Abstract & Summary
This article describes the difficulties an
expert witness for the family courts has experienced when advocating the
removal of an alienated child from the influence of the alienator.
It must be said advocating the removal of a
child from an alienating custodial parent should only be countenanced when:
1) parental alienation had definitely taken
place;
2) when the alienated parent fails to accept
the court orders and states the child refuses good contact;
3) when efforts have been made to use
therapy to change the position of the child of not wishing contact with the
alienated parent.
The Judiciary will tend to make a decision
with which the current expert may not agree and they fail to consider the
effects of PA in later adult life.
Introduction
Sometimes my conscience pricks me. This is
especially the case when my certainty in the conclusions I reach, are both
fair and well-founded but nevertheless tinged with some uncertainty and
concern. I then ask myself, as I am certain other expert witnesses must do:
“Have I indeed come to the right conclusion or decision
reached?” These conclusions, of course, may or may not influence the Judiciary. The
Judiciary makes the ultimate and final decisions in any case. Having
reached the age of 85, I tell myself, I have hopefully gained enough wisdom
and skill to be relatively certain that what I conclude in a particularly
complex case is both right, just and to the best of my ability honest and
true. It is my position that I consider first and foremost what is in the
long and short term interest of the child/children.
Let me explain what I am getting at by
exemplifying what I have already said via a complex and relatively rare
case in which I have been involved with in the family court. As one who has
worked in this field many, many years it is frequently the decision of
courts and solicitors to select me as the expert witness due to my long
period of experience.
The
case
Needless to say in presenting this case and
the dilemma, rather than the doubts I experienced, the case will be
suitably disguised in order not to be identified by anyone. This is only
right to do, as the actual case is ongoing at the time of the writing of
this article. It will be a confession by one expert witness, namely myself,
who is attempting to do the very best he can to solve difficult demands by
opposing factions. I am hoping that by putting pen to paper, matters will
become clearer and the reader can share with me my concerns.
The decision I reach can also be judged by
the reader, who may or may not agree ultimately with my conclusions and my
decisions reached in an actual
Family Court. My recollection after giving evidence was that the Judge
seemed less than happy with my stance in this case and therefore might or might not follow my advice, unless, as
already stated, other expert witnesses agree with me. The reader of this confession may or may
not agree with what I myself decided right or wrong as being the correct
course of action.
We
enter the courtroom
I realise, that as I reached my decision that
I too am only mortal and do not necessarily possess all the wisdoms of a
Solomon! Now let us enter the courtroom together where the drama takes
place. Before doing so, let me tell you of my decision reached and later
the basis of my decision. It was my conclusion that a 10 year old boy
should be removed from the custody of his mother and given to the custody
of his father’s care.
The boy had been convinced by his mother that
his father was “the devil incarnate”. The influence of the
mother had been that the father should not have any contact with him,
despite a court order having decided otherwise. Mother, due to her own
implacable hostility towards her former partner wished totally to
obliterate the father and to also obliterate the positive and happy
memories which the boy had about his father, and which appeared to have
existed in the boy’s mind before the parent’s relationship
ended. On the whole the mother was successful in turning the boy against
his father.
The success of this was borne out by the fact
that despite, earlier court decisions that the father should have regular
contact, the boy steadfastly refused to see his father. Now let us move
into the courtroom itself. Here I gave evidence based on my own
investigation of the father, the mother and the child.
My investigation and its results
It was on the basis of truly factual evidence
that I wished to base my conclusions and opinions leading to
recommendations to the court. My earlier report and recommendations to the court
which was based on my earlier investigation of all the clients involved.
I will now share with you what took place in
court. Incidentally, another expert witness of the same status as myself
agreed with my own findings, that the child had been alienated against the
father. This expert witness however, did not go so far as to recommend the
removal of the child from the mother and placing that child with the
father. The reader is being put in the position of being virtually a jury
judging the rightness of wrongness of my own conclusions reached. It is
quite possible that your views will differ from my own and I respect your
own stance whatever it may be.
As someone who analyses the personality of
people in great depth I use a number of approaches. These are: 1) I study
the background history and views expressed by the protagonists, that is the
father, the mother, and the child; 2) the views of other individuals
involved such as Social Workers and other professionals; 3) members of both
sides of the family involved in the case; 4) my own interview of the
individuals in conflict, these being father, mother and the child; 5)
psychological tests that are in the main objective measures of personality,
but also projective techniques.
