My recently accepted narrative review on Parental Alienation (PA) in Partner Abuse outlines the current state of knowledge around a challenging and contentious issue that intersects the domains of psychology, family law, and child welfare. PA has garnered significant attention due to its complex nature and the profound impact it can have on all involved parties. This review sheds light on its intricacies, offering a thorough analysis of current research, debates, and the need for a more nuanced approach to address this issue.

The review highlights that PA is not simply a legal matter but actually a multifaceted problem that involves emotional, psychological, and legal dimensions. It stresses the importance of distinguishing PA from other forms of child estrangement, emphasizing the role of deliberate manipulation in alienating the child from the other parent. This differentiation is crucial for developing effective interventions and legal responses.

One of the key points of the review is the controversy surrounding the definition and diagnosis of PA. The historical lack of consensus on what constitutes PA complicates efforts to address it both clinically and legally. The review does emphasise however that we are now in a much clearer position on this issue, which will allow for the more rigorous study of PA to better understand its causes, manifestations, and effects.

The impact of PA on children is a central concern of the review. It underscores the potential long-term psychological harm that alienated children may suffer, including issues with trust, self-esteem, and the ability to form healthy relationships. The review calls for targeted therapeutic interventions that can help mitigate these effects and support the well-being of children caught in the middle of parental conflicts.

Moreover, the review discusses the legal challenges associated with PA, particularly in family court proceedings. It points out the difficulty in balancing the need to protect children from manipulation while ensuring that accusations of PA are not used unjustly to gain custody or exclude the other parent. It also suggests that courts require better tools and guidelines to assess cases of PA effectively, ensuring decisions are made in the best interests of the child.

I also emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary research and collaboration among psychologists, legal professionals, and social workers to develop a holistic understanding of PA. Such collaboration could lead to the creation of comprehensive assessment tools, intervention strategies, and legal frameworks that address the complexities of PA.

In conclusion, this new review provides a critical examination of a deeply divisive issue, highlighting the need for a balanced, evidence-based approach. However, it is also clear to highlight that some of this controversy is unfounded, and that great leaps in understanding have been made that must be recognised. In conclusion, I set a path toward better understanding and addressing PA, underpinned by further rigorous research. As society continues to grapple with the nuances of family dynamics and child welfare, the insights offered by this review are invaluable for professionals across various fields, aiming to protect the interests and well-being of children in the midst of parental separation or conflict.

https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10667

Tonight (15th Nov) I posted two tweets, they read:

Within minutes, they had been quote tweeted by @Right2Equality, who, quite outrageously, said this:

I had already deleted the tweets by this point – not because they were incorrect in content or I didn’t believe in them – but because of the precise risk of EXACTLY this happening. But sadly I was clearly too late.

This has now led me to an evening of panic, overthinking, and worry – that someone might actually believe what this account has stated. So let me be absolutely clear (as I thought I had been in my original tweets).

I am an advocate for, above all else, children – and protecting children from abusive behaviour in whatever form. There is no fathomable reality where I would suggest placing children with or advocating for contact between children and those who would be at risk of causing them harm – including the abusers and rapists that I supposedly support. Indeed, one of the main issues here is that so few of the other actors, academics, and advocates in this area have actually reached out to speak to me on these issues – instead choosing the quote tweet and wilfully misinterpret.

This is a shame, because the reality is that the ongoing debate regarding parental involvement post-separation in England and Wales is extremely complex, and requires nuanced discussion where we all try to work together to protect all individuals from harm. Central to this discussion is being clear on what exactly we are all advocating for. For me, this starts with a distinction between the presumption of parental responsibility and the presumption of contact, which are frequently conflated.

In England and Wales, the law currently operates under a presumption of parental responsibility, not contact. This means that, following separation, both parents are presumed to be responsible for their children (and case law dictates that his should be 50:50 responsibility), a notion that is often misinterpreted as an automatic right to contact. However, these are distinct concepts – responsibility pertains to the duty to care for and make decisions about a child’s upbringing, whereas contact refers to the physical time spent with the child.

