Debunking the Myth of Parental Alienation: A Guide for Family Law Practitioners
By David Mandel, CEO and Founder, Safe & Together Institute
As family law practitioners representing domestic violence survivors, you are committed to justice and child welfare. In this role, you are faced with a pervasive and dangerous myth in our courts: parental alienation. This concept, often weaponized against protective parents—particularly mothers who are domestic abuse survivors—demands our critical examination.
In my book, Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to Transform the Way We Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence, I argue that parental alienation is not a relevant concept when children’s (and adults’) resistance to contact and custody are (or are suspected to be) the product of reasonable and justified fears about physical and emotional safety. This insight challenges us to reconsider how we approach cases involving allegations of domestic abuse and parental alienation.
Understanding Parental Alienation: The Bar for “Unjustified” Resistance
First, let’s clarify: The concept of parental alienation should only be considered when a child’s resistance to contact with a parent is both unreasonable and unjustified. However, the bar for reasonable and justified resistance is much lower than many realize.
I emphasize that in order for the diagnosis of parental alienation to be meaningfully considered, there needs to have been a prior positive, abuse-free relationship between the child and that parent. This crucial point is often overlooked in family court proceedings.
Consider this: Even neglectful parenting, let alone abuse, can be sufficient grounds for a child to resist contact. Dr. Jennifer Harman and colleagues note that “children may justifiably reject a parent for a good reason, such as a history of abuse or neglect.” [1] Yet, all too often, legitimate concerns are dismissed under the guise of “alienation.”
Gender Double Standards: The Invisible Bias
Gender bias plays a significant role in how parental alienation claims are perceived and adjudicated. In my book, I point out that low expectations for men as parents shield them from the consequences of their behavior, even when it is laid out in detail by a survivor or through evidence provided by other systems.
This bias reflects broader societal expectations of mothers as primary caregivers, leading to higher scrutiny of their parenting choices. Conversely, fathers often benefit from lower parenting standards, with their involvement seen as inherently positive regardless of quality.
Research by Joan Meier reveals a troubling pattern: “Mothers’ claims of abuse, especially child physical or sexual abuse, increase their risk of losing custody, and fathers’ cross-claims of alienation virtually double that risk.” [2] This data underscores the real-world consequences of these biases in our family courts. Research by Molly Dragiewicz found that in cases where mothers alleged abuse, if the father cross-claimed parental alienation, the mother was twice as likely to lose custody compared to cases where no alienation claim was made [3].
The Safe & Together Model: A Paradigm Shift
To address these issues, we need a fundamental shift in our approach. The Safe & Together Model, which I’ve developed, offers an innovative framework that can transform our practice by:
Pivoting to the perpetrator’s pattern of behavior: Focus on the choices and impacts of the parent accused of abuse, rather than allowing decontextualized scrutiny of the protective parent’s actions.
Highlighting survivors’ protective efforts: Recognize survivors as experts in their own experience, often employing sophisticated protective strategies—many of which are overlooked because of high expectations of women as parents.
Identifying multiple pathways to harm: Understand the diverse ways domestic abuse impacts children beyond witnessing physical violence.
Holding perpetrators accountable as parents: Recognize that choosing to abuse a co-parent is itself a parenting choice that harms children.
I argue that by pivoting to the perpetrator as parent, which involves raising expectations of fathers who are abusive, we recontextualize the survivors’ decision-making. This shift in perspective is crucial for fair and effective family court proceedings.
Practical Steps for Family Law Practitioners
Educate ourselves on post-separation coercive control: Evan Stark’s work on coercive control provides crucial insights into how abuse often escalates or transforms after separation. [4]
Look beyond physical violence: Recognize patterns of coercive control, financial abuse, and other non-physical forms of domestic abuse.
Recontextualize survivors’ protective efforts: When survivors’ actions and choices are contextualized to the perpetrators’ patterns, they make more sense.
Understand trauma responses: Children’s resistance to contact with an abusive parent may be a normal trauma response, not the result of alienation.
Advocate for domestic abuse–informed custody evaluations: Push for evaluators who understand the dynamics of coercive control and its impact on children.
Challenge gender bias: Be aware of how societal expectations of mothers versus fathers can influence perceptions in these cases.
Document patterns of behavior: Help your clients record ongoing abusive behaviors, including subtle forms of control and manipulation.
Collaborate with domestic abuse experts: Partner with organizations like the Safe & Together Institute to enhance your understanding and skills.
Instead of defaulting to an unfair, gendered expectation of parenting where day-to-day care of children is seen primarily as the domains of mothers, a behavioral framework helps explain how the behaviors of any perpetrator, male or female, are harming child, partner, and family functioning.
The Power to Create Change
As family law practitioners, you have the power and responsibility to shape outcomes for families affected by domestic abuse. By challenging the myth of parental alienation and adopting a more nuanced, abuse-informed approach, we can better protect vulnerable children and support protective parents.
This isn’t just about winning cases—it’s about transforming a system that has too often failed those it’s meant to protect. It’s about living up to our highest ideals as advocates for justice and protectors of the vulnerable.
Are you ready to be part of this transformation? To challenge outdated myths and create real change in our family courts? The path may not be easy, but the potential impact is immense. Together, we can work towards a future where family courts truly serve the best interests of children and protect those fleeing abuse.
References
[1] Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275-1299.
[2] Meier, J. S. (2020). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show?. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(1), 92-105.
[3] Dragiewicz, M. (2010). Gender bias in the courts: Implications for battered mothers and their children. Family and Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly, 2(4), 323-342.
[4] Stark, E. (2009). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford University Press.