Needless to say, those approaches frequently
do not show agreement. Parents and members of their family are likely to
take sides. The sides taken are generally based on a biased view which
favours one side or the other. Professionals can also differ in their
opinion reached based on bias, prejudice etc. My own interviews are also
open to the potential for wrong information being presented.
Those interviewed by myself can be expected
to have a point of view which frequently is biased and sometimes blatantly
dishonest. It must be said that another expert witness agreed with me, as
already stated, that the mother had turned the child against the father by
what is commonly termed “parental alienation”. It must be
admitted that being a Psychologist rather than a Psychiatrist or any other
professional, I rely mostly on psychological tests to help me find an
appropriate view and solution. These tests are not necessarily foolproof
but appear to me to be more valid and reliable than the other 4 approaches
delineated. I personally have more faith in objective measures and to some
degree projective techniques, especially when the tests have a
‘validity score’ or what is commonly termed a’ lie
score’. A high lie score occurs when an individual is seeking to
present him/herself in the most perfect social light which is unlikely
to be valid. The high lie score also
occurs when the individual presents him/herself with less negative traits
than is generally found in the population of “normal” individuals.
What most of us have come to realise, is that
we are imperfect creatures with, in some cases, many, but in most cases
some, failings in our personality as reflected in our behaviour. We must
accept that very few people are perfect, always just, or honest etc. and
that most of us mortals posses both good and less desirable attributes.
Having deviated briefly from presenting my
analysis of protagonists, in the family courts, (the mother, father and
child) I now briefly describe the individuals concerned concentrating on
their personality assessment based on psychological tests or inventories.
The personality of child, mother, and father
as assessed by one expert witness
The child
Let me start with the child. Let us call him
John. John was adamant that he wanted nothing to do with his father. He
entered the testing room committed to that phrase as if he had learned it
by heart or it had been inculcated by someone in his mind. He described his
mother in the most glowing or virtuous terms. Mother had been the only one
in his life. She alone loved him and cared for him, and he had reciprocated
this love and care. She was his main
protector and it was his mother’s advice which he tended to
follow, rather than that of his father.
When he described his father, the very
opposite picture emerged. His father was described as violent and abusive
verbally and physically, untrustworthy and someone who did not love him or
care for him. The boy confessed that for many reasons, he did not want
anything to do with his father. He did not even wish to have telephone
conversations with him. He did not wish to meet his father even under
supervised conditions where he would feel safe in his father’s
presence. He described his father as someone towards whom he had never been
close or towards whom he felt neither affection or love. He agreed with his
mother totally that his father had nothing to offer him. John claimed that
he had never enjoyed his father’s company before his father and
mother parted and had even less desire to meet and be with his father now
that father had left the home. He
described the frequent verbal arguments between his parents as painful and
he always sided with his mother. Father was always viewed as being wrong.
Mother had found another partner very soon
after father had left and mother encouraged John to consider this new man
as his father. It was therefore not surprising that when John was asked to
draw a picture of himself and his family doing something that his natural
father was totally absent in the picture drawn. Instead, he drew himself
first and then his mother close beside him and “his new father”
beside his mother.
On the Sentence Completion Test there was
more evidence provided by John about the closeness to his mother and an
abhorrence he felt towards his father, whom John described as “bad in
every way”. He spoke about his ‘new father’ in the most
positive of terms. He was described as kind, fun to be with, and caring.
John appeared now to be happy with his family in every way especially if he
was not forced to see his natural father who, as previously stated, he
appeared to detest.
The mother
The assessment of the mother using
psychological testing revealed that she was a strong-willed and forceful
personality. She was totally in control of the home and had been for many
years and of course very close to John and the new man in her life. This
man she described in the most glowing of terms. He was everything her
former husband was not. He was kind, agreeable, never aggressive verbally
or otherwise, and they got on well together, as did John with his new
father. John also appeared to like this new man, something he claimed he
had never felt towards his natural father.
On the personality testing it was noted that
she had a high lie score and appeared to be of a very forceful personality.
She had a high psychoticism score compared with other women of her age. She
had strong views of right versus wrong and was certain that her son was now
better off with his new father and the avoidance of contact with his
natural father. Although, the court in an earlier decision decided that the
father should have regular contact with John, mother stated that she tried
to follow the instructions of the court but could not get John to go to his
father. She staunchly claimed that she “encouraged” John to meet
with his natural father but John had refused on his own initiative to do so
and she could not and would not force John to see his father, if he did not
wish to do so.