Campaigners against a presumption of parental involvement post-separation often appear to be rallying against a system they perceive as enforcing contact with both parents, regardless of circumstances. This viewpoint, however, overlooks the nuanced approach that family courts almost always actually take. The law does not mandate contact with both parents post separation or in every situation; rather, it seeks to determine what is in the best interests of the child, which may or may not involve contact with one or both parents, and will always involve an assessment of safety.

So what do campaigners mean when they argue against a presumption of parental involvement?

If it is an argument to remove a presumption of responsibility, this could lead to unforeseen consequences. If responsibility is not presumed, each case would require individual assessment to establish who should be responsible for the child. This approach is not only impractical but could also lead to inconsistencies and a lack of stability for children post-separation.

On the other hand, if campaigners are instead rallying against a presumption of contact – it does not actually exist in law.

If they are opposing what they term a ‘pro-contact culture’ in family courts, then they should consider the evidence (or lack thereof). Studies from the US and Canada overwhelmingly demonstrate that there is no routine pattern of endorsing contact with abusive parents. In this country, no assessment can be made at all as data is not routinely available – therefore to argue a pattern of judgements in any direction is not appropriate. What we do know is that the judiciary is acutely aware of the need to protect children from harm, and decisions are made with this as a paramount concern (in line with several intersecting pieces of national and international legislation).

It’s also vital to (yet again) highlight the benefits to children of maintaining contact with both parents post-separation, provided it is safe to do so. Numerous studies have shown that children generally benefit from the involvement of both parents in their lives. This involvement should be encouraged and facilitated, always keeping the child’s best interests at the forefront.

In conclusion, the debate around parental involvement post-separation is often mired in misunderstandings and confusion (and ‘X’ is clearly not the place to try to have these discussions). However, I must be clear – the current legal framework in England and Wales does not presume an automatic right to contact but rather a responsibility towards the child – and there is no evidence to suggest that family courts are operating otherwise. Any changes to this framework must be carefully considered, keeping in mind the best interests of the children, which often involve safe and positive contact with both parents. The focus should always remain on what arrangement serves the child’s welfare and development best, rather than any perceived notions of parental rights post-separation.

As the new Chair of the Male Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society, I wanted to take some time to lay out my strategic journey for our section, which I’ve encapsulated in the acronym L.E.A.D.I.N.G.

L – Legitimise:

Our endeavour begins with a commitment to legitimise male psychology. What I mean by this is that we see that people seem to still struggle significantly with understanding why we exist and why we are needed – but we absolutely are needed! And that is borne out in a variety of research and statistics. It is therefore vital that we advocate for and secure a place for male-specific issues within the broader field of psychology. As Chair, I am dedicated to ensuring that our section advances the understanding and acknowledgement of these issues in both academic circles and public discourse.

E – Expand:

As we break new ground, expansion is key. My goal is to widen our research horizons with pioneering studies and methodologies, attracting a diverse range of professionals to enrich our section. Through this growth, we can better understand the various dimensions of male psychology and reach wider communities. Importantly, this includes working with other sections which overlap or have complimentary aims or lines of inquiry.

A – Amplify:

In my role, I aim to amplify the voices and experiences of men in psychological research, clinical practice, and policymaking. There is immense value in bringing these perspectives to the forefront to inform more effective interventions and strategies that resonate with men’s needs and experiences. We also want to make sure we do this in a way that is productive, inclusive, and respectful, especially when part of other wider debates about the intersectional issues which affect many of us.

D – Diversify:

Diversity is the cornerstone of a robust and dynamic field, and any work that we do as a section must be done in a way that acknowledges intersectionality and that ‘men’ are not a homogenous group. I am passionate about exploring the different facets of male experiences and also fostering a membership base that reflects this diversity. By doing so, we can ensure that our work is representative and inclusive, resonating with all segments of the population we seek to understand and support.

I – Innovate:

Innovation drives progress, and I am keen to champion cutting-edge approaches in our research and discussions. By staying at the forefront of innovation, we can better tackle the challenges and seize the opportunities that lie in the domain of male psychology. How can we foster more direct, robust links between the academic and third sector fields to achieve real change for men and boys? This is a key question we will be working on.

N – Network:

Networking is essential for growth and impact. I am looking forward to building strong connections within the British Psychological Society and with external partners. By cultivating a rich professional network, we can foster collaboration, share knowledge, and enhance our collective efforts in male psychology across a variety of domains.

G – Galvanise:

Finally, my aim is to galvanise action within our communities. By inspiring and mobilising our members and the broader psychological community, we can spearhead meaningful change on issues pertinent to male psychology.

As I take on this role, I am filled with optimism for what we can achieve together. The L.E.A.D.I.N.G. strategy is our compass, guiding us as we forge ahead to deepen the impact and reach of male psychology. I am eager to collaborate with each one of you as we lead the way in understanding, advocating for, and addressing the psychological issues faced by men and boys today.

Thank you for your support; let’s take this journey together!

In recent decades, significant strides have been made in recognizing and addressing issues that predominantly affect girls and women. Campaigns and initiatives aimed at promoting gender equality and empowerment for females have become prominent and impactful. This shift towards redressing historical gender imbalances is a welcome and necessary evolution. However, in the midst of these commendable efforts, a question looms large and yet is often met with silence: Why don’t we care about boys?

It’s a controversial inquiry, laced with the potential for misunderstanding and backlash, but it’s a crucial one. The idea isn’t to detract from the progress made on behalf of girls but to shine a light on the societal blindness to the issues that disproportionately impact boys and young men. Indeed, by continuing to ignore such problems, we might be inadvertently fostering an environment that could be detrimental to all genders.

Specific Issues Affecting Boys

To understand why we should care about boys, we need to recognize the unique challenges they do face. Here are just some of the issues worthy of our attention… Boys are more likely to be victims of violence, less likely to graduate from high school, and more likely to be diagnosed with a behavioural disorder. They represent a larger percentage of those who are expelled from school, and they are falling behind in academics, particularly literacy.

Furthermore, traditional notions of masculinity can be restrictive and damaging. Boys are often taught to suppress emotions, to “man up,” and to solve their problems through aggression. This suppression can lead to a range of mental health issues, including higher suicide rates among young men compared to young women. The societal expectation that boys are inherently resilient and less in need of support can leave them without the emotional tools they need to navigate life’s challenges.

Societal Blindness

The blindness to boys’ issues may stem from a complex mixture of historical gender roles, current societal narratives, and a simple lack of awareness. Traditional views often paint males as the strong and silent type—leaders, providers, and protectors. Such archetypes can obscure the vulnerabilities that boys face, creating a façade of invulnerability.

Media representation often exacerbates this problem. Stories of male heroism and stoicism flood our screens, while the struggles of young men with mental health, self-esteem, and identity are less frequently portrayed. When these issues are discussed, they are often framed within a larger conversation about societal ills, without specific focus on how they uniquely affect boys.

Moreover, there is a troubling narrative that not only overlooks the issues boys face but sometimes positions boys as the root of social problems. The discourse around toxic masculinity, while important in addressing certain harmful behaviours, can inadvertently cast boys and young men in a negative light. When society emphasizes narratives that portray boys as the embodiment of societal issues — from aggression to sexism — without recognizing the systemic and social factors that contribute to these behaviours, it risks alienating them further. Boys grow up in a world where they are often told that masculinity itself is a problem, which can lead to confusion, shame, and a lack of positive identity formation.

The Effects of Societal Blindness

The repercussions of ignoring issues specific to boys are profound. For one, it can contribute to the continuation of unhealthy norms about masculinity. If we don’t address the emotional and psychological needs of boys, we perpetuate a cycle where men are ill-equipped to express themselves, leading to potential relationship issues, work dissatisfaction, and mental health crises.

This blindness can also result in a lack of targeted interventions that could help boys who are struggling academically or socially. Without acknowledging that boys are falling behind in certain areas, there’s little impetus to implement strategies to support them, leading to a waste of potential and contributing to social problems down the line, such as unemployment or underemployment.

Moreover, by not engaging boys in conversations about gender equality and empowerment, we miss out on cultivating allies for these causes. Boys and men play a crucial role in challenging and changing harmful gender norms. Excluding them from these conversations denies us the collective effort needed to build a more equitable society.

Moving Forward: Addressing the Issues

So, what can be done? First, we need a societal shift in how we perceive and talk about the issues affecting boys. This involves education systems, parents, media, and policymakers acknowledging the challenges and actively working to change the narrative.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that discussions around masculinity and societal issues do not simplify boys to caricatures of problems to be fixed but rather recognize them as individuals who are navigating complex webs of expectations, pressures, and norms. The conversation must be balanced; it requires us to acknowledge that boys are facing a range of issues that need our understanding and support. It is essential to identify and address harmful behaviours while simultaneously nurturing the positive attributes that boys can exhibit. By doing so, we validate the experiences of boys and young men and empower them to be part of the solution, rather than casting them as the problem. Only with this balanced approach can we move toward a truly inclusive and supportive society for all genders.

Programs and support systems tailored to the specific needs of boys are also essential. From early education to mental health services, recognizing the different ways boys develop and experience the world can lead to more effective support.

In addition, creating safe spaces for boys and men to express their emotions and vulnerabilities without fear of ridicule or rejection is critical. This can be facilitated through mentorship programs, emotional literacy education, and community initiatives that encourage positive, diverse expressions of masculinity.

Conclusion

In our laudable pursuit to address the injustices faced by girls and women, we must not turn a blind eye to the silent struggles of boys and young men. Gender equality and empowerment are not zero sum issues – IF we create a foundation for boys to grow into well-rounded, emotionally intelligent men who can contribute positively to society. In this sense, it’s not about diverting attention from the issues faced by girls, but about ensuring that our approach to gender equity is truly inclusive.

Building on this foundation requires a cultural transformation that includes redefining and celebrating masculinity, promoting emotional resilience, and emphasizing the value of vulnerability as strength. Through education reform, media representation, community support, and policy change, we can address the root causes of the problems boys face and work towards a society where the well-being of all children is prioritized.

Supporting boys as they navigate the challenges specific to their gender can lead to healthier relationships, reduced rates of crime and substance abuse, and a decrease in the rates of male suicide. It is in our collective interest to raise boys who are not only successful but also emotionally healthy and capable of contributing to the well-being of their communities.

In conclusion, our society must expand its vision of gender equity to include the struggles of boys. We need to care about boys, not because their issues are more important, but because they are equally important. By doing so, we’re not only addressing the immediate needs of young men, but we’re also investing in the future health and harmony of our society at large. It’s time to balance the scales of gender-focused issues and extend empathy and action towards boys and young men. They, too, deserve our care and attention.

The Importance of Knowledge in Family Courts

Family courts play a pivotal role in the lives of many, making decisions that profoundly impact children, parents, and extended families. It is, therefore, critically important that we understand what happens within these walls. By gaining insights into the practices, decisions, and processes within the family courts, we can identify specific issues and drive best practices to ensure the well-being of all involved, especially the children.

The Challenge of Closed Courts in England and Wales

However, in England and Wales, acquiring a comprehensive understanding of family court operations is challenging. Unlike some jurisdictions where there is a degree of transparency, courts here are closed, which means the general public and researchers often do not have access to court proceedings or decisions. Additionally, there isn’t any routinely available data that can be analysed for trends, issues, or patterns.

Small Scale Studies Paint a Concerning Picture

In the absence of extensive data, our understanding is primarily based on small-scale qualitative studies, which, while crucial, offer only a glimpse of the larger picture. Recent research suggests that women, particularly mothers, often face challenges when trying to get the court to take their domestic abuse claims seriously. Concurrently, there is an alarming trend where claims of parental alienation, typically made by fathers, seem to overshadow and sometimes even overrule allegations of domestic abuse.

Conversely, there are also qualitative studies focusing on fathers that indicate they often feel ignored, demonised, or sidelined in family court proceedings. Claims of abuse, including instances of Parental Alienation, made by fathers, appear to be minimised or not given the attention they deserve.

Recognising the Complexity and Urgency of Both Issues

Realistically, these issues aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s entirely feasible for both mothers and fathers to face biases and systemic issues within the family court system. Every situation is unique, and it’s imperative to understand that both sets of issues represent urgent risks to children. They need immediate attention to ensure that decisions made within family courts prioritise the well-being and safety of children.

The Need for More Comprehensive Evidence

The limited evidence from small-scale studies only underscores the urgent need for more robust and comprehensive data from within the court system. Without this information, it becomes nearly impossible to verify the specific challenges, biases, or systemic issues. Furthermore, suggesting improvements becomes speculative at best.

If we genuinely want to drive change and ensure that family courts in England and Wales operate fairly and effectively, it’s paramount that we push for more transparency and access to data. Only with this information can we pinpoint the problems and work towards creating a more just and efficient system that truly prioritises the well-being of children.

In the debate surrounding rights and welfare post-separation, the discourse has become increasingly polarised and misrepresentative. For example, too much of the debate has been framed around ‘parental rights’ when instead we should all be talking about the child’s right to parental contact. Some are advocating for the complete removal of the right for parent-child contact (with the irony being that in England and Wales, parents don’t currently have a right to contact at all – just ‘involvement’). But surely any argument along these lines is a bridge too far? Such a drastic stance leaves the door open for parents to be deceitfully separated from their children, to the detriment of both. While the heart of this stringent perspective stems from genuine concerns about abuse – concerns we all deeply share – it’s essential to also recognise the fundamental benefits children garner from contact with both parents post-separation, and that parents should have a legal recourse to see their children after separation. Striking the right balance in this arena demands a thoughtful and nuanced approach.

The Benefits of Shared and As-Close-To-Equal Parental Contact Post-Separation

Children thrive on stability. In an ideal world, even after a separation, children would have consistent, positive, and as-close-to-equal interactions with both parents. This continuity:

1. Promotes Emotional Stability: Children who maintain relationships with both parents are often more emotionally secure and display fewer behavioural issues.
2. Provides Dual Support Systems: Access to both parents means children can benefit from the unique strengths, guidance, and love of each.
3. Ensures Holistic Growth: Different parents often teach different values, skills, and perspectives. Dual contact allows for a more rounded upbringing.

The Dark Side: Potential for Abuse

While the benefits are clear, there’s a darker aspect we cannot ignore. Some parents may:

1. Manipulate Contact Rights: Unscrupulous parents can use their rights to demand contact as a way of continuing to exert control over their ex-partner or to manipulate their child.
2. Expose Children to Harm: If a parent has a history of abuse, contact rights could put the child directly in harm’s way.
3. Use Contact as Leverage: In contentious separations, a parent might threaten to withhold contact from the other parent as a means of gaining concessions.

A Reasonable Approach: Presumption with Protection

A carefully crafted approach is required to address the intricacies of post-separation parental contact. Enshrining a 50:50 or as-close-to-equal presumption of contact (not just involvement) in law, or by putting in place more robust contact arrangement processes that centre of the welfare of the child, are not just a procedural actions; they can be a powerful tool for societal transformation. They can help with:

1. Shifting Societal Perspectives: A presumption of contact, enshrined in law, sends a strong message to society. It states that both parents, irrespective of gender, have equal importance in a child’s life. This can reshape long-held biases, ensuring that parental roles aren’t pigeonholed by outdated stereotypes.
2. Safer and More Productive Separations: With a clearer legal stance, parents might find separations less contentious. The understanding that both parents are equally important might reduce the emotional intensity and power plays that currently plague many separations.
3. Reduced Reliance on Family Courts: If the child and parents anticipate equal/robust contact from the outset, it could reduce the number of cases that end up in family courts. Legal battles are not only emotionally draining but also expensive and time-consuming.
4. Justice, Fairness, and Safety: The ultimate goal remains to ensure children’s well-being. While fostering contact is crucial, it’s equally vital to ensure children are protected from genuinely harmful environments. A presumption of contact, coupled with swift action against proven abuse, ensures that only dangerous parents are kept away.
5. Addressing Unjust Denials: It’s a sad reality that, currently, both mothers and fathers can be unjustly denied access to their children, often due to misconceptions, biases, or unfounded allegations. A presumption enshrined in law helps rectify this, ensuring that decisions are based on a child’s well-being rather than unfounded prejudices.

However, alongside formalising a 50:50 or as-close-to-equal presumption of parental contact, or equivalent robust arrangement, there’s an undeniable need for robust checks and balances to ensure that this presumption does not inadvertently place children at risk. When concerns arise, or if court orders challenge the default presumption, a structured process must be implemented to assess the safety and appropriateness of contact, such as:

1. Immediate Temporary Measures: Once a concern is raised, temporary measures can be put in place to ensure the immediate safety of the child. This could mean supervised visitations or temporary halting of contact until a thorough assessment is completed. This is already the case in many jurisdictions – however – see point 2...
2. Swift and Comprehensive Assessments: Professionals trained in child welfare, including social workers, psychologists, and legal experts, should be involved in evaluating the nature and gravity of the concerns raised as fast as possible. This rapid, multidisciplinary approach ensures a comprehensive view of the situation. This review should involve…
3. Evidence-Based Decision Making: Decisions on contact should be rooted in evidence and the child’s best interests. This means drawing from observations, expert evaluations, and any documented evidence. Emotional or anecdotal arguments, while valid, should be weighed against concrete data.
4. Representation of Children by an Impartial Party (i.e., Guardian ad litum): Introducing the idea of representation for children through an impartial party, such as a Guardian ad litem, would ensures that a child’s best interests are always at the forefront of decision-making processes. A representative like this would offer an unbiased voice that exclusively focuses on the child’s welfare and rights during challenging parental separations.
5. Regular Reviews: Even after a decision is made, regular reviews should be mandated. Circumstances change, and what might be true at one point might not hold over time. These reviews ensure that the child’s well-being remains at the centre of any contact arrangement.
6. Open Channels for Reporting: Children, the aggrieved parent, and even the other parent should have clear channels to report any concerns without fear of retribution. This creates an environment of trust and vigilance.

By embedding these checks and balances into the system, we can strike a delicate balance between the presumption of contact and the essential duty to protect children from potential harm – both of which can and should operate in fulfilling the child’s best interests. It’s not just about fulfilling rights, but also about ensuring that these rights do not overshadow the paramount importance of child safety.

A Safe, Fair Way Forward is Possible

Creating a legal framework that champions the rights of the child to parental contact would have cascading positive effects on individual families and society at large. Moreover, ensuring that children and parents are not unjustifiably denied contact, we also guard against the devastating mental health repercussions such unwarranted separations can trigger. However, the protection of children’s rights will not and should not ever come at the expense of child safety. A system that operates robustly and rapidly can uphold both these essential elements simultaneously.

It’s time to foster a system where children benefit from the love and guidance of both parents, and where only those who pose genuine risks face restrictions. This approach not only ensures the happiness and safety of our children but also respects and protects the mental well-being of all parents, acknowledging the profound emotional bonds they share with their children.

Two recent studies conducted by Professor Ben Hine of the University of West London and Dr Liz Bates from the University of Cumbria provide a much-needed dive into the intricate relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) and parental alienation (PA) for fathers; something that has not extensively explored in existing literature. Their comprehensive research has brought forward important insights from two perspectives – the direct impact of PA and IPV on fathers, and the manipulative dynamics observed within such relationships.

These studies sought to shine a light on this less discussed, but a deeply critical intersection of IPV and PA. The research was motivated by the mounting arguments favoring the categorization of PA as a form of IPV. Their research focused on the experiences of fathers in particular, as they are often overlooked in IPV research.

In both studies, the research team examined qualitative responses from an online survey completed by 171 fathers who had experienced alienating behaviors in the context of IPV. The first paper explores the experiences of fathers, including PA and more general abuse. Four themes were identified – direct manipulation of contact, manipulation through systems, manipulation of children, and the wider context of violence.

These manipulative behaviors ranged from controlling and relocating children, making false allegations in court, to involving children directly in abusive actions. This research provides valuable insights into how IPV and PA manifest within family dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering PA as a form of IPV, especially within family court cases.

The second paper on impact highlighted three significant themes – the direct impact on the fathers, the perceived impact on their children, and the consequent effect on father-child relationships.

The impact on fathers was multifaceted and substantial, encapsulating health, finances, grief, identity, and relationships. These are all significant aspects of a person’s life, and the disturbance brought on by IPV and PA can have long-lasting implications. Furthermore, the fathers also voiced concerns about the impact of such behaviors on their children. Siblings, extended family, health and well-being, and a loss of childhood were key areas of concern. Finally, a clear pattern emerged around the effects of IPV and PA on father-child relationships, with most fathers reporting a lack of closeness, feeling responsible, and slight improvements over time.

These findings are particularly noteworthy as they fuel the ongoing debate around the use and interpretation of PA within the realm of family court cases. They call for an increased understanding of PA as part of a broader pattern of IPV, thereby opening a path towards better support, help-seeking, and ultimately improved justice for fathers and children experiencing this form of abuse.

These studies offer an important contribution to the field, adding depth and nuance to the current understanding of IPV and PA. They underscore the need for further research, policy considerations, and professional training to adequately address this complex issue affecting so many families globally.

They can found here – https://tinyurl.com/3ne4js5u and https://tinyurl.com/5fcfa7xm

Parental alienation (PA) and domestic violence (DV) are two forms of family conflict and violence that often appear at odds with each other in public discourse. Indeed, the common narrative presents the two issues as contrasting realities, where the invocation of PA might be used to deflect accusations of domestic violence or vice versa. However, it is vital to understand that this dichotomy is more illusion than fact. In fact, more and more research underscores the interconnection between PA and other forms of violence such as domestic abuse, coercive control, and psychological maltreatment.

Parental Alienation as a Spectrum of Violence

This is because PA does not occur in isolation; it is often entangled with other forms of violence. For instance, parental gatekeeping and estrangement may arise as a consequence of domestic violence, with one parent attempting to protect the child from the abusive partner. This situation can be mistakenly identified as PA if the scenario is not evaluated correctly. However, PA can also form part of a broader pattern of violence where one parent deliberately instigates hostility towards the other parent to isolate them and gain control.

The alienating parent may use various manipulative tactics, such as denigration, false accusations, and fostering fear in the child towards the other parent. The aim is to destabilize the other parent’s relationship with the child, leading to feelings of disempowerment and helplessness for the targeted parent.

Moreover, PA also encompasses elements of coercive control, a form of psychological manipulation aimed at disempowering and dominating the victim. Tactics like gaslighting, fear instigation, and strategic alienation are used to sever the relationship between the targeted parent and their child.

PA is also a form of psychological abuse, with its inherent manipulation and emotional coercion causing significant distress and long-term harm to both the child and the targeted parent. This makes it crucial for professionals to assess and address the presence of PA within the broader context of family conflict and violence.

Towards a Holistic Approach

By understanding that PA is entwined with other forms of family violence, we begin to take a more informed, holistic approach that has significant implications for practice and intervention. For example, professionals should conduct comprehensive assessments to determine the presence and severity of PA, along with any co-occurring issues such as intimate partner violence or child abuse. More importantly, accurate assessment will ensure that only valid claims of PA are brought, and that it is not then used as a go-to tactic by those wishing to minimize their own abusive behaviours.

Because there is no doubt that, at present, PA is widely misunderstood and misused within the family courts. This is reflected in the mixed evidence that shows both a) that mothers have their claims of DV minimized due to PA claims, and b) that fathers feel their concerns about PA are not taken seriously by courts. So, whilst it is true that some may misuse claims of PA to manipulate legal and social service systems (as mentioned above), the answer is not to dismiss PA altogether but to educate ourselves better on its complexities and nuances. By doing so, we can safeguard the wellbeing of men, women, and children from abusive behaviour, in whatever form it takes. The interplay between PA and DV demands careful evaluation and a holistic approach to intervention, ensuring safety and promoting healthy relationships for all family members.

To that end, multidisciplinary collaboration between legal and mental health professionals, child protection agencies, and other relevant stakeholders is essential for effective intervention. Evidence-based interventions, ongoing support, and safety planning for families affected by domestic violence are critical aspects of addressing PA. Above all, the best interests of the child should always be prioritized in decision-making.

The Need to Keep ‘Parental Alienation’

As a side note, this is why we must keep the term ‘Parental Alienation’. As, while some may argue for assimilating the behaviours seen in PA under broader terms such as coercive control, it is important to recognize PA’s unique characteristics. PA involves a distinct dynamic: an alienating parent causing unjustified hostility or rejection towards the targeted parent, without legitimate reasons for the child’s estrangement. This is clearly outlined in Bernet’s five-factor model, which outlines a very specific set of circumstances that constitute PA (see my previous blog posts and recent book), and, if adopted widely, would allow for accurate identification and safeguarding with lower risk of erroneous application.

Indeed, by retaining the term PA, and newer assessment criteria, professionals can better diagnose and address such situations. Furthermore, using the term PA directs research and policy attention towards this specific issue, driving further understanding, prevention, and intervention strategies.

In the end, the advocates of domestic violence and parental alienation are fighting the same battle. It is a fight against the misuse of power and control, a fight for justice, and, above all, a fight to protect our children and their childhood. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of these issues, we can all contribute to the collective effort of fostering safer, healthier families.

With growing acknowledgement and and understanding of Parental alienation (PA), there is also increasing interest (and from some deep concern) as to the role of PA allegations in family breakdown litigation. This complex topic encompasses aspects such as its admissibility in court, its intersection with domestic violence cases, and gender implications. These elements significantly contribute to the multi-faceted nature of the discourse surrounding parental alienation.

Researchers such as Meier (2022) argue that the vast majority of PA claims, predominantly made by fathers in the United States, are essentially counterclaims to legitimate reports of abusive behaviours by mothers. They contend that children are often given into the custody of abusive parents or shared custody due to these alienation claims. They warn against the danger of falsely identifying alienation in custody disputes and highlight the necessity for evaluators to understand the complexities surrounding alienation.

However, contrary views stem from extensive large and empirically robust case reviews which appreciate the growing acknowledgment and application of PA within the court system. They argue that no cases were identified where children were handed over to an abusive parent. These reviews, such as those led by Harman and Lorandos (2021), also critique previous works for their lack of clarity in coding procedures and gendered assumptions used in describing cases. An important finding from their study was that PA was part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, rather than a rebuttal.

The complexity of PA claims extends beyond the United States, permeating court systems in Canada, the UK, Brazil, and Spain, presenting similar dichotomies. In Canada and the UK, some research has suggested that women fear raising allegations of abuse due to potential counterclaims of PA. In contrast, in Brazil and Spain, where legal systems recognize PA and apply penalties, there are increasing concerns about its misuse in custody battles, further complicating the custody determination process.

The most recent research on this topic, by Sharples and others’ (2023), actually demonstrates that parents who have a claim of PA upheld against them were more likely to also have a claim of Domestic Violence Act (DVA) upheld. These results instead then suggest that PA is part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the same individual, rather than a rebuttal.

It would seem that, despite the increasing recognition and application of PA in legal systems worldwide, issues persist due to the lack of standardised, validated measures for detecting and evaluating PA. This absence of concrete evaluative procedures often results in subjective interpretations based on the persuasiveness of the lawyers, the leanings of the judges, and potential bias of the professionals involved in the process. Thankfully, recent developments such as the presentation of the five factor model of PA by Bernet and colleagues (2022), may help in this regard.

Nonetheless, there is clearly still a pressing need for a better understanding of how and when PA claims are brought forward, how their legitimacy and outcomes are determined, and whether these determinations are accurate and aligned with the current empirical understanding of PA.

It is also clear that legal systems and professionals must strive to balance validating claims of abuse, including PA, and maintain a ‘pro-contact’ culture that underscores the importance of both parents’ continued involvement in a child’s life (see my last blog post). Most importantly, this delicate balancing act should have one aim, and one aim only, to never compromise the child’s safety or well-being.

The discourse surrounding PA points to the importance of continued education, research, and dialogue in this complex field. A comprehensive understanding of what truly constitutes parental alienation is vital to prevent misuse of PA claims and to ensure that the system works in the best interest of the child, safeguarding them from any form of abuse, and ensuring that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.

In conclusion, it is clear that a deeper understanding and better handling of PA claims in family court cases are needed to ensure that justice is appropriately and accurately served. This requires more extensive research, improved legal procedures, and a comprehensive, nuanced understanding of parental alienation among both parents and the professionals who handle these claims. This way, we can ensure that the welfare of the child is always at the forefront of every decision.