Parental Alienation: Too many cooks….

I read an article recently on LinkedIn regarding parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome. It was an article posted to an British website. It was not written by a lawyer but was clearly written for family lawyers to advertise expert services for assessment.

My immediate thoughts when reading the article were:

-???????How is this helpful to family practitioners?

-???????Is the information in this article relevant?

-???????Is the information in this article correct?

-???????What role do experts have in cases involving parental alienation?

Unfortunately, my answers to most of these questions were negative. Why you may ask? I felt that the article perpetuates the most problematic aspects of this concept and does nothing to inform or guide practitioners towards a better approach and this is compounded by my view that much of the information in this particular article was legally outdated and incorrect.

Whilst the concept of parental alienation continues to stir up debate, there is actually no agreed definition for what parental alienation is and the Family Court in England and Wales have wrestled with the concept in a number of cases. There is a working definition adopted by CAFCASS but even this is problematic as it based on a definition that has been rejected by the Court of Appeal.

The article which caused me to write this piece quotes two proponents of parental alienation/parental alienation syndrome: Richard Gardner and Ludwig Lowenstein and this, for me, is where the problems for this article begin.

Whilst the idea that difficulties can arise in the relationship between a parent and child was not a new concept, it was Gardner who named it as parental alienation syndrome and is seen by many as the creator of the concept. His work has been heavily criticised, with his work on parental alienation syndrome consisting of anecdotes from his clinical practice rather than any meaningful research. His (extreme) views on parental alienation syndrome and other topics resulted in widespread coverage of his views but rather than promote discussion in a positive way, the concepts of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome have been dogged by the controversy which surrounds Gardner.

Many of those who write on the subject of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome and many of those who profess to being experts on the concepts are aligned with Gardner’s views and seek to perpetuate his understanding of what these concepts are. Despite the number of those professing to be experts and organisations campaigning for better outcomes, no one has sought to conduct or commission empirical research or test the validity of Gardner’s conclusions but rather jump on his bandwagon and accept what he has to say without challenge. One such proponent was Lowenstein, an English psychologist who wrote widely on the concepts and held himself out as an expert on parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome. Indeed, Lowenstein was also an expert witness in the Family Court. Even the scantest look at Lowenstein’s work highlights that he aligns himself closely with the work of Gardner. In 2000, the Court of Appeal heard a number of appeals, including a case where Lowenstein gave evidence at first instance. Having sought some assistance from Sturge and Glaser, the Court of Appeal unhesitatingly rejected Lowenstein’s evidence. Yet articles such as the one that has resulted in this piece provide an air of legitimacy and validity to what Lowenstein says and is directed to those lawyers who are called upon to advise parents in these difficult cases. Furthermore, such articles are written by psychologists who seek to medicalise the concept and downplay the rejection of parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome from international medical directories.

Experts can and do play a vital role in the family justice system. Experts shine light where there is darkness and allow the Court to undertake a holisitic analysis of a case. But it is fair to say that experts are only one part of the puzzle. In all other aspects of family law, there is a clear role for experts and the role they play in proceedings is clearly defined. But with cases where parental alienation is said to be a feature, a completely different approach appears to be taken. In many cases, the Court will defer to an ‘expert’ to diagnose parental alienation and then the Court will endorse the same ‘expert’ to recommend treatment and often go on and deliver that treatment. Does this not blur the lines? What is essentially happening in these cases is that the Court delegates the setting of a factual matrix to an ‘expert’ who has a vested interest in ‘diagnosing’ as they are then likely to be invited to ‘treat’ the very issue that they have defined. All of this against a backdrop where parental alienation has no universally accepted definition, there is no clear approach to such cases and, it seems, everyone holds themselves out to be experts. Caution is needed.

I am not saying that parental alienation or parental alienation syndrome does not exist. I am not saying that it does exist. The saying goes that are too many cooks in the kitchen and the same rings true regarding parental alienation. Whilst I am sure that everyone wants to ascertain whether parental alienation exists and improve outcomes in cases where it may be feature, at the moment everyone is pulling in different directions which only serves to add to perpetuate the difficulties and frustrate the Court’s ability to offer the consistency that is so desperately needed.