELEMENTS FOR SUCCESS

• Well crafted Court Order and Parent/Child Contact

Treatment Agreement

• Ability of treatment team to work together

• Interest of rejected parent to pursue relationship

• Aligned parent’s ability to disengage and recognize

importance of child’s rel. with other parent

• Resiliency of child, degree of enmeshment and

resources available

CUSTODY REVERSAL

IN SEVERE PATHOLOGICAL

ALIENATION

Jacqueline Vanbetlehem, MSW, RSW, AccF.M.

jvanbetlehem@cogeco.ca

www.vanbetlehem.ca

OVERVIEW

• The “stark dilemma”

• Clinical consideration of custody reversals and it’s relationship to attachment theory

• Views of the proponents and opponents

• Do adolescents have sufficient maturity to make decisions about treatment and severing ties with

a parent?

• Remedies to consider

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF

CUSTODY REVERSAL

RECOMMENDATIONS

PURPOSE OF CUSTODY REVERSALS

• There must be an assessment that addresses the clinical reasons that suspending the access with the favoured parent is preferable over keeping the status quo.

• No contact order is for a period of time until the parent can learn to relate to the child in a healthy way.

• The purpose of a custody reversal is to free a child from their alienated state but to also give the opportunity for an intervention that will restore the child’s healthy relationship with both parents.

6/1/2009

11

ATTACHMENT THEORY

MISNOMERS• Attachment occurs along a continuum, there may

be factors that improve a child’s attachment orcontribute to more insecurity throughout thechild’s life. This can be variable between parents.

• A child can have secure attachment with lessinvolved parent. Quantity of time does notensure development of secure or healthyattachment.

• With a custody reversal, contact with the favoured parent is temporarily suspended, not broken.

61

ATTACHMENT THEORY

MISNOMERS

• The child is not being “forced” to attach to the rejected parent.

• Strength of attachment does not necessarily mean healthy, a child can have a strong but unhealthy attachment with a parent

• Separation from a parent is not always harmful.

• Sending the child for treatment does not sever the bond; it may be the favoured parent’s refusal to pursue a healthy relationship that severs the bond.

62

WHAT DOES ENMESHMENT IN AN

ALIENATED RELATIONSHIP LOOK LIKE?

• The enmeshment grows as the normal balancing

influence by the rejected parent is gradually

diminished, which may have started prior to the

separation.

• Boundary disturbances, and over identification with

needs of the child.

– Project own needs onto child, likely that the FP is still

trying to resolve their own early childhood insecure

attachment difficulties

• The child does not develop autonomy.

OPPONENTS AND PROPONENTS

OF

CUSTODY REVERSALS

CUSTODY REVERSAL OPPONENTS

• Considerable reticence to reversing custody:

– child will come around, don’t need fathers that much anyway, will be counter productive-- will hate parent even more, can’t force older children

– risks of separating child from parent who is more pathological are greater than any benefits of reuniting child the with healthier parent

Custody Reversal Proponents

• Alienation is psychologically and emotionally abusive

• The children had a good relationship with rejected parent and this is re-establishing an existing bond as opposed to creating a new bond.

• Children can reunite in a very short time with the rejected parent once separated from FP. Children can become alienated very quickly also.

6/1/2009

12

CUSTODY REVERSAL PROPONENTS DO

NOT CONSIDER THAT CHILDREN HAVE:

• A Right to have a relationship with both

parents

• A Right not to have to choose parents

• A Right to be with the healthiest parent

• A Right to be protected from an abusive

relationship

• A Right to develop age appropriate autonomy

and independence

SHOULD CHILDREN AND

ADOLESCENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO

DECIDE TO SEVER A RELATIONSHIP

WITH A PARENT?

IS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE USUALLY AVAILABLE

TO CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS?

• We don’t let 14/15 yr olds decide not to go to doctor or school, why let them decide not to have relationship with one parent, grandparents, other relatives, etc.

• We don’t let children and adolescents vote, drive without a license, drink alcohol.

• We don’t let children decide in non-divorced families to not have relationship/time with one parent, we usually insist they sort out problems.

• Courts remove children from abusive homes often against child’s protests.

• Police intervene when they run away, and may even use physical force.

• How is a custody reversal in severe PAS different?

Adolescents: The right to decide

Custody Reversals:

Options and Research

CUSTODY REVERSALS

• In some severe cases, custody reversal will be the only way to effectively respond to alienation

• Especially appropriate if:

– false, malicious allegations of abuse

– if AP has certain personality disorders, psychosis, paranoia, folie a deux, Munchausen’s by Proxy-Contemporary Type

• Debate about which cases severe enough

• Rejected Parent must be the healthier parent, and be fit and willing to be parent.

6/1/2009

13

CUSTODY REVERSAL - RESEARCH

• Limited Research (case studies, qualitative, retrospective)

• Have been a few studies noting failure of traditional therapy in many moderate and all severe cases(e.g., Clawar & Rivlin, Gardner, Rand, Rand & Kopetski),

• Clawar and Rivlin: 400 children– 90% improvement in relationship with other parent and other areas of functioning where child/parent contact was court ordered.

• Rand, Rand & Kopetski: 45 children from 25 families over 20 yrs—the child reunited with the rejected parent when the alienation was interrupted through enforced visitation or change of custody.

• Gardner: 52 families, 99 children: alienation ended when custody was reversed with no contact; alienation continued when contact continued

73

PREVENTION VS. INTERVENTION

• It’s preferable to have prevention through

early intervention rather than custody

reversals.

• If alienation were viewed as abuse child

welfare authorities would not be so reticent to

become involved.

• Early intervention equates to decreased need

for custody reversal.

TREATMENT/INTERVENTION OPTIONS

FOR CUSTODY REVERSAL

• Limited options: vacation, summer

camp.

• If intervention is necessary to enforce a

custody reversal one option is The Family

Workshop for Alienated Children (FWAC)

• WHEN court has ordered custody

reversal

EDUCATION NOT “DEPROGRAMMING”Four phases involve multi-media demonstration and exercises

• The program is based on grounded principles in developmental, social psychology, science of education, learning, perception, perspective, conformity science, neuropsychology, and communication science that are taught using passive and active educational and experiential educational learning processes that assist the children to recover their critical thinking and their sense of true identity.

FAMILY WORKSHOP: FOLLOW UP 2-4 YEARS

POST WORKSHOP(Warshak, in press, Family Court Review, January 2010, Vol. 48)

• 22 children from 11 families

• All had had failed counselling experiences

• 21 of the 22 children (ages 8- 16) restored a positive

relationship with the rejected parent

– 17 of these 22 maintained their positive relationships.

• Of the 4 children who did not maintain the

relationship with the rejected parent all had ongoing

contact with favoured parent

• Outcome related to favoured parent: varied

depending on circumstances