LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CASES
WITH AN ALIENATED CHILD 

Do not duplicate
Reprinted from Family Court Review
http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/legal-and-psychological-management-of-cases.pdf 
Vol.39 No.3, July 2001 pp.299-315
LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CASES
WITH AN ALIENATED CHILD
Matthew Sullivan and Joan B. Kelly
When cases enter the court system with allegations of child alienation,
special legal and clinical management is critical. Starting with initial intake into
the family court, throughout the custody evaluation phase, and after the final
court decision, the use of certain principles and interventions designed to deal
with these difficult cases, will enable the legal system and family to function
more effectively. These interventions must proceed in the face of some
uncertainty about allegations of parental misconduct, and whether the child’s
rejection of a parent is based on the behaviors of a parent that alienates a child 1
from the other parent, or behaviors on the part of the rejected parent that
realistically estrange a child from that same parent. As is described elsewhere in
this issue (Kelly and Johnston, 2001), the child’s rejection of a parent is often the
result of many factors, including the behaviors of each parent, high conflict
between the parents, and the influence of the adversarial process, attorneys and
therapists which envelope and impact the family in the post-separation context.
This article provides principles for conceptualizing and implementing
1 The alienated child is defined as a child who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable
negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and fear) towards a parent that are
significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent. It should be
understood that “child” can mean “children”. The dynamics of the sibling subsystem as it relates
to alienation is important, but beyond the scope of this paper.
2
interventions in these cases, followed by interventions specific to early and
interim management, evaluation, and post-decree court-ordered management
and treatment.
PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE INTERVENTIONS IN CHILD ALIENATION
CASES
Continuity in Case Management
The interpersonal alignments and polarized negative views that are
present in these cases are powerful forces that may lead to the termination not
only of parent-child relationships, but also of relationships among extended
family, therapists, attorneys and family court personnel. Individuals often
become aligned with one of the parents, and are quickly rejected by the parent
who perceives them as disagreeing with their views. Thus, it is essential in these
high conflict cases that the legal and mental health professionals have their roles
protected as part of an explicit court appointment, ensuring the continuity so
essential to effective interventions.
Judicial Officers. One judge should be assigned to these cases as they
enter the court process (direct-calendering). This assures continuity in decisionmaking
about early intervention, assessment and later interventions, including
treatment. As information emerges that clarifies what factors are contributing to
the child’s alienation, the benefits of having the same judicial officer manage the
case are enormous. After the case completes normal Family Court process,
including, if necessary, trial, the judicial case management function can be
delegated to a mediator-arbitrator, if sufficient resources are available (Lee, 1995,
Sullivan, 1998).
3
Custody Evaluators. Evaluators can help to ensure continuity of the
professionals who will be working with the family. They can do this by
recommending the specific types of interventions that are needed, protocols for
selecting professionals, and the conditions under which professionals can be
terminated from the case. To ensure a smooth transition between evaluation and
treatment phases, the evaluator needs to communicate his/her findings directly
to the professionals who will be intervening with the family. He/she needs to
make specific recommendations for how treating professionals should consult
and coordinate with one another on an ongoing basis. Without such precautions,
it is likely that the alienation processes will undermine the work of the
professionals as interventions proceed.
Continuity of Contact between the Child and Rejected Parent and Timely
Decision-Making
There should be a presumption that parent-child contact will continue (or
be initiated) if alienation of a child is suspected. When there is no access between
the child and rejected parent, the child's resistance to visit often becomes more
entrenched. Delays in court hearing and deferred judicial decisions contribute
greatly to the problem. Aligned parents often intensify their efforts to obstruct
and undermine contact with the rejected parent as the case enters Family Court
(Johnston, 1993). It is also common that the alienated child will more
vociferously voice their hatred and opposition to any visitation while the case is
under investigation. This heightened resistance should not influence the decision
about whether contact should occur. In many cases, despite vehement
opposition to visiting, the child then has a benign or positive experience of
visiting with the rejected parent.
4
Besides the benefit of protecting the relationship, however precarious,
between a rejected parent and child, such visits, even if monitored, provide
useful data about many factors, including (1) the aligned parent’s attitudes and
behaviors, e.g., do they encourage and support the visits or do they use a variety
of tactics to obstruct or undermine access, including being late or failing to show
up for scheduled visits, or bringing the child tired or hungry; (2) the child’s
response to the visits, e.g., do they protest, do they become more comfortable
as the visit proceeds, do they negatively distort the experience of the visit and (3)
the behaviors of the rejected parent, e.g., what are their parenting sensitivities
and behaviors, how do they handle the child’s rejection.
Both Parents Are Responsible for the Resolution of Child Alienation
When a child is alienated, the focus, and burden for progress, is most
often placed on the rejected parent or on the relationship between the rejected
parent and the child. The negative impact of such well-meaning interventions can
be overt, e.g., subjecting alienated parents to the humiliation of having restricted
visits with their child in a supervised visitation setting, or it may be subtle, for
example, mandating or allowing rejected parents to pay all the costs of
“supervised visitation” or "reunification therapy". Aligned parents’ roles in the
problem and their need to have equal responsibility for active support of a
resolution to the problem is most often ignored. A clear mandate for support,
with a threat of court sanctions if alienating behavior persists, is essential to the
intervention process. These sanctions may include financial payments or
enforcement of an Order that the aligned parent’s primary legal or physical
custody is conditional on supporting therapy and facilitating reasonable access.
5
Similarly, extended family and professionals may support and consolidate
the alienation. For example, it is not unusual that children’s therapists fuel the
alienation, through involvement with only the aligned parent, inappropriate
advocacy to the court, or reinforcing negative distortions in the child (Lund,
1995). Appropriate responsibility for therapists’ conduct in addressing the
alienation should be part of any custody recommendation and interventions.
Clear, Detailed and Enforceable Orders
The contact between a rejected parent and child must be court-ordered,
with very clear parameters specifying how, when and where visits occur.
Ambiguous orders with insufficient detail provide fertile ground for conflict and
acting out, thereby undermining and sabotaging well-intentioned interventions.
The alienated child and the aligned parent should NOT have discretion about
whether visits occur. The goal, however, is to set up a feasible arrangement, one
that the child can tolerate. The child can be invited to share what activities would
make the contact more acceptable, with the underlying premise that the visit will
occur. Once the contact is clearly determined, more proactive management of
visits can occur, anticipating that there will be undermining, challenge and
opposition to them.
Regardless of the temporary physical custody structure, both parents
should have the legal authority to share important decisions in their child’s life.
In alienation cases, rejected parents have often not only had their physical
contact obstructed, but they have effectively lost their legal custody rights as
well. Early court orders can be provided that mandate information sharing and
shared decision-making. An appropriate burden can be placed on aligned
parents to inform rejected parents of important education, health and social
6
domains. Specific orders should prohibit aligned parents from making any
unilateral decisions regarding children’s health care (especially therapy),
education, travel, and formally scheduled extracurricular activities (sports, music,
scouting, etc.) that would interfere with the other parent’s scheduled times with
the child.
Manage, Minimize, and Avoid Conflict
Interparental conflict polarizes parental positions and strengthens
children’s solidarity with the aligned parent (Johnston & Campbell, 1988).
Children commonly interpret conflict as caused by the rejected parent, and as
abusive and victimizing of the aligned parent (and by extension, the child). This
distortion occurs despite the reality of the dynamics of the conflict. Conflict can
be best managed initially through structures in the court order that disengage
the parents. Such orders can include transitions that do not involve face-to-face
contact, automatic default arrangements such as which parent selects the first
vacation period each year, how holidays alternate, alternating attendance at child
activities, etc., and by having a mediation/arbitration process established to
resolve disputes in an efficient and timely manner as soon as they arise.
Monitor Court Orders Closely to Assure Compliance and Address Violations
Immediately
The authority of the court and court-ordered professionals will be
weakened in the eyes of the child and aligned parent if visits and other mandates
of the court are ignored or sabotaged. It is important to anticipate a variety of
tactics employed to undermine orders, ranging from exploiting the ambiguity
and “gray areas” in court orders to flagrant violation of orders to prevent
visitation or therapy designed to promote contact. The enforceability of orders
7
and monitoring systems linked to the authority of the court that can address
violations quickly and effectively are crucial.
PHASES OF CASE MANAGEMENT IN ALIENATION CASES
Initial and Preventive Interventions
The Court can promote safe parent-child contact with a rejected parent
while an evaluative process is undertaken through effective early and potentially
preventive interventions. Sometimes, these firm but less intrusive initial
interventions actually resolve the impasses that led the child to reject the parent.
In any case, the outcome of these interventions provides useful information to
evaluators and decision-makers as the case proceeds. Considerable discretion to
try a number of approaches to solve the immediate problems and remove
concrete barriers to child access can be given on an interim basis to a family court
service counselor or private therapist well versed in handling these cases.
The Court can mandate therapeutically expedited contact sessions that
initiate or maintain access between rejected parent and child in a safe, observant
framework. This concept of facilitated contact is preferred to that of “supervised
visits” in order not to stigmatize the rejected parent. Labels such as “supervisor”
or “visit monitor” reinforce the allegations of dangerousness made against the
rejected parent, unlike more neutral terms such as "access facilitator". The
framing of this work must achieve a delicate "holding" of the family members
such that the rejected parent, aligned parent, and the child are reassured that
they will be "protected": the rejected parent from false allegations; the alienating
parent from legitimate concerns about their child; and the child from any harm.
Ideally, these interventions begin by establishing contact in a facilitated session
8
between rejected parent and child, and negotiate a step-wise expansion of visits
as appropriate until the visits are independent of the sessions.
Two or three sessions with the family can address several common issues
in milder cases of child alienation that may quickly lead to appropriate child
access. Providing a safe, neutral place with a supportive, experienced person to
facilitate the child’s transition between parents can regulate access, monitor the
behavior of parents and child alike, and provide ways to make visits less stressful
and more manageable for the child and parents alike.
Early court orders can address another common problem, that of
repeated intrusion into rejected parents’ visits by custodial parents that block
any change in the parent-child relationship and creates anxiety in the child. As a
rule, there should be no telephone contact with the aligned parent during brief
visits and limited contact during longer visits. With younger children this can be
mandated and effective; older children may initiate calls, despite prohibitions and
if so, this should be discussed in the therapeutic contact sessions.
Initially, these facilitated visits can be quite challenging for rejected parents
if children engage in provocative behaviors, including sullen opposition to any
engagement, or angry attacks on the rejected parent and strident opposition to
the visit. Some coaching and psycho-education about handling difficult behaviors
can assist rejected parents and children move beyond this testing phase (see
Johnston et al, 2001). Similarly, these early sessions can be used to discuss any
“critical incidents” involving perceived or real problematic conduct on the part of
the rejected parent which are given as reason for refusal to visit.
The access facilitator should be appointed by the court, and expected to
provide documentation and feedback to the court (or evaluator, if the case is
9
proceeding to a custody evaluation). Although the non-confidentiality of this
structure has some negative aspects, the accountability for both parents that
occurs when they know that their conduct will be reported to the court directly
(or indirectly, through an evaluator), provides significant strategic leverage. In
addition, the observations of access facilitators as they attempt to intervene in
the family system are invaluable to the evaluator in making recommendations
about child custody issues for the court.
Another role of initial interventions by a judge, family court counselor or
a private therapist is a triage function. When child alienation cases are processed
as more routine custody disputes, with little active intervention as they enter the
family court process, the risk of serious harm to the child is considerable. If
allegations of child abuse are presented, the case should be referred to Child
Protective Services for immediate assessment of the validity of those allegations.
If they are considered unfounded, alienation may be occurring. Another
objective of this initial triaging is to assess what types of professional assistance
the family needs, what resources are available in the community, and whether
the family or court has sufficient economic resources available for such help.
Recommendations for assistance that are not cognizant of economic realities do
not serve families’ interests, unless family court staff are knowledgeable and
available to intervene and/or low fee community resources with knowledgeable
staff are available. When there are sufficient resources, aligned parents are often
resistant to devoting any resources to assist the relationship between their
children and rejected parents.
If professional interventions are recommended, a court-ordered role such
as parenting coordinator, special master, or facilitated access therapist can be
10
effective if put in place early. For example, the family might stipulate to a timelimited
special master while an evaluation is going on, with limited powers to
expedite contact and coordinate among individuals, including professionals. It is
not helpful to have too many professionals involved before a comprehensive
evaluation has been completed. Without a unifying formulation for professionals
to coordinate their interventions, the risk of polarization is substantial. Finally, A
child should NEVER be taken to a therapist on the request of only one parent.
An initial order should specify that both parents must stipulate or obtain a court
order to initiate contact between a child and therapist.
Sample Court Order:
Neither parent will unilaterally initiate or terminate any mental health
evaluation or treatment for the children. The parents shall have the
Special Master assist in the selection of any mental health professional
who works with the children. Any information regarding the children
from that treatment shall be made available to both parents. Both parents
will respect the confidentiality of child therapy and will contact the other
parent to transport the children to their appointments in the event that
they are unable to. The parents will optimize insurance benefits and share
the uninsured cost of any treatment.
Based on the case management principles articulated above, and the initial and
preventive interventions described, the child’s alienation may be resolved or
ameliorated. They are the most cost effective interventions to implement in both
time and expense on a short and longer-term basis. But even if there is no
resultant change in the family system, these interventions are essential for
11
further interim case management in all cases as the case proceeds through
evaluation and court processes.
Case Management of the Evaluation Process
Case management during an evaluation process should normally be provided
by the judicial officer or his/her designee to assure timeliness, comprehensive
scope, and appropriate carryover on interventions which follow evaluation (Lee
and Olesen, 2001). The following guidelines for case management address these
issues.
1) Assessments/evaluations should only be done by a court-ordered-neutral
evaluator, who has clear authority and directives from the court. Two
experts, hired by each parent, normally further polarize the case.
2) Timeliness is critical when a child is alienated. The appointment of the
evaluator should include specific timelines for completion. Evaluations that
take longer than 6-8 weeks, and court procedures that delay processing the
evaluation once the report is complete, allow for further entrenchment of a
child’s alienation.
3) Case management should assure continuity in the transition from evaluation
to any further intervention. Court processes that follow evaluation
(settlement conferences, further litigation, and trial) often reduce or change
the evaluator's recommendations and therefore the effectiveness of the
interventions that follow. At a minimum, the full report should be read by all
professionals who will be involved in interventions. Ideally, the evaluator
should be directly involved in selecting and initially consulting with any legal
12
or mental health professionals or intervention "teams", and Court orders can
increase the likelihood of this occurring.
Sample Court Order:
The (family member) shall engage in therapy with a licensed therapist to
be selected with the approval of the evaluator. The mother/father will
provide a list of names covered under existing insurance as soon as
possible to the evaluator. The evaluator will review this list and provide
three names (not necessarily names on the father's/mother’s list) to the
parent, who will select and engage in therapy within two weeks of
notification of these potential therapists. If the father/mother terminates
therapy without consent of the therapist, that therapist will provide notice
of the termination immediately to Family Court.
Sample Court Order:
The parents shall be involved in coparenting counseling twice monthly or
as necessary to help with information flow, decision-making, and the
practical and logistical issues of sharing custody. They will contact and
rank their three preferences for a coparenting counselor and send their list
to the evaluator, who will use both rankings to select this counselor. Upon
notification of the selection, they will arrange an initial appointment
within two weeks.
Sample Court Order:
The parents agree to the following conditions for these therapeutic
interventions:
a) That the evaluator will consult with each therapist to orient
13
them to the case and the goals of treatment, prior to the onset of
treatment.
b) That the (named therapists) will form a treatment team,
consulting with each other and the evaluator and coordinating their
efforts. The parents agree to sign any releases and pay fees
necessary for face-to-face or telephone consultation between the
parent's therapists and the co-parent counselor.
4) These cases benefit from periodic brief re-evaluations to determine if
changes in custody and access arrangements are warranted and to evaluate the
progress and work of the professionals involved. The parent who is most
disappointed by the initial evaluation will predictably object to the same
evaluator providing re-evaluation, so court orders at the initiation of the case are
helpful to assure that the involvement of the same evaluator is safeguarded. If
this is not possible, the first evaluator’s work should be fully available to the next
evaluator.
Case Management After Evaluation and Judicial Decision-Making
Judicial decision-making and court orders at the completion of evaluation
are rarely the end of the family court involvement in alienation cases (Garrity &
Barris, 1994, Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Both structural interventions (orders
about timeshare, transitions, communication, other coparenting structures, and
enforcement) and therapeutic interventions (appropriate individual and conjoint
modalities) are usually needed and court review may be necessary to ensure
implementation.
Access Arrangements and Transitions
14
Orders that clearly define access arrangements remove some of the
precariousness and unpredictability of the custody situation that enables aligned
parents’ to undermine rejected parents’ relationships with their children. Fear of
loss of custody, and associated economic anxieties, can be addressed by a clear
order about the timeshare and be quite reassuring to the aligned parent. For
rejected parents, clearly specifying the expected time with their children
establishes and legitimizes their parental rights. Non-custodial parents who are
being rejected need to understand that custody decisions cannot be used to
punish the aligned parent for his/her behavior. Instead, the goal is to structure,
support and enforce a custody and access arrangement that will best meet the
child’s developmental needs. Parents should not have any discretion to change
the access arrangement. Special guidelines for access include:
1) Gradually increasing the amount of time with rejected parents if the
timeshare has been quite limited. These expansions should not be
determined by therapists working with family members, as this dual-role
may undermine their work. Using evaluators’ recommendations or
judicial decisions, the court should structure these increases. Expectations
about a more permanent access schedule should be provided, as well as a
specific plan for when the increases take place. Such court orders are quite
helpful to family members and professionals alike, as they focus on
implementing the parenting plan, rather than determining whether or
when the access will increase.
2) Provide longer blocks of time with the rejected parent, sometimes
more than what is normally recommended for children of that age. Single
days or weekend visits often do not provide sufficient time for rejected
15
parents and children to have a productive experience free of the influence
of aligned parents. Children most often arrive emotionally shut-down
and suspicious, and generally become more guarded and hostile as they
anticipate going back to aligned parents at the end of the visit. Making use
of extended times in the summer or holidays can provide the necessary
duration of time to repair and build relationship free of destructive
influence.
Sample Court Order:
Plan for establishing alternate weekend visitation. The child will
immediately (provide date) begin visiting the parent on alternate Sundays
from 10:00am to 6:00pm. This schedule will increase to weekly Saturday
and Sunday visits from 10:00am-6:00pm, beginning on the 4th two-week
cycle. A Saturday overnight will be added following two additional
weekly visits, to increase visits from 10:00am Saturday to 6:00pm Sunday.
Alternate weekends will commence after the 2nd Saturday overnight. They
will begin on Fridays at 6pm or pick-up from school or after school
activities and end on Monday morning with drop-off at school/day care.
Blocking intrusions from the aligned parent. A common behavior of
aligned parents is to contact their children frequently (sometimes a dozen or
more times a day) or to instruct their children to call them regularly during their
visit. The impact of this contact is severely undermining of rejected parents’
attempts to restore a normal relationship with their children. Court orders may
contain explicit regulation of such contact, and the perceived need for the
frequent calls and the negative impact on treatment goals should be a focus of
the therapeutic work. For example, the court order might begin with a strict
16
limitation on, and specification of, time and length of calls, with progressive
elimination of contact. During brief visits, phone calls may be prohibited from
the start.
Blocking aligned parents’ ability to unreasonably obstruct scheduled visits.
Orders can require physician documentation of a child's illness that would
interfere with scheduled visits. Other requests to change a visit due to a special
circumstance can be made contingent upon immediate make-up provisions. In
addition to providing rejected parents with explicit permission in the court order
to be involved in the child’s extracurricular activities, injunctions can also prevent
the aligned parent from scheduling alternative activities such that children must
choose between a favored activity and visits with the rejected, non-custodial
parent.
Avoid face-to-face transitions between parents. The use of neutral,
conflict-free settings, such as school or day care, are ideal as they include a buffer
of several hours where a child has not seen either parent. Extended family,
friends, or caregivers who are more neutral, and have a good relationship with
the child, can also be utilized. Aside from the benefits to children, these contexts
provide more neutral adult observation of the transition, and provide useful data
about the conduct of parents and children. Unsubstantiated charges of lateness,
abuse, or hostility thus do not have fertile ground to fuel more conflict.
Sometimes a therapeutic setting is necessary for the transition between parents
until the child's resistance decreases.
If transitions must occur at either parent's residence, specific behavioral
protocols to assure disengagement and facilitate enforcement, if violations occur,
can build a predictable non-stressful transition in many cases.
17
Sample Court Order:
Transitions at the parent's residence. Transitions shall take place
curbside, with the following guidelines: the parent will arrive no earlier
and no later than 15 minutes around the specified time. The receiving
parent shall ring the doorbell (or call on a cell phone) upon arrival, and
then move back to the curbside. The other parent shall have the child
ready and say good-bye inside the house, sending her alone to the
curbside. There shall be no interaction between the parents or with any
other individuals present. The transition, from the receiving parent's
announcement of arrival shall take no longer than 2 minutes.
A common tactic used by aligned parents is to request that law
enforcement be present for transitions, alleging that there is some potential
harm if a residential exchange is necessary. The use of law enforcement officers
in these cases is strongly discouraged, and other means to appropriately handle
legitimate concerns about violence can be utilized. Police presence exacerbates
children’s anxieties during transitions, alienating them further from rejected
parents who are viewed as the reason for such precautions.
Information exchange and decision-making. It is important to establish
protocols for joint involvement in decision-making to reinforce rejected parents’
rights as equal legal custodians, whether visits are occurring or not. Besides
legitimizing the role of rejected parents, the following sample orders address
aligned parents attempts to undermine and exclude rejected parents from
meaningful involvement in their children's lives. The unwillingness of an aligned
parent to share information and decision-making may be grounds for the court
18
to take these rights away. Conversely, the inability of rejected parents to
responsibly participate in these parental domains, even with structure and
support, may validate some concerns of the residential parent. In this case,
rejected parents’ legal custody rights may need to be restricted as well.
Sample Court Order:
Whenever a parent has received information regarding the children, e.g.,
academic progress reports, announcements of parent-teacher conferences,
notices regarding extra-curricular or sports activities, medical and dental
reports, etc., that parent shall provide a copy of the material to the other
parent. It should be sent in a timely manner, particularly if it is time
sensitive. If a parent receives an invitation for a child's party, that parent
shall immediately inform the other parent of this if the child will be in the
other parent's care, and ask that parent to follow up with
acknowledgement and ensuring the child’s attendance at the party.
Sample Court Order:
Unless otherwise agreed in advance, neither parent shall arrange for
activities with or for the children when such activities would occur during
the other parent's custodial period or necessitate any involvement of that
parent. Any activities mutually agreed upon shall be equally shared in
involvement and cost.
Sample Court Order:
The child's legal name (specify) shall be used in all purposes and settings,
including school, health and other legal situations.
19
Communication between parents. Protocols that encourage safe, written
interparental communication provide for parental disengagement (the parents
do not see or talk to each other), as well as accountability (i.e., a written
document is part of every communication) are very important.
Sample Court Order:
The parents shall use a logbook to communicate child-related information
between them that will transition with the child between households.
Notes from the parents should be child-focused and business-like, with no
personal attacks or editorial comments, and should be prefaced with "FYI
- for your information, no response needed" or, "Response Requested". If
a response is requested, the receiving parent should respond in a timely
manner, even if it to say they need more time. If there is no response in 7
days of receipt of the note, or by the time frame requested, the parent
requesting a reply can make the decision or take the action they desire.
Types of information that should be shared include health information
(status of illness, medications given), school and extracurricular activity
information (changes in schedule, upcoming events), and documents sent
(reports from school or others should be listed in the logbook). Incidents
that happened to the children should be noted to help the other parent
process such occurrences with the child. Please use the logbook in the
spirit of having a functional channel of communication between both of
you.
Sample Court Order:
Communication between Parents. The parents shall utilize e-mail or fax
when communicating with each other. Communication shall be only with
20
regard to the children and shall not include personal comments or
criticism. The communication shall carry essential information about
school, health care, activities, in a businesslike manner. Any coparenting
issues shall be reserved for the coparenting sessions with Dr. Smith. Time
sensitive or emergency matters can be communicated by telephone. The
children should not be used to communicate between the parents.
Relationships with third parties. Teachers, school administrators,
clergy, child care providers, health care professionals and others often become
used and embroiled in parental conflict. Some become strongly aligned with
particular parents, and increase children’s alienation from the other parent.
Court orders can prevent or diminish these problems.
Sample Court Order:
Neither parent shall schedule non-emergency health care without the
knowledge and consent of the other parent. The parent who takes the
child to routine health care appointments, or care of illnesses, should
inform the other parent immediately after such contact. The parents
should share their involvement in the child's health care, alternating
appointments, whenever possible. In case of emergencies, either parent
can seek emergency care, but will contact the other parent as soon as
reasonably possible to inform them of such care.
Support of therapeutic interventions. Protocols that provide expectations
for the establishment and working relationship with professionals involved with
21
the family are essential to encourage and monitor compliance with these
interventions.
Sample Court Order:
Counseling for a minor child. The parents will initiate counseling for the
child as soon as possible by following this procedure:
1) Mother will check her insurance for reimbursement and possible
preferred provider, and will inform Dr. Smith of these providers for his
referral suggestions.
2) Dr. Smith will provide a list of three providers for the parents to review
and investigate independently. They will rank order the list and provide it
to Dr. Smith, and may veto one name on the list.
3) Once assigned by Dr. Smith, both parents agree to be involved in the
counseling in an appropriate, shared manner, alternating taking the child
to appointments and following the directives of the counselor. They will
share equally the uninsured costs of that therapy. They will sign a release
of information for Dr. Smith and the therapist to consult as needed.
Sanctions and Enforcement of Court Orders. Detailed complete written
guidelines, dealing with all of the "business" that coparenting needs to
accomplish, together with a coparenting mediation and/or arbitration can
greatly reduce the destructive effects of chronically high levels of conflict and
preempt the need for sanctions. Initially, the parents must be disengaged from
each other to diminish conflict. Vague, limited, and ambiguous orders quickly
become exploited by parents to create conflict or mishaps. These can be
interpreted to the child by the aligned parent as another example of the
22
ineptness or dangerousness of the rejected parent. Work toward more functional
engagement can proceed slowly, assisted by coparenting counseling with the
parents.
Despite the court’s efforts to provide considerable structure for children’s
custody and access arrangements, and guidelines about coparenting issues, it is
often the case that one or both parents violate the court orders. Permitting
violations to occur are quite problematic as they tend to embolden the aligned
parent to further obstruct and undermine efforts to help the alienated child, and
also promote retaliation from the rejected parent who may be adhering to the
orders. Most importantly, violations tend to undermine the authority of the
Court and whoever is attempting to manage the case. There are problematic
downsides to the use of sanctions which should be considered in determining
how to deal with infractions. Administering sanctions tends to promote parents
“tattling on each other” to even the score, turning the case manager into a
referee. Sanctions can often take too long to levy and can often be too punitive
and heavy-handed. Sanctions can further alienate a child by making a martyr out
of the alienating parent and damaging the relationships with the sanctioner who
is viewed as taking sides. Most importantly, sanctions that involve the child or
custody (sometimes as extreme as hospitalization or incarceration) are rarely
based on the best interests of the child.
Sanctions are more effective when proactive, with specific consequences
for violations written into the order. This strategy helps depersonalize the role of
the sanctioner, who is simply upholding the agreements or orders that govern
the parent’s custody arrangement. This helps the case manager maintain the
working alliance with both parents so essential to longer-term effectiveness.
23
Consequences that are proportionate to the violation are also important.
Examples such as having to transport the child more than the agreement dictates
for violations involving transitions, providing additional make-up time for
obstructing the scheduled visitation, levying financial sanctions, including paying
the cost of investigating and ruling on the violation or paying more than a
parent’s fair share for therapeutic interventions may be effective. The following
suggestions can be incorporated into court orders:
1) Provide up-front written sanctions for violations of specific
orders. One can usually obtain parental agreement for how violations of orders
or agreements they make shall be handled. These sanctions can simply be the
last clause in a particular provision of the order, e.g., "Failure to … will result in
...." .
2) Provide language for consequences of arriving late to exchange a child.
Parents will often agree to adding the following type of consequences, “If a
parent fails to comply with the provisions of the order, they shall be responsible
for the child’s transportation for the next four (4) round trips.” This type of
provision requires a monitoring process to “rule” on any alleged violation and
impose the sanction as stipulated to by the parents.
3) Utilize professionals with particular expertise in child-related areas to
resolve hotly disputed issues between parents in those domains. Protocols can be
developed for how the issue is referred to that professional, what data is needed
and presented, and how findings are provided. Examples of such experts are
educational experts (for school placement issues), and health professionals (for
medical, dental, orthodontic, or mental health issues).
THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS
24
Therapeutic interventions must be backed by court authority, either through the
family court judicial officer or a designated, court-appointed professional. Any
professional serving in a quasi-judicial role, must have sufficient training to
develop a comprehensive understanding of the case dynamics (in consultation
with the evaluator), the time and availability for intensive case management and
the authority to monitor and enforce compliance with the intervention plan and
make adjustments to the residential access arrangement as appropriate. These
three components, understanding, availability, and authority are essential
components to supporting any therapeutic intervention. They can be combined
into one role or, when economically feasible if sufficient professional assistance is
available, can be provided by a collaborative team. Any therapist working with
the child or family members, however, should not be expected or empowered to
make recommendations or binding decisions for the family.
General Principles of Collaborative Team Functioning
When a child alienation case has more than one professional involved in
therapeutic interventions, attention to the team's structure and functioning is
especially important, because the polarities, distortions and attempts to divide
these professionals are quite strong. The following important considerations for
effective team functioning should be addressed in each case.
Confidentiality. Confidentiality in therapeutic relationships with family
members creates partial perspectives, which makes the therapy more susceptible
to the distortions, splitting and polarization noted above. Further, a closed
therapeutic process with an aligned or rejected parent can serve to validate and
reinforce destructive distortions. Informed consent contracts that begin the
treatment by waiving aspects of confidentiality are essential to treatment
25
progressing. Opening up specific information from the therapeutic process
relevant to parenting and coparenting issues is a powerful mechanism that
increases the productive collaboration of a professional team. Such limited
confidentiality agreements may come under scrutiny in litigation, and their
adherence to professional ethical codes have not been tested.
Sample Court Order:
Both parents will be engaged in individual therapy for the next 12 months,
and shall sign any release of confidentiality forms to permit the special
master and the parents’ therapists to consult about those aspects of
therapy relevant to parenting and coparenting issues. The therapists and
special master shall work as a team, and with notice to the parents, meet
together when necessary to assist parents in decreasing their conflict and
develop effective parenting and coparenting behaviors. The parents agree
to share the cost of meetings or telephone conferences between therapists
that are considered necessary to addressing the needs of the family.
Hierarchy and roles. Each team member needs to understand and
conduct themselves according to their agreed upon role in the family
intervention, including their relationship to other team members, their client(s)
and the legal process. The designated team leader generally helps to resolve
disputes among team members, and to communicate with the court. To protect
their therapeutic alliance with a family member, therapists should not take on
responsibility for decision-making about parenting schedules or other coparenting
issues. However, their input and views can be communicated,
preferably confidentially, to the decision-maker, who takes responsibility for
decisions, and works diligently to protect therapeutic relationships.
26
The following court order defines the relationship of a Special Master, co-parent
counselor, attorneys and other professionals involved in post-adjudication
interventions.
Sample Court Order:
Child custody issues shall be handled in the following manner:
a) The parents will initially meet twice monthly with the coparent
counselor to discuss issues that have come up. They will attempt to
resolve disputed issues in this setting, strongly considering the
consultation of the counselor. If issues are resolved, the counselor
will document the details to the parents in a follow-up letter, and
forward the approved letter to the special master or judge. Any
remaining disputed issues will be referred to the special master
(arbitrator), who will schedule a telephone conference or meeting
to resolve each issue.
b) Child-related disputes will not be formalized by attorneys
in letters or filed motions until the parents have followed the above
protocol. Parents can use their attorney for consultation at any
time. If decisions made by the special master are objected to, the
parents can then involve their attorneys in a more formal manner.
c) Professional involved with the children (teachers,
physicians, coaches, dentists/orthodontists, therapists) shall not be
engaged in disputes by the parents. Letters shall not be requested
of them, nor shall requests be made that they take a position on
disputed issues. If one or both parents want the special master to
consult with existing professionals or enlist the consultation of a
27
new professional to help resolve a dispute, this will be done
collaboratively.
Communication. A clear understanding about how team members will
communicate, consistent with court orders and confidentiality agreements is
necessary. Questions to be addressed are whether professionals can
communicate with each other over the phone, meet periodically in case
conferences, extent of documentation, and responsibility for payment. Also,
whether family members contact their team professionals by telephone,
exclusively in writing with a copy to others, or raise issues only in scheduled
sessions.
Keeping on track. Effective team functioning in child alienation cases
requires defining, updating, and reaching consensus in clinical goals, having
periodic case conferences, documenting each professional’s continuing role, and
ensuring that treatment is as cost-effective as possible. Differences in positions
regarding the case conceptualization, clinical goals or specific roles must be
resolved through case conferences and ultimately by the judicial decision-maker.
This may include not allowing a parent to fire a therapist, or terminating a team
professional if they are fueling the dynamics that support the child’s alienation. If
the professional has a strong working alignment with a parent or child in the
family, a better course is to help them reformulate their distorted perceptions, so
that their work with the team may continue. This change in the direction of a
therapist’s work can have a profound impact on their clients, whereas the fall-out
from "firing" a therapist can be a significant set-back to the overall therapeutic
intervention.
28
Linkage to the Authority of the Court. Either through direct channels to
the judicial officer, or delegation to a team leader (special master or coparenting
arbitrator), the ability to codify decisions and agreements as court orders is
essential. While the goal is to move the family outside of the legal system, it may
be necessary at times to have the case return to the judicial officer for review and
decision-making if the case is not progressing. This can be done more informally,
if the Family Court has case management processes available.
Building a Collaborative Team
The members of a team needed to address relevant family issues can be specified
by the evaluator, in consultation with the parents or attorneys. This should
include a consideration of what economic resources and skilled professionals are
available. Since economic resources often preclude providing the necessary
interventions to treat the child’s alienation, other approaches may be necessary,
such as appointing a publicly funded attorney or guardian ad lidem for the child.
In cases where the family needs far exceed the available professional and
economic resources, it may be necessary to state at the outset that the situation
may not be adequately addressed, but indicating nevertheless the priorities for
interventions in terms of Orders and professional(s) needed.
It is important to assess the effectiveness of professionals who are
currently involved in the case. It should be a serious concern to the court if a
child therapist, having never seen a rejected parent (because the child has been
brought to therapy by one parent), is advocating for no contact or offering
diagnoses of the (unseen) rejected parent. It would be generally impossible for
them to establish a working relationship with a rejected parent after having
assumed such a biased, advocacy stance. Aside from ethical violations probable
29
with this behavior, these therapists may be unwittingly reinforcing the alienation
of a child, and their involvement as therapists often need to be terminated.
The potential roles of collaborative team members are briefly presented
in the Appendix. Resources may dictate that these multiple roles be filled by a
single professional. However, working in this manner creates serious dilemmas
that may undermine the work of even the most skilled mental health
professional.
SPECIAL ISSUES IN CHILD ALIENATION
In some extreme cases, children’s alienation from a parent is so chronic,
internalized and entrenched that any intervention is likely to fail (Gardner, 1992,
Garrity & Barris, 1994, Johnston & Roseby, 1998). In general, the children are
older adolescents, and the cases involve multigenerational family issues,
significant personality pathology in the parent (s), and long-standing
reinforcement of the alienation in the surrounding family and professional
system. The choices in these cases may be limited to structural interventions that
effectively designate the custody to one of the parents or neither. They include
changing custody to rejected parents for a temporary period or permanently,
working with rejected parents to let go of pursuing contact with the child, at least
on a temporary basis (see Johnston et al, this issue), and (3) placing the child
outside the custody of either parent, for example in a boarding school. The latter
choice is a less common one, but may provide the least detrimental alternative
for the adolescent in the long term. There are specific issues to be considered in
recommending these alternatives in chronic and severe alienation cases.
Changing Custody to Rejected Parents. Changes in custody should not be based
solely on the child’s alienation, but rather by those customary factors that would
30
lead to recommend removal from or supervision of contact with residential
parents, including the child’s alienation. Such parent factors include severe clinical
pathology in the residential parent (DSM-IV Axis I or II), Munchausen's by proxy
(Klajner-Diamond, et.al., 1987), parental neglect and/or abuse. In child alienation
cases, this includes also making repeated and unsubstantiated allegations of
abuse about the rejected parent, and child abduction. As stated earlier, a pattern
of refusal to comply with clearly specified court orders for contact, therapy, and
communication with the rejected parent would also constitute a basis for
changing custody. For children, factors would include severe psychological
dysfunction (DSM-IV Axis I disorders), antisocial development and evidence of
emotional trauma due to neglect and/or abuse. In such cases, changing custody
and recommending supervised contact with the custodial parent should be
strongly considered. In cases in which children are functioning reasonably well in
most domains of their life, including school, peer relationships, and their
relationships with the aligned parent, a change in custody is not generally
recommended. The "pathology" of these children is circumscribed to their
alienation from the rejected parent and may be serving as an adaptive defense
for an untenable loyalty conflict.
The psycho-social functioning of the rejected parent is often neglected in a
recommendation to change custody. If severe alienation on the part of a
custodial parent has been substantiated, it is necessary to consider whether the
rejected parent has an adequate capacity to parent. In some cases, changing
custody has resulted in an adverse outcome for children because the new
custodial parent had very limited abilities to parent. Some parents also
31
encourage the child to reject the former custodial parent in retaliation for what
was done to them.
Changing custody cannot be considered the ultimate "solution", as there is
still a mandate to work with the alienating parent, whose behaviors may
sabotage the custody transfer. Further, some children experience a change of
custody of as abrupt and wrenching separation from the parent with whom the
child had a primary relationship, and work must be focused on the potentially
traumatic nature of this situation (Johnston & Roseby, 1988). Where the child has
an unhealthy primary attachment to the aligned parent, an interim step of
instituting shared physical custody is often helpful in making the transition to full
custody to the rejected, healthier parent. Also, a change of custody does not
resolve the intense anger and acting out (e.g., running away or self-destructive
acts, including suicide attempts) that the new, still vilified custodial parent must
deal with.
Helping Rejected Parents Let Go of their Active Pursuit of a Relationship. In
chronic and very severe alienation, it is sometimes impossible to help rejected
parents restore a viable relationship with their children, despite repeated wellconceived
interventions to address the alienation. Some older children simply
refuse all contact and all treatment efforts. In such instances, interventions that
"punish" the child (and aligned parent) by placing them in criminal facilities are
clearly not in their best interest. Even placement of children in mental health
facilities is not warranted solely by the existence of alienation. In some of the
most entrenched cases, forcing reunification is not indicated and, indeed, is not
possible. Alternatively, after exhausting all avenues, including years of litigation,
one approach is a carefully crafted therapeutic session with the rejected parent
32
and the child. In this strategic intervention, the rejected parent tells the child that
she/he will no longer fight through legal channels to try to restore the
relationship, that she/he loves the child and wishes they could be together again,
but sees that currently that is not possible for the child. The rejected parent
expresses his/her sadness, invites the child to call or write him/her anytime in
the future when he would like to have contact, and withdraws. It is
advantageous for the parent to give the child the same message in writing, as
well as in person.
Placing the Child in a Residential Setting. In some extremely entrenched cases,
the least detrimental alternative for older children and adolescents may be to
find a placement outside the custody of either parent. Criteria for this are as
follows: (1) the child, usually an adolescent, is functioning quite poorly, (2)
alienation is occurring, either unilaterally by the aligned parent, or by both
parents in a more shared physical custody, (3) there is intense, chronic conflict
between the parents which is damaging the child, (4) the placement option,
usually a boarding school, can provide a positive, conflict-free environment,
ideally with some regular therapeutic component, and (5) the array of
interventions recommended in this article have been attempted and failed, or are
not available.
Contrary to what is often asserted by child custody experts and parental
alienation advocacy groups, there is little empirical research evidence to support
any one specific intervention, such as changing custody, in the severe, chronic
cases (Ellis, 2000). Further, there is no empirical data that indicates whether
entrenched alienation, and total permanent rejection of a biological parent, has
long-term deleterious effects on children's psychological development. While
33
one can speculate that this aberrant development would adversely affect the
child, research is needed to determine the type and extent of impact. Similarly,
there is clinical support but no empirical research demonstrating that by "letting
go" of the relationship, the rejected parent and child will at some later time
reconcile and restore the relationship. Research investigating the effectiveness of
the many interventions and court orders recommended in this article is critical if
we are to advance our understanding and refine our work with these families
with an alienated child.
References
Ellis, E.M., (2000) Divorce Wars: Interventions with families in conflict.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gardner, R. (1992) Parental alienation syndrome. Cresskill, NJ: Creative
Therapeutics.
Garrity, C., & Barris, M. (1994) Caught in the Middle. New York: Lexington.
Johnston, J., Campbell, L. (1988) Impasses of Divorce: The dynamics and
resolution of family conflict. New York: Free Press.
Johnston, J. (1993) Children of divorce who refuse visitation. In C. E Depner &
J.H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresidential parenting : New vistas in family living
(pp.109-135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnston, J.R. & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child: A developmental
approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent
34
divorce. New York: Free Press.
Johnston, J., et.al. (2001) Therapeutic work with alienated children and their
families. Family and conciliation courts review.
Kelly, J. and Johnston, J. (2001) , the Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental
Alienation Syndrome. Family and Conciliation Courts Review.
Klajner-Diamond, H., Wehrspann, W., & Steinhauer, P. (1987) Assessing the
credibility of young children’s allegation of sexual abuse: Clinical issues.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 610-614.
Lee, S.M. ((1995) Special Masters in custody cases. Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts Newsletter, Vol. 14.
Lee, S.M., et.al. (2001) Assessing for alienation in child custody/access
evaluations. Family and conciliation courts review
Lund, M. (1995) A therapist’s view of parental alienation syndrome. Family and
Conciliation Courts Review, 33 308-316.
Sullivan, M.J., (1997) Have a Problem? Hire a special master as decision-maker.
Family Advocate, 21, 41-44.
35
Appendix - Potential Roles on Collaborative Teams
The Judicial officer. As indicated earlier, the continuity of a family court judge
providing legal case management and readily accessible decision-making is
essential to the success of the case. Having a judge who understands the legal
history and complexities of an alienation case often prevents a disgruntled parent
from initiating endless re-litigation.
The special master or coparenting arbitrator. This court-appointed role, filled by
either an experienced mental health or legal professional, is best suited for team
leadership. If authorized by the court, the Special Master can take on numerous
functions, including child-specific decision-making, case management, further
assessment as needed, structural interventions that are legally binding, and
immediate conflict resolution through mediation, negotiation and other
settlement strategies.
The child therapist. This mental health professional establishes a confidential
relationship with the child, focused on the dynamics of the child’s alienation.
They may see the child individually, or additionally, may do conjoint coparenting
counseling with the parents in their treatment (see Johnston et al, this issue).
36
The parents’ therapists. If parents have therapists, they must be part of the
collaborative team. While this necessitates some modification of traditional
confidentiality (see earlier discussion), having parents’ therapists participate in a
team conference can be the most potent family intervention in the case. Not
surprisingly, the dynamics at the professional level often parallel and reinforce
the dynamics at the family level, and until these are explored and resolved (with
the team leader acting as "systems therapist" to the professionals), progress will
be limited.
The co-parent counselor. This professional does not have formal child-related
decision-making authority, but should document agreements that the parents
make in their sessions. The co-parent counselor provides a structured forum to
begin more constructive parental engagement (see Johnston, et al, this issue).
The focus with parents includes psycho-education to build empathy for the child
and each other's position, sorting out concerns and addressing legitimate ones,
building communication skills and more functional problem-solving, and
assisting in parental decision-making. The counselor can work both conjointly
and separately with the parents separately, and must be well informed by the
existing court orders in the case. It is quite helpful to have mediation training and
experience to take on this role.
The parents’ attorneys. The parents’ attorneys, by virtue of their advocacy
stance and limited perspectives, may exacerbate alienation processes (see Kelly &
Johnston, this issue). Their support of and involvement with the team, through
their relationship with the team leader, may be essential to progress. Attorneys
often have a strong alliance with their clients that can be a benefit or a liability to
clinical goals in alienation cases. Their understanding and involvement with the
37

Do not duplicate
Reprinted from Family Court Review
Vol.39 No.3, July 2001 pp.299-315
LEGAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF CASES
WITH AN ALIENATED CHILD
Matthew Sullivan and Joan B. Kelly
When cases enter the court system with allegations of child alienation,
special legal and clinical management is critical. Starting with initial intake into
the family court, throughout the custody evaluation phase, and after the final
court decision, the use of certain principles and interventions designed to deal
with these difficult cases, will enable the legal system and family to function
more effectively. These interventions must proceed in the face of some
uncertainty about allegations of parental misconduct, and whether the child’s
rejection of a parent is based on the behaviors of a parent that alienates a child 1
from the other parent, or behaviors on the part of the rejected parent that
realistically estrange a child from that same parent. As is described elsewhere in
this issue (Kelly and Johnston, 2001), the child’s rejection of a parent is often the
result of many factors, including the behaviors of each parent, high conflict
between the parents, and the influence of the adversarial process, attorneys and
therapists which envelope and impact the family in the post-separation context.
This article provides principles for conceptualizing and implementing
1 The alienated child is defined as a child who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable
negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and fear) towards a parent that are
significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent. It should be
understood that “child” can mean “children”. The dynamics of the sibling subsystem as it relates
to alienation is important, but beyond the scope of this paper.
2
interventions in these cases, followed by interventions specific to early and
interim management, evaluation, and post-decree court-ordered management
and treatment.
PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE INTERVENTIONS IN CHILD ALIENATION
CASES
Continuity in Case Management
The interpersonal alignments and polarized negative views that are
present in these cases are powerful forces that may lead to the termination not
only of parent-child relationships, but also of relationships among extended
family, therapists, attorneys and family court personnel. Individuals often
become aligned with one of the parents, and are quickly rejected by the parent
who perceives them as disagreeing with their views. Thus, it is essential in these
high conflict cases that the legal and mental health professionals have their roles
protected as part of an explicit court appointment, ensuring the continuity so
essential to effective interventions.
Judicial Officers. One judge should be assigned to these cases as they
enter the court process (direct-calendering). This assures continuity in decisionmaking
about early intervention, assessment and later interventions, including
treatment. As information emerges that clarifies what factors are contributing to
the child’s alienation, the benefits of having the same judicial officer manage the
case are enormous. After the case completes normal Family Court process,
including, if necessary, trial, the judicial case management function can be
delegated to a mediator-arbitrator, if sufficient resources are available (Lee, 1995,
Sullivan, 1998).
3
Custody Evaluators. Evaluators can help to ensure continuity of the
professionals who will be working with the family. They can do this by
recommending the specific types of interventions that are needed, protocols for
selecting professionals, and the conditions under which professionals can be
terminated from the case. To ensure a smooth transition between evaluation and
treatment phases, the evaluator needs to communicate his/her findings directly
to the professionals who will be intervening with the family. He/she needs to
make specific recommendations for how treating professionals should consult
and coordinate with one another on an ongoing basis. Without such precautions,
it is likely that the alienation processes will undermine the work of the
professionals as interventions proceed.
Continuity of Contact between the Child and Rejected Parent and Timely
Decision-Making
There should be a presumption that parent-child contact will continue (or
be initiated) if alienation of a child is suspected. When there is no access between
the child and rejected parent, the child's resistance to visit often becomes more
entrenched. Delays in court hearing and deferred judicial decisions contribute
greatly to the problem. Aligned parents often intensify their efforts to obstruct
and undermine contact with the rejected parent as the case enters Family Court
(Johnston, 1993). It is also common that the alienated child will more
vociferously voice their hatred and opposition to any visitation while the case is
under investigation. This heightened resistance should not influence the decision
about whether contact should occur. In many cases, despite vehement
opposition to visiting, the child then has a benign or positive experience of
visiting with the rejected parent.
4
Besides the benefit of protecting the relationship, however precarious,
between a rejected parent and child, such visits, even if monitored, provide
useful data about many factors, including (1) the aligned parent’s attitudes and
behaviors, e.g., do they encourage and support the visits or do they use a variety
of tactics to obstruct or undermine access, including being late or failing to show
up for scheduled visits, or bringing the child tired or hungry; (2) the child’s
response to the visits, e.g., do they protest, do they become more comfortable
as the visit proceeds, do they negatively distort the experience of the visit and (3)
the behaviors of the rejected parent, e.g., what are their parenting sensitivities
and behaviors, how do they handle the child’s rejection.
Both Parents Are Responsible for the Resolution of Child Alienation
When a child is alienated, the focus, and burden for progress, is most
often placed on the rejected parent or on the relationship between the rejected
parent and the child. The negative impact of such well-meaning interventions can
be overt, e.g., subjecting alienated parents to the humiliation of having restricted
visits with their child in a supervised visitation setting, or it may be subtle, for
example, mandating or allowing rejected parents to pay all the costs of
“supervised visitation” or "reunification therapy". Aligned parents’ roles in the
problem and their need to have equal responsibility for active support of a
resolution to the problem is most often ignored. A clear mandate for support,
with a threat of court sanctions if alienating behavior persists, is essential to the
intervention process. These sanctions may include financial payments or
enforcement of an Order that the aligned parent’s primary legal or physical
custody is conditional on supporting therapy and facilitating reasonable access.
5
Similarly, extended family and professionals may support and consolidate
the alienation. For example, it is not unusual that children’s therapists fuel the
alienation, through involvement with only the aligned parent, inappropriate
advocacy to the court, or reinforcing negative distortions in the child (Lund,
1995). Appropriate responsibility for therapists’ conduct in addressing the
alienation should be part of any custody recommendation and interventions.
Clear, Detailed and Enforceable Orders
The contact between a rejected parent and child must be court-ordered,
with very clear parameters specifying how, when and where visits occur.
Ambiguous orders with insufficient detail provide fertile ground for conflict and
acting out, thereby undermining and sabotaging well-intentioned interventions.
The alienated child and the aligned parent should NOT have discretion about
whether visits occur. The goal, however, is to set up a feasible arrangement, one
that the child can tolerate. The child can be invited to share what activities would
make the contact more acceptable, with the underlying premise that the visit will
occur. Once the contact is clearly determined, more proactive management of
visits can occur, anticipating that there will be undermining, challenge and
opposition to them.
Regardless of the temporary physical custody structure, both parents
should have the legal authority to share important decisions in their child’s life.
In alienation cases, rejected parents have often not only had their physical
contact obstructed, but they have effectively lost their legal custody rights as
well. Early court orders can be provided that mandate information sharing and
shared decision-making. An appropriate burden can be placed on aligned
parents to inform rejected parents of important education, health and social
6
domains. Specific orders should prohibit aligned parents from making any
unilateral decisions regarding children’s health care (especially therapy),
education, travel, and formally scheduled extracurricular activities (sports, music,
scouting, etc.) that would interfere with the other parent’s scheduled times with
the child.
Manage, Minimize, and Avoid Conflict
Interparental conflict polarizes parental positions and strengthens
children’s solidarity with the aligned parent (Johnston & Campbell, 1988).
Children commonly interpret conflict as caused by the rejected parent, and as
abusive and victimizing of the aligned parent (and by extension, the child). This
distortion occurs despite the reality of the dynamics of the conflict. Conflict can
be best managed initially through structures in the court order that disengage
the parents. Such orders can include transitions that do not involve face-to-face
contact, automatic default arrangements such as which parent selects the first
vacation period each year, how holidays alternate, alternating attendance at child
activities, etc., and by having a mediation/arbitration process established to
resolve disputes in an efficient and timely manner as soon as they arise.
Monitor Court Orders Closely to Assure Compliance and Address Violations
Immediately
The authority of the court and court-ordered professionals will be
weakened in the eyes of the child and aligned parent if visits and other mandates
of the court are ignored or sabotaged. It is important to anticipate a variety of
tactics employed to undermine orders, ranging from exploiting the ambiguity
and “gray areas” in court orders to flagrant violation of orders to prevent
visitation or therapy designed to promote contact. The enforceability of orders
7
and monitoring systems linked to the authority of the court that can address
violations quickly and effectively are crucial.
PHASES OF CASE MANAGEMENT IN ALIENATION CASES
Initial and Preventive Interventions
The Court can promote safe parent-child contact with a rejected parent
while an evaluative process is undertaken through effective early and potentially
preventive interventions. Sometimes, these firm but less intrusive initial
interventions actually resolve the impasses that led the child to reject the parent.
In any case, the outcome of these interventions provides useful information to
evaluators and decision-makers as the case proceeds. Considerable discretion to
try a number of approaches to solve the immediate problems and remove
concrete barriers to child access can be given on an interim basis to a family court
service counselor or private therapist well versed in handling these cases.
The Court can mandate therapeutically expedited contact sessions that
initiate or maintain access between rejected parent and child in a safe, observant
framework. This concept of facilitated contact is preferred to that of “supervised
visits” in order not to stigmatize the rejected parent. Labels such as “supervisor”
or “visit monitor” reinforce the allegations of dangerousness made against the
rejected parent, unlike more neutral terms such as "access facilitator". The
framing of this work must achieve a delicate "holding" of the family members
such that the rejected parent, aligned parent, and the child are reassured that
they will be "protected": the rejected parent from false allegations; the alienating
parent from legitimate concerns about their child; and the child from any harm.
Ideally, these interventions begin by establishing contact in a facilitated session
8
between rejected parent and child, and negotiate a step-wise expansion of visits
as appropriate until the visits are independent of the sessions.
Two or three sessions with the family can address several common issues
in milder cases of child alienation that may quickly lead to appropriate child
access. Providing a safe, neutral place with a supportive, experienced person to
facilitate the child’s transition between parents can regulate access, monitor the
behavior of parents and child alike, and provide ways to make visits less stressful
and more manageable for the child and parents alike.
Early court orders can address another common problem, that of
repeated intrusion into rejected parents’ visits by custodial parents that block
any change in the parent-child relationship and creates anxiety in the child. As a
rule, there should be no telephone contact with the aligned parent during brief
visits and limited contact during longer visits. With younger children this can be
mandated and effective; older children may initiate calls, despite prohibitions and
if so, this should be discussed in the therapeutic contact sessions.
Initially, these facilitated visits can be quite challenging for rejected parents
if children engage in provocative behaviors, including sullen opposition to any
engagement, or angry attacks on the rejected parent and strident opposition to
the visit. Some coaching and psycho-education about handling difficult behaviors
can assist rejected parents and children move beyond this testing phase (see
Johnston et al, 2001). Similarly, these early sessions can be used to discuss any
“critical incidents” involving perceived or real problematic conduct on the part of
the rejected parent which are given as reason for refusal to visit.
The access facilitator should be appointed by the court, and expected to
provide documentation and feedback to the court (or evaluator, if the case is
9
proceeding to a custody evaluation). Although the non-confidentiality of this
structure has some negative aspects, the accountability for both parents that
occurs when they know that their conduct will be reported to the court directly
(or indirectly, through an evaluator), provides significant strategic leverage. In
addition, the observations of access facilitators as they attempt to intervene in
the family system are invaluable to the evaluator in making recommendations
about child custody issues for the court.
Another role of initial interventions by a judge, family court counselor or
a private therapist is a triage function. When child alienation cases are processed
as more routine custody disputes, with little active intervention as they enter the
family court process, the risk of serious harm to the child is considerable. If
allegations of child abuse are presented, the case should be referred to Child
Protective Services for immediate assessment of the validity of those allegations.
If they are considered unfounded, alienation may be occurring. Another
objective of this initial triaging is to assess what types of professional assistance
the family needs, what resources are available in the community, and whether
the family or court has sufficient economic resources available for such help.
Recommendations for assistance that are not cognizant of economic realities do
not serve families’ interests, unless family court staff are knowledgeable and
available to intervene and/or low fee community resources with knowledgeable
staff are available. When there are sufficient resources, aligned parents are often
resistant to devoting any resources to assist the relationship between their
children and rejected parents.
If professional interventions are recommended, a court-ordered role such
as parenting coordinator, special master, or facilitated access therapist can be
10
effective if put in place early. For example, the family might stipulate to a timelimited
special master while an evaluation is going on, with limited powers to
expedite contact and coordinate among individuals, including professionals. It is
not helpful to have too many professionals involved before a comprehensive
evaluation has been completed. Without a unifying formulation for professionals
to coordinate their interventions, the risk of polarization is substantial. Finally, A
child should NEVER be taken to a therapist on the request of only one parent.
An initial order should specify that both parents must stipulate or obtain a court
order to initiate contact between a child and therapist.
Sample Court Order:
Neither parent will unilaterally initiate or terminate any mental health
evaluation or treatment for the children. The parents shall have the
Special Master assist in the selection of any mental health professional
who works with the children. Any information regarding the children
from that treatment shall be made available to both parents. Both parents
will respect the confidentiality of child therapy and will contact the other
parent to transport the children to their appointments in the event that
they are unable to. The parents will optimize insurance benefits and share
the uninsured cost of any treatment.
Based on the case management principles articulated above, and the initial and
preventive interventions described, the child’s alienation may be resolved or
ameliorated. They are the most cost effective interventions to implement in both
time and expense on a short and longer-term basis. But even if there is no
resultant change in the family system, these interventions are essential for
11
further interim case management in all cases as the case proceeds through
evaluation and court processes.
Case Management of the Evaluation Process
Case management during an evaluation process should normally be provided
by the judicial officer or his/her designee to assure timeliness, comprehensive
scope, and appropriate carryover on interventions which follow evaluation (Lee
and Olesen, 2001). The following guidelines for case management address these
issues.
1) Assessments/evaluations should only be done by a court-ordered-neutral
evaluator, who has clear authority and directives from the court. Two
experts, hired by each parent, normally further polarize the case.
2) Timeliness is critical when a child is alienated. The appointment of the
evaluator should include specific timelines for completion. Evaluations that
take longer than 6-8 weeks, and court procedures that delay processing the
evaluation once the report is complete, allow for further entrenchment of a
child’s alienation.
3) Case management should assure continuity in the transition from evaluation
to any further intervention. Court processes that follow evaluation
(settlement conferences, further litigation, and trial) often reduce or change
the evaluator's recommendations and therefore the effectiveness of the
interventions that follow. At a minimum, the full report should be read by all
professionals who will be involved in interventions. Ideally, the evaluator
should be directly involved in selecting and initially consulting with any legal
12
or mental health professionals or intervention "teams", and Court orders can
increase the likelihood of this occurring.
Sample Court Order:
The (family member) shall engage in therapy with a licensed therapist to
be selected with the approval of the evaluator. The mother/father will
provide a list of names covered under existing insurance as soon as
possible to the evaluator. The evaluator will review this list and provide
three names (not necessarily names on the father's/mother’s list) to the
parent, who will select and engage in therapy within two weeks of
notification of these potential therapists. If the father/mother terminates
therapy without consent of the therapist, that therapist will provide notice
of the termination immediately to Family Court.
Sample Court Order:
The parents shall be involved in coparenting counseling twice monthly or
as necessary to help with information flow, decision-making, and the
practical and logistical issues of sharing custody. They will contact and
rank their three preferences for a coparenting counselor and send their list
to the evaluator, who will use both rankings to select this counselor. Upon
notification of the selection, they will arrange an initial appointment
within two weeks.
Sample Court Order:
The parents agree to the following conditions for these therapeutic
interventions:
a) That the evaluator will consult with each therapist to orient
13
them to the case and the goals of treatment, prior to the onset of
treatment.
b) That the (named therapists) will form a treatment team,
consulting with each other and the evaluator and coordinating their
efforts. The parents agree to sign any releases and pay fees
necessary for face-to-face or telephone consultation between the
parent's therapists and the co-parent counselor.
4) These cases benefit from periodic brief re-evaluations to determine if
changes in custody and access arrangements are warranted and to evaluate the
progress and work of the professionals involved. The parent who is most
disappointed by the initial evaluation will predictably object to the same
evaluator providing re-evaluation, so court orders at the initiation of the case are
helpful to assure that the involvement of the same evaluator is safeguarded. If
this is not possible, the first evaluator’s work should be fully available to the next
evaluator.
Case Management After Evaluation and Judicial Decision-Making
Judicial decision-making and court orders at the completion of evaluation
are rarely the end of the family court involvement in alienation cases (Garrity &
Barris, 1994, Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Both structural interventions (orders
about timeshare, transitions, communication, other coparenting structures, and
enforcement) and therapeutic interventions (appropriate individual and conjoint
modalities) are usually needed and court review may be necessary to ensure
implementation.
Access Arrangements and Transitions
14
Orders that clearly define access arrangements remove some of the
precariousness and unpredictability of the custody situation that enables aligned
parents’ to undermine rejected parents’ relationships with their children. Fear of
loss of custody, and associated economic anxieties, can be addressed by a clear
order about the timeshare and be quite reassuring to the aligned parent. For
rejected parents, clearly specifying the expected time with their children
establishes and legitimizes their parental rights. Non-custodial parents who are
being rejected need to understand that custody decisions cannot be used to
punish the aligned parent for his/her behavior. Instead, the goal is to structure,
support and enforce a custody and access arrangement that will best meet the
child’s developmental needs. Parents should not have any discretion to change
the access arrangement. Special guidelines for access include:
1) Gradually increasing the amount of time with rejected parents if the
timeshare has been quite limited. These expansions should not be
determined by therapists working with family members, as this dual-role
may undermine their work. Using evaluators’ recommendations or
judicial decisions, the court should structure these increases. Expectations
about a more permanent access schedule should be provided, as well as a
specific plan for when the increases take place. Such court orders are quite
helpful to family members and professionals alike, as they focus on
implementing the parenting plan, rather than determining whether or
when the access will increase.
2) Provide longer blocks of time with the rejected parent, sometimes
more than what is normally recommended for children of that age. Single
days or weekend visits often do not provide sufficient time for rejected
15
parents and children to have a productive experience free of the influence
of aligned parents. Children most often arrive emotionally shut-down
and suspicious, and generally become more guarded and hostile as they
anticipate going back to aligned parents at the end of the visit. Making use
of extended times in the summer or holidays can provide the necessary
duration of time to repair and build relationship free of destructive
influence.
Sample Court Order:
Plan for establishing alternate weekend visitation. The child will
immediately (provide date) begin visiting the parent on alternate Sundays
from 10:00am to 6:00pm. This schedule will increase to weekly Saturday
and Sunday visits from 10:00am-6:00pm, beginning on the 4th two-week
cycle. A Saturday overnight will be added following two additional
weekly visits, to increase visits from 10:00am Saturday to 6:00pm Sunday.
Alternate weekends will commence after the 2nd Saturday overnight. They
will begin on Fridays at 6pm or pick-up from school or after school
activities and end on Monday morning with drop-off at school/day care.
Blocking intrusions from the aligned parent. A common behavior of
aligned parents is to contact their children frequently (sometimes a dozen or
more times a day) or to instruct their children to call them regularly during their
visit. The impact of this contact is severely undermining of rejected parents’
attempts to restore a normal relationship with their children. Court orders may
contain explicit regulation of such contact, and the perceived need for the
frequent calls and the negative impact on treatment goals should be a focus of
the therapeutic work. For example, the court order might begin with a strict
16
limitation on, and specification of, time and length of calls, with progressive
elimination of contact. During brief visits, phone calls may be prohibited from
the start.
Blocking aligned parents’ ability to unreasonably obstruct scheduled visits.
Orders can require physician documentation of a child's illness that would
interfere with scheduled visits. Other requests to change a visit due to a special
circumstance can be made contingent upon immediate make-up provisions. In
addition to providing rejected parents with explicit permission in the court order
to be involved in the child’s extracurricular activities, injunctions can also prevent
the aligned parent from scheduling alternative activities such that children must
choose between a favored activity and visits with the rejected, non-custodial
parent.
Avoid face-to-face transitions between parents. The use of neutral,
conflict-free settings, such as school or day care, are ideal as they include a buffer
of several hours where a child has not seen either parent. Extended family,
friends, or caregivers who are more neutral, and have a good relationship with
the child, can also be utilized. Aside from the benefits to children, these contexts
provide more neutral adult observation of the transition, and provide useful data
about the conduct of parents and children. Unsubstantiated charges of lateness,
abuse, or hostility thus do not have fertile ground to fuel more conflict.
Sometimes a therapeutic setting is necessary for the transition between parents
until the child's resistance decreases.
If transitions must occur at either parent's residence, specific behavioral
protocols to assure disengagement and facilitate enforcement, if violations occur,
can build a predictable non-stressful transition in many cases.
17
Sample Court Order:
Transitions at the parent's residence. Transitions shall take place
curbside, with the following guidelines: the parent will arrive no earlier
and no later than 15 minutes around the specified time. The receiving
parent shall ring the doorbell (or call on a cell phone) upon arrival, and
then move back to the curbside. The other parent shall have the child
ready and say good-bye inside the house, sending her alone to the
curbside. There shall be no interaction between the parents or with any
other individuals present. The transition, from the receiving parent's
announcement of arrival shall take no longer than 2 minutes.
A common tactic used by aligned parents is to request that law
enforcement be present for transitions, alleging that there is some potential
harm if a residential exchange is necessary. The use of law enforcement officers
in these cases is strongly discouraged, and other means to appropriately handle
legitimate concerns about violence can be utilized. Police presence exacerbates
children’s anxieties during transitions, alienating them further from rejected
parents who are viewed as the reason for such precautions.
Information exchange and decision-making. It is important to establish
protocols for joint involvement in decision-making to reinforce rejected parents’
rights as equal legal custodians, whether visits are occurring or not. Besides
legitimizing the role of rejected parents, the following sample orders address
aligned parents attempts to undermine and exclude rejected parents from
meaningful involvement in their children's lives. The unwillingness of an aligned
parent to share information and decision-making may be grounds for the court
18
to take these rights away. Conversely, the inability of rejected parents to
responsibly participate in these parental domains, even with structure and
support, may validate some concerns of the residential parent. In this case,
rejected parents’ legal custody rights may need to be restricted as well.
Sample Court Order:
Whenever a parent has received information regarding the children, e.g.,
academic progress reports, announcements of parent-teacher conferences,
notices regarding extra-curricular or sports activities, medical and dental
reports, etc., that parent shall provide a copy of the material to the other
parent. It should be sent in a timely manner, particularly if it is time
sensitive. If a parent receives an invitation for a child's party, that parent
shall immediately inform the other parent of this if the child will be in the
other parent's care, and ask that parent to follow up with
acknowledgement and ensuring the child’s attendance at the party.
Sample Court Order:
Unless otherwise agreed in advance, neither parent shall arrange for
activities with or for the children when such activities would occur during
the other parent's custodial period or necessitate any involvement of that
parent. Any activities mutually agreed upon shall be equally shared in
involvement and cost.
Sample Court Order:
The child's legal name (specify) shall be used in all purposes and settings,
including school, health and other legal situations.
19
Communication between parents. Protocols that encourage safe, written
interparental communication provide for parental disengagement (the parents
do not see or talk to each other), as well as accountability (i.e., a written
document is part of every communication) are very important.
Sample Court Order:
The parents shall use a logbook to communicate child-related information
between them that will transition with the child between households.
Notes from the parents should be child-focused and business-like, with no
personal attacks or editorial comments, and should be prefaced with "FYI
- for your information, no response needed" or, "Response Requested". If
a response is requested, the receiving parent should respond in a timely
manner, even if it to say they need more time. If there is no response in 7
days of receipt of the note, or by the time frame requested, the parent
requesting a reply can make the decision or take the action they desire.
Types of information that should be shared include health information
(status of illness, medications given), school and extracurricular activity
information (changes in schedule, upcoming events), and documents sent
(reports from school or others should be listed in the logbook). Incidents
that happened to the children should be noted to help the other parent
process such occurrences with the child. Please use the logbook in the
spirit of having a functional channel of communication between both of
you.
Sample Court Order:
Communication between Parents. The parents shall utilize e-mail or fax
when communicating with each other. Communication shall be only with
20
regard to the children and shall not include personal comments or
criticism. The communication shall carry essential information about
school, health care, activities, in a businesslike manner. Any coparenting
issues shall be reserved for the coparenting sessions with Dr. Smith. Time
sensitive or emergency matters can be communicated by telephone. The
children should not be used to communicate between the parents.
Relationships with third parties. Teachers, school administrators,
clergy, child care providers, health care professionals and others often become
used and embroiled in parental conflict. Some become strongly aligned with
particular parents, and increase children’s alienation from the other parent.
Court orders can prevent or diminish these problems.
Sample Court Order:
Neither parent shall schedule non-emergency health care without the
knowledge and consent of the other parent. The parent who takes the
child to routine health care appointments, or care of illnesses, should
inform the other parent immediately after such contact. The parents
should share their involvement in the child's health care, alternating
appointments, whenever possible. In case of emergencies, either parent
can seek emergency care, but will contact the other parent as soon as
reasonably possible to inform them of such care.
Support of therapeutic interventions. Protocols that provide expectations
for the establishment and working relationship with professionals involved with
21
the family are essential to encourage and monitor compliance with these
interventions.
Sample Court Order:
Counseling for a minor child. The parents will initiate counseling for the
child as soon as possible by following this procedure:
1) Mother will check her insurance for reimbursement and possible
preferred provider, and will inform Dr. Smith of these providers for his
referral suggestions.
2) Dr. Smith will provide a list of three providers for the parents to review
and investigate independently. They will rank order the list and provide it
to Dr. Smith, and may veto one name on the list.
3) Once assigned by Dr. Smith, both parents agree to be involved in the
counseling in an appropriate, shared manner, alternating taking the child
to appointments and following the directives of the counselor. They will
share equally the uninsured costs of that therapy. They will sign a release
of information for Dr. Smith and the therapist to consult as needed.
Sanctions and Enforcement of Court Orders. Detailed complete written
guidelines, dealing with all of the "business" that coparenting needs to
accomplish, together with a coparenting mediation and/or arbitration can
greatly reduce the destructive effects of chronically high levels of conflict and
preempt the need for sanctions. Initially, the parents must be disengaged from
each other to diminish conflict. Vague, limited, and ambiguous orders quickly
become exploited by parents to create conflict or mishaps. These can be
interpreted to the child by the aligned parent as another example of the
22
ineptness or dangerousness of the rejected parent. Work toward more functional
engagement can proceed slowly, assisted by coparenting counseling with the
parents.
Despite the court’s efforts to provide considerable structure for children’s
custody and access arrangements, and guidelines about coparenting issues, it is
often the case that one or both parents violate the court orders. Permitting
violations to occur are quite problematic as they tend to embolden the aligned
parent to further obstruct and undermine efforts to help the alienated child, and
also promote retaliation from the rejected parent who may be adhering to the
orders. Most importantly, violations tend to undermine the authority of the
Court and whoever is attempting to manage the case. There are problematic
downsides to the use of sanctions which should be considered in determining
how to deal with infractions. Administering sanctions tends to promote parents
“tattling on each other” to even the score, turning the case manager into a
referee. Sanctions can often take too long to levy and can often be too punitive
and heavy-handed. Sanctions can further alienate a child by making a martyr out
of the alienating parent and damaging the relationships with the sanctioner who
is viewed as taking sides. Most importantly, sanctions that involve the child or
custody (sometimes as extreme as hospitalization or incarceration) are rarely
based on the best interests of the child.
Sanctions are more effective when proactive, with specific consequences
for violations written into the order. This strategy helps depersonalize the role of
the sanctioner, who is simply upholding the agreements or orders that govern
the parent’s custody arrangement. This helps the case manager maintain the
working alliance with both parents so essential to longer-term effectiveness.
23
Consequences that are proportionate to the violation are also important.
Examples such as having to transport the child more than the agreement dictates
for violations involving transitions, providing additional make-up time for
obstructing the scheduled visitation, levying financial sanctions, including paying
the cost of investigating and ruling on the violation or paying more than a
parent’s fair share for therapeutic interventions may be effective. The following
suggestions can be incorporated into court orders:
1) Provide up-front written sanctions for violations of specific
orders. One can usually obtain parental agreement for how violations of orders
or agreements they make shall be handled. These sanctions can simply be the
last clause in a particular provision of the order, e.g., "Failure to … will result in
...." .
2) Provide language for consequences of arriving late to exchange a child.
Parents will often agree to adding the following type of consequences, “If a
parent fails to comply with the provisions of the order, they shall be responsible
for the child’s transportation for the next four (4) round trips.” This type of
provision requires a monitoring process to “rule” on any alleged violation and
impose the sanction as stipulated to by the parents.
3) Utilize professionals with particular expertise in child-related areas to
resolve hotly disputed issues between parents in those domains. Protocols can be
developed for how the issue is referred to that professional, what data is needed
and presented, and how findings are provided. Examples of such experts are
educational experts (for school placement issues), and health professionals (for
medical, dental, orthodontic, or mental health issues).
THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS
24
Therapeutic interventions must be backed by court authority, either through the
family court judicial officer or a designated, court-appointed professional. Any
professional serving in a quasi-judicial role, must have sufficient training to
develop a comprehensive understanding of the case dynamics (in consultation
with the evaluator), the time and availability for intensive case management and
the authority to monitor and enforce compliance with the intervention plan and
make adjustments to the residential access arrangement as appropriate. These
three components, understanding, availability, and authority are essential
components to supporting any therapeutic intervention. They can be combined
into one role or, when economically feasible if sufficient professional assistance is
available, can be provided by a collaborative team. Any therapist working with
the child or family members, however, should not be expected or empowered to
make recommendations or binding decisions for the family.
General Principles of Collaborative Team Functioning
When a child alienation case has more than one professional involved in
therapeutic interventions, attention to the team's structure and functioning is
especially important, because the polarities, distortions and attempts to divide
these professionals are quite strong. The following important considerations for
effective team functioning should be addressed in each case.
Confidentiality. Confidentiality in therapeutic relationships with family
members creates partial perspectives, which makes the therapy more susceptible
to the distortions, splitting and polarization noted above. Further, a closed
therapeutic process with an aligned or rejected parent can serve to validate and
reinforce destructive distortions. Informed consent contracts that begin the
treatment by waiving aspects of confidentiality are essential to treatment
25
progressing. Opening up specific information from the therapeutic process
relevant to parenting and coparenting issues is a powerful mechanism that
increases the productive collaboration of a professional team. Such limited
confidentiality agreements may come under scrutiny in litigation, and their
adherence to professional ethical codes have not been tested.
Sample Court Order:
Both parents will be engaged in individual therapy for the next 12 months,
and shall sign any release of confidentiality forms to permit the special
master and the parents’ therapists to consult about those aspects of
therapy relevant to parenting and coparenting issues. The therapists and
special master shall work as a team, and with notice to the parents, meet
together when necessary to assist parents in decreasing their conflict and
develop effective parenting and coparenting behaviors. The parents agree
to share the cost of meetings or telephone conferences between therapists
that are considered necessary to addressing the needs of the family.
Hierarchy and roles. Each team member needs to understand and
conduct themselves according to their agreed upon role in the family
intervention, including their relationship to other team members, their client(s)
and the legal process. The designated team leader generally helps to resolve
disputes among team members, and to communicate with the court. To protect
their therapeutic alliance with a family member, therapists should not take on
responsibility for decision-making about parenting schedules or other coparenting
issues. However, their input and views can be communicated,
preferably confidentially, to the decision-maker, who takes responsibility for
decisions, and works diligently to protect therapeutic relationships.
26
The following court order defines the relationship of a Special Master, co-parent
counselor, attorneys and other professionals involved in post-adjudication
interventions.
Sample Court Order:
Child custody issues shall be handled in the following manner:
a) The parents will initially meet twice monthly with the coparent
counselor to discuss issues that have come up. They will attempt to
resolve disputed issues in this setting, strongly considering the
consultation of the counselor. If issues are resolved, the counselor
will document the details to the parents in a follow-up letter, and
forward the approved letter to the special master or judge. Any
remaining disputed issues will be referred to the special master
(arbitrator), who will schedule a telephone conference or meeting
to resolve each issue.
b) Child-related disputes will not be formalized by attorneys
in letters or filed motions until the parents have followed the above
protocol. Parents can use their attorney for consultation at any
time. If decisions made by the special master are objected to, the
parents can then involve their attorneys in a more formal manner.
c) Professional involved with the children (teachers,
physicians, coaches, dentists/orthodontists, therapists) shall not be
engaged in disputes by the parents. Letters shall not be requested
of them, nor shall requests be made that they take a position on
disputed issues. If one or both parents want the special master to
consult with existing professionals or enlist the consultation of a
27
new professional to help resolve a dispute, this will be done
collaboratively.
Communication. A clear understanding about how team members will
communicate, consistent with court orders and confidentiality agreements is
necessary. Questions to be addressed are whether professionals can
communicate with each other over the phone, meet periodically in case
conferences, extent of documentation, and responsibility for payment. Also,
whether family members contact their team professionals by telephone,
exclusively in writing with a copy to others, or raise issues only in scheduled
sessions.
Keeping on track. Effective team functioning in child alienation cases
requires defining, updating, and reaching consensus in clinical goals, having
periodic case conferences, documenting each professional’s continuing role, and
ensuring that treatment is as cost-effective as possible. Differences in positions
regarding the case conceptualization, clinical goals or specific roles must be
resolved through case conferences and ultimately by the judicial decision-maker.
This may include not allowing a parent to fire a therapist, or terminating a team
professional if they are fueling the dynamics that support the child’s alienation. If
the professional has a strong working alignment with a parent or child in the
family, a better course is to help them reformulate their distorted perceptions, so
that their work with the team may continue. This change in the direction of a
therapist’s work can have a profound impact on their clients, whereas the fall-out
from "firing" a therapist can be a significant set-back to the overall therapeutic
intervention.
28
Linkage to the Authority of the Court. Either through direct channels to
the judicial officer, or delegation to a team leader (special master or coparenting
arbitrator), the ability to codify decisions and agreements as court orders is
essential. While the goal is to move the family outside of the legal system, it may
be necessary at times to have the case return to the judicial officer for review and
decision-making if the case is not progressing. This can be done more informally,
if the Family Court has case management processes available.
Building a Collaborative Team
The members of a team needed to address relevant family issues can be specified
by the evaluator, in consultation with the parents or attorneys. This should
include a consideration of what economic resources and skilled professionals are
available. Since economic resources often preclude providing the necessary
interventions to treat the child’s alienation, other approaches may be necessary,
such as appointing a publicly funded attorney or guardian ad lidem for the child.
In cases where the family needs far exceed the available professional and
economic resources, it may be necessary to state at the outset that the situation
may not be adequately addressed, but indicating nevertheless the priorities for
interventions in terms of Orders and professional(s) needed.
It is important to assess the effectiveness of professionals who are
currently involved in the case. It should be a serious concern to the court if a
child therapist, having never seen a rejected parent (because the child has been
brought to therapy by one parent), is advocating for no contact or offering
diagnoses of the (unseen) rejected parent. It would be generally impossible for
them to establish a working relationship with a rejected parent after having
assumed such a biased, advocacy stance. Aside from ethical violations probable
29
with this behavior, these therapists may be unwittingly reinforcing the alienation
of a child, and their involvement as therapists often need to be terminated.
The potential roles of collaborative team members are briefly presented
in the Appendix. Resources may dictate that these multiple roles be filled by a
single professional. However, working in this manner creates serious dilemmas
that may undermine the work of even the most skilled mental health
professional.
SPECIAL ISSUES IN CHILD ALIENATION
In some extreme cases, children’s alienation from a parent is so chronic,
internalized and entrenched that any intervention is likely to fail (Gardner, 1992,
Garrity & Barris, 1994, Johnston & Roseby, 1998). In general, the children are
older adolescents, and the cases involve multigenerational family issues,
significant personality pathology in the parent (s), and long-standing
reinforcement of the alienation in the surrounding family and professional
system. The choices in these cases may be limited to structural interventions that
effectively designate the custody to one of the parents or neither. They include
changing custody to rejected parents for a temporary period or permanently,
working with rejected parents to let go of pursuing contact with the child, at least
on a temporary basis (see Johnston et al, this issue), and (3) placing the child
outside the custody of either parent, for example in a boarding school. The latter
choice is a less common one, but may provide the least detrimental alternative
for the adolescent in the long term. There are specific issues to be considered in
recommending these alternatives in chronic and severe alienation cases.
Changing Custody to Rejected Parents. Changes in custody should not be based
solely on the child’s alienation, but rather by those customary factors that would
30
lead to recommend removal from or supervision of contact with residential
parents, including the child’s alienation. Such parent factors include severe clinical
pathology in the residential parent (DSM-IV Axis I or II), Munchausen's by proxy
(Klajner-Diamond, et.al., 1987), parental neglect and/or abuse. In child alienation
cases, this includes also making repeated and unsubstantiated allegations of
abuse about the rejected parent, and child abduction. As stated earlier, a pattern
of refusal to comply with clearly specified court orders for contact, therapy, and
communication with the rejected parent would also constitute a basis for
changing custody. For children, factors would include severe psychological
dysfunction (DSM-IV Axis I disorders), antisocial development and evidence of
emotional trauma due to neglect and/or abuse. In such cases, changing custody
and recommending supervised contact with the custodial parent should be
strongly considered. In cases in which children are functioning reasonably well in
most domains of their life, including school, peer relationships, and their
relationships with the aligned parent, a change in custody is not generally
recommended. The "pathology" of these children is circumscribed to their
alienation from the rejected parent and may be serving as an adaptive defense
for an untenable loyalty conflict.
The psycho-social functioning of the rejected parent is often neglected in a
recommendation to change custody. If severe alienation on the part of a
custodial parent has been substantiated, it is necessary to consider whether the
rejected parent has an adequate capacity to parent. In some cases, changing
custody has resulted in an adverse outcome for children because the new
custodial parent had very limited abilities to parent. Some parents also
31
encourage the child to reject the former custodial parent in retaliation for what
was done to them.
Changing custody cannot be considered the ultimate "solution", as there is
still a mandate to work with the alienating parent, whose behaviors may
sabotage the custody transfer. Further, some children experience a change of
custody of as abrupt and wrenching separation from the parent with whom the
child had a primary relationship, and work must be focused on the potentially
traumatic nature of this situation (Johnston & Roseby, 1988). Where the child has
an unhealthy primary attachment to the aligned parent, an interim step of
instituting shared physical custody is often helpful in making the transition to full
custody to the rejected, healthier parent. Also, a change of custody does not
resolve the intense anger and acting out (e.g., running away or self-destructive
acts, including suicide attempts) that the new, still vilified custodial parent must
deal with.
Helping Rejected Parents Let Go of their Active Pursuit of a Relationship. In
chronic and very severe alienation, it is sometimes impossible to help rejected
parents restore a viable relationship with their children, despite repeated wellconceived
interventions to address the alienation. Some older children simply
refuse all contact and all treatment efforts. In such instances, interventions that
"punish" the child (and aligned parent) by placing them in criminal facilities are
clearly not in their best interest. Even placement of children in mental health
facilities is not warranted solely by the existence of alienation. In some of the
most entrenched cases, forcing reunification is not indicated and, indeed, is not
possible. Alternatively, after exhausting all avenues, including years of litigation,
one approach is a carefully crafted therapeutic session with the rejected parent
32
and the child. In this strategic intervention, the rejected parent tells the child that
she/he will no longer fight through legal channels to try to restore the
relationship, that she/he loves the child and wishes they could be together again,
but sees that currently that is not possible for the child. The rejected parent
expresses his/her sadness, invites the child to call or write him/her anytime in
the future when he would like to have contact, and withdraws. It is
advantageous for the parent to give the child the same message in writing, as
well as in person.
Placing the Child in a Residential Setting. In some extremely entrenched cases,
the least detrimental alternative for older children and adolescents may be to
find a placement outside the custody of either parent. Criteria for this are as
follows: (1) the child, usually an adolescent, is functioning quite poorly, (2)
alienation is occurring, either unilaterally by the aligned parent, or by both
parents in a more shared physical custody, (3) there is intense, chronic conflict
between the parents which is damaging the child, (4) the placement option,
usually a boarding school, can provide a positive, conflict-free environment,
ideally with some regular therapeutic component, and (5) the array of
interventions recommended in this article have been attempted and failed, or are
not available.
Contrary to what is often asserted by child custody experts and parental
alienation advocacy groups, there is little empirical research evidence to support
any one specific intervention, such as changing custody, in the severe, chronic
cases (Ellis, 2000). Further, there is no empirical data that indicates whether
entrenched alienation, and total permanent rejection of a biological parent, has
long-term deleterious effects on children's psychological development. While
33
one can speculate that this aberrant development would adversely affect the
child, research is needed to determine the type and extent of impact. Similarly,
there is clinical support but no empirical research demonstrating that by "letting
go" of the relationship, the rejected parent and child will at some later time
reconcile and restore the relationship. Research investigating the effectiveness of
the many interventions and court orders recommended in this article is critical if
we are to advance our understanding and refine our work with these families
with an alienated child.
References
Ellis, E.M., (2000) Divorce Wars: Interventions with families in conflict.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gardner, R. (1992) Parental alienation syndrome. Cresskill, NJ: Creative
Therapeutics.
Garrity, C., & Barris, M. (1994) Caught in the Middle. New York: Lexington.
Johnston, J., Campbell, L. (1988) Impasses of Divorce: The dynamics and
resolution of family conflict. New York: Free Press.
Johnston, J. (1993) Children of divorce who refuse visitation. In C. E Depner &
J.H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresidential parenting : New vistas in family living
(pp.109-135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnston, J.R. & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child: A developmental
approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent
34
divorce. New York: Free Press.
Johnston, J., et.al. (2001) Therapeutic work with alienated children and their
families. Family and conciliation courts review.
Kelly, J. and Johnston, J. (2001) , the Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental
Alienation Syndrome. Family and Conciliation Courts Review.
Klajner-Diamond, H., Wehrspann, W., & Steinhauer, P. (1987) Assessing the
credibility of young children’s allegation of sexual abuse: Clinical issues.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 610-614.
Lee, S.M. ((1995) Special Masters in custody cases. Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts Newsletter, Vol. 14.
Lee, S.M., et.al. (2001) Assessing for alienation in child custody/access
evaluations. Family and conciliation courts review
Lund, M. (1995) A therapist’s view of parental alienation syndrome. Family and
Conciliation Courts Review, 33 308-316.
Sullivan, M.J., (1997) Have a Problem? Hire a special master as decision-maker.
Family Advocate, 21, 41-44.
35
Appendix - Potential Roles on Collaborative Teams
The Judicial officer. As indicated earlier, the continuity of a family court judge
providing legal case management and readily accessible decision-making is
essential to the success of the case. Having a judge who understands the legal
history and complexities of an alienation case often prevents a disgruntled parent
from initiating endless re-litigation.
The special master or coparenting arbitrator. This court-appointed role, filled by
either an experienced mental health or legal professional, is best suited for team
leadership. If authorized by the court, the Special Master can take on numerous
functions, including child-specific decision-making, case management, further
assessment as needed, structural interventions that are legally binding, and
immediate conflict resolution through mediation, negotiation and other
settlement strategies.
The child therapist. This mental health professional establishes a confidential
relationship with the child, focused on the dynamics of the child’s alienation.
They may see the child individually, or additionally, may do conjoint coparenting
counseling with the parents in their treatment (see Johnston et al, this issue).
36
The parents’ therapists. If parents have therapists, they must be part of the
collaborative team. While this necessitates some modification of traditional
confidentiality (see earlier discussion), having parents’ therapists participate in a
team conference can be the most potent family intervention in the case. Not
surprisingly, the dynamics at the professional level often parallel and reinforce
the dynamics at the family level, and until these are explored and resolved (with
the team leader acting as "systems therapist" to the professionals), progress will
be limited.
The co-parent counselor. This professional does not have formal child-related
decision-making authority, but should document agreements that the parents
make in their sessions. The co-parent counselor provides a structured forum to
begin more constructive parental engagement (see Johnston, et al, this issue).
The focus with parents includes psycho-education to build empathy for the child
and each other's position, sorting out concerns and addressing legitimate ones,
building communication skills and more functional problem-solving, and
assisting in parental decision-making. The counselor can work both conjointly
and separately with the parents separately, and must be well informed by the
existing court orders in the case. It is quite helpful to have mediation training and
experience to take on this role.
The parents’ attorneys. The parents’ attorneys, by virtue of their advocacy
stance and limited perspectives, may exacerbate alienation processes (see Kelly &
Johnston, this issue). Their support of and involvement with the team, through
their relationship with the team leader, may be essential to progress. Attorneys
often have a strong alliance with their clients that can be a benefit or a liability to
clinical goals in alienation cases. Their understanding and involvement with the clinical team is often instrumental in keeping the case from moving repeatedlyback into the adversarial system.
The child's attorney/Guardian ad lidem. If the child’s attorney or Guardian ad
lidem has a reasonable understanding of the alienation dynamics, and therefore
represents the best interests of the child, rather than the expressed wishes of the
child, they can be a valuable asset to the team, particularly in representing older
children. Their liaison function to the court and the parents’ attorneys are
particularly advantageous.
37