Mother described the natural father as
verbally aggressive but not physically aggressive toward her. He had
slapped the boy on two occasions but mother would not elaborate why father
did this. She described the slaps as “unnecessary” and
‘”over the top” behaviour and disagreed with this kind of
admonishment. She described the natural father as unfeeling and only
wishing to see John to try and turn the boy against herself. In this she
claimed the natural father was totally unsuccessful when he did have
contact in the past. Mother claimed that she felt John had nothing to gain
by having any contact with his natural father and much to lose in being
“with that man”.
Father
The interview with the natural father
demonstrated a totally different scenario. Father claimed that he had loved
and would always love his son. This was despite John’s reluctance now
to have any contact with him. Father claimed that his former wife had
demonised him to John. Father claimed that he and his son had in the past a
warm, loving, as well as fun loving relationship. Unfortunately father had
to be away in the past on business from time to time and he was
consequently not always home to interact with his son. When he was there he
tried to make up for his time away by being closely involved with him. He
and John both supported the same football team and had attended games
together, often without the mother who did not like football. During
holidays, he swam with his father and went out in a boat to go fishing and
shared many mutually enjoyable activities.
Father described his former partner and wife
as a devoted mother. It was a description in the very opposite terms in
which he was described by his former wife. She was, however, also described
as highly opinionated, controlling and intolerant. Father described her as
wanting total control over John and himself and the home. It was for the
latter reason and the frequent verbal arguments that ensued that he felt
the need to leave the matrimonial home. He felt the verbal quarrels were
bad for John to witness.
He admitted readily to having slapped his son
twice for bad behaviour and once because of being disrespectful towards his
mother! This reason, as will be remembered, mother failed to reveal. Father
stated that mother never corrected John in whatever he did . The boy could
do no wrong. Such a lack of chastisement created a child that was willful
and sometimes insensitive towards other people. Mother totally doted on
John and as far as she was concerned, John could do nothing which would
require chastisement.
In other words mother and father differed
totally in what they expected from John. Father stated that he was never
violent or abusive towards his former wife but disliked her now but had
never spoken badly about her to his son. His main reason for disliking her
was that there was now no opportunity for him to have any contact or positive
relationship with John, where previously John and his father had been
close.
This was deeply hurtful to the father, who
felt that he and his son had in the past been mutually close and deeply
loved one another. Father suspected that the mother had over time totally
turned John against his father and that this influence had impacted on John
in his reluctance to have contact with him. Father could not believe that
his son could not remember the good times they shared in the past and the
love that was present between them.
On the personality testing the father had a
low “lie score” indicating the fact that he was presenting
himself as honestly as possible in the testing administered. He also had a
relatively low forcefulness score. This indicated he was not an aggressive,
authoritative or controlling personality. He suspected that his former
partner spoke badly about him to their son and that over time John had been
totally influenced, and even brainwashed, by this behaviour. This led to
John rejecting and totally obliterating his father.
Father had never had the intention of
removing or attempting to have total custody of John from his
mother’s care but merely wanted to play some part in his life as the
natural father. It saddened the father that John had adopted the views of
the mother that the new man in mother’s life should now be regarded
as the father figure in John’s life. The natural father felt this was
both unfair and not in the short and long term interest of John.
The court room drama unfolds
As the expert witness in the case, I felt,
based on the evidence, that father was entitled to good contact with his
son and the rebuilding of their relationship to what it was in the past. I
also felt that from all the evidence and most especially the personality
testing that father was an innocent victim of the mother’s implacable
antagonism and that she had alienated John totally against his own natural
father. I felt that this had been motivated by the mother actively, yet
also subtly, conspiring to create a child who loathed and rejected his own
natural father. A second expert witness ( a psychologist) had come to the
same conclusion.
In simple, but extreme words, mother had, and
would continue to influence John against a good natural father until that father
was totally rejected by a once loving son. I considered this to be a severe
example of emotional and psychological abuse based on implacable hostility
between the mother and her former husband. I felt that this was leveled at
a vulnerable child to make that child believe that a once loving father had
no value whatsoever in his life.
This brainwashing I felt was not in the best
interest of John or any child. I also felt it was unjust and unfair that a
good father should be deprived of interacting with a formerly loving child.
In the meantime it had to be acknowledged, that despite the mother’s
insidious behaviour, father yet spoke well of the mother. This was despite
the fact that the mother had contrived to have the natural father replaced
by another man. John was to regard the mother’s new choice of a
partner as the new father.
A
Barrister’s criticism of the expert witness
I was attacked vehemently in court by the
Barrister representing the mother. This was a natural consequence of the
judicial “adversarial” approach. Unlike expert witnesses,
Barristers and Solicitors are not independent. They will side and act only
on behalf of their client. The attack from the Barrister came as a result
of my opinion given in my earlier conclusion, that the child needed to be
removed from the mother and placed with the father. My earlier report to
the court and my testimony in the court were the same. A change of
residence was needed. I decided that mother should lose custody of John
unless she immediately cooperated with the Court’s ruling that
she ensured that John had good, positive, and regular contact with his
father. Failure in good contact should result in father gaining immediate
custody of John. The expert witness made it clear that the excuse given by
mother was invalid. The boy’s refusal to see his father was due to
her alienation. The fact that she
would not force him to see his father was due totally to her hostility
towards the natural father. The expert witness made it clear that there had
been a good relationship between the father and the son in the past and
that mother had gradually demolished this through the process of
alienation. She needed to undo this, and she would only be successful in
this if she truly and sincerely encouraged positive and good contact with
the father, with no excuse being provided for the child not turning up in
father’s company and responding appropriately.
The mother’s Barrister attacked the
expert witness as an expert on the following issues: firstly I was asked in
the court whether I was a “zealot” or a “fanatic”
about my views. This is a normal ploy carried out by Barristers to make an
expert witness look extreme and therefore as a hostile individual; secondly
I was criticised for potentially harming a child by forcing that child to
be removed from a loving mother and placed with a father who was detested
by the child.
My response to these criticisms was as
follows: 1) to the point of accusation made that I was a zealot, I stated
“
It depends what you mean by being a zealot. If you mean I am fanatical in
believing that two good natural parents, and I mean “good”,
should bring up a child and this is better than one doing so, yes I am as
you say a zealot. I fully admit that it is an important principle of mine
in which I believe that both parents have a right and responsibility to
care for their child regardless of how they feel about one another. If that
makes me a zealot, then indeed I am one. If you accept as I do that two
natural parents should work together for responsibly brining up a child,
rather than one who is attempting to turn the child against a former loving
parent, yes then I am a zealot. I further believe that an alienating parent
who speaks badly about the other parent is in fact an emotional abuser. If
you agree with me on this point, then you too are a potential zealot! If
you believe as I do, that two caring parents, whether together or apart,
have a responsibility to be involved with a child and guide that child together
then you are as much of a zealot as I am.
As you
must know one can be a zealot which is to the benefit of others including a
child. You can call an individual a zealot by doing what is in the best
interest of that child rather than doing what is wrong and abusive toward
that child. I believe that a parent turning a child against the other good
parent is ”evil” and not in the best interest of the child. It
should equally not be in the best interest of the alienator to continue to
do such alienating. It is equally unfair and unjust to the alienated parent
to be deprived of caring for a child with whom he had a good relationship
in the past.
It is
for this reason that I believe that drastic action needs to be taken in
this case and that is to remove the chance of the harm that has already
been done resulting in the child not wishing to have any contact with a
loving father. Hence, if in the next month the alienating parent can make
certain John has good contact with his father then there is no need for
John to be taken or removed from the mother’s care, and place into
the custody of the father.
If the
mother however, fails to cooperate, then the removal of John is imperative
and highly necessary. The mother will however claim that she cannot force
John to be with his father. Such a claim or view must be discounted. The
clinching argument is that if John was meant to have a dental appointment
or the need to go into hospital, he would undoubtedly be forced to go
because mother would insist on this for his own good. She could equally
insist that John must see his father, since this was also for his own good.
He must see his father not only for pure contact but to enjoy that
relationship with his father while he is with him.
John’s
relationship with his mother is such that John would do anything that she
asked him to do. It is therefore up to her, who has caused the father to be
alienated, to now reverse her policy. She needed now to speak well of the
father, something she has failed to do in the past, and change John’s
attitude and behaviour towards his father.
Father
should be able to continue playing a part in John’s life. Otherwise
there needs to be a change in residence and transferring of John into
father’s care. This is not my preferred option, but it is the only
option remaining which allows the father eventually to reengage with his
son and put right the harm that has been done by the mother’s abusing
of the father to the child. In this way the damage that has been done may
ultimately be undone.”
I
was surprised and pleased that the Judge allowed me to continue as long as
I was able to do so to argue my case. I remembered that I was independent
and this was vital in this situation but independent expert witness after
gathering evidence are able to provide factual evidence and opinions based
on such independence. The Barrister representing the mother, however, had
not finished. His next argument was more difficult to refute. It was:
“Are you not aware of the harm you are doing in advocating the
removal of the child from the close relationship he has with his mother and
placing him with the father? Are you not aware of the emotional distress
you are causing the child by removing that child from the mother’s
care and placing John with a father he hates? Isn’t such emotional
damage irredeemable and should it not be avoided. Should it not be best for
John to remain with his mother whatever occurs? Would it not be better to
wait for John himself to seek out his father when he is older?” (It
has been well established and it is important to deviate that children
rarely, if ever, seek for their natural parent after many years of
absence.)
My
reply to this was that the Judge allowed me time to provide the following
argument. My reply was as follows:
“I
agree that the course of action I have advocated and deemed necessary has
its immediate but only short term negative repercussions, if indeed it has
even that. I nevertheless, believe that it will be of ultimate value in the
long term for this boy to have a renewed relationship, which is
positive, with his natural father which he enjoyed in the past. Initially,
as you have said, such a change of custody is likely to cause distress to
the child. The mother however, is responsible, and not the father, for this
distress. She should have, but did not, encourage good contact between John
and his father when she should have done this.
Failure
to remove John from the continuing pathological influence of mother, is
necessary so the harm that has been done by the mother can be reversed.
This can only be reversed by John and his father reengaging and the mother
being admonished by the court for alienating John against his natural
father. Mother doing what she has done, has created the injustice to the
child and to the father. Such injustice needs to be reversed. For the time
being, while John is with the father the mother should have no contact
whatsoever with the boy. When John has once more reengaged with his father
and they have developed a good relationship, as was the case in the past,
then there is a possibility that mother can play a part in John’s
life once again.
Mother
must however, give an assurance that should John be returned to her
eventually she will desist from any further alienation, and that she will
abide by the court’s decision on that point. Both parents need to
abide by the court’s rulings without fail and no excuses will be
accepted by the court. Furthermore, infringement by either party should
result with the child being placed with that parent who has complied with
the court’s decision and agreed that John should have good contact
and a good relationship with both parents. Parents who readily abide by the
court decision should be rewarded by having custody of the child, and the
reverse is equally the case.”
The Barrister for the mother continued in the
attack of the expert and his view that John needed to be separated from his
mother for a time, or permanently, if she continues with her process of
alienating John against the father – “What evidence do you have
that the removal of John and being placed with the father does not produce
serious, long term emotional distress for John?” My reply was as
follows:
“Due
to the fact that many Judges fail to alter a child’s residence
research has not been done to verify that the long term effect of removing
a child from the alienator to the alienated parent is not harmful. There is
however, fairly conclusive evidence, that leaving a child with the
alienator has very many negative immediate and even more long term affects
on the child and later adult . This view is based on research which
so far suggests that the long term affects of not changing custody of a
child lead to the long term absence of that child having any contact with
the alienated parent. It also leads to future psychological problems and
even suicide in later life.
There
is another factor to be considered. What is the long term view of the court
if it is not to see that justice prevails. Putting right the injustices
which have been done in keeping John from having a continued good relationship
with a loving father is clearly wrong, if not criminal. Would one consider
allowing a thief who has stolen objects from another person to avoid being
punished for committing theft? Why therefore should it be beyond the law to
ignore and fail to punish the alienator who has diminished and eliminated a
good parent? The innocent parent does not deserve this. The innocent child
deserves to have the love of both parents and that includes the absent
alienated parent. Is this not also in the best interest of any child? The
court must agree with this important point and be ready to act firmly and
decisively in removing John from the abusive influence of a relentless and
heartless alienator. It means placing him for an unspecified time with his
father who has been a victim of alienation. Only in this way can the damage
which has been done by the alienating parent be rectified.
For
this to occur the court needs to take seriously the views expressed by the
present expert witness and indeed another expert witness who independently
arrived at the same diagnosis. Failure to do so is to accept the
‘status quo’ and leave John where he is with the repercussions
which such a course of action would follow. It is, as always, for the
Judiciary to decide what in their view is the desired, correct and just
course of action.”
Before the final verdict
Before the final verdict was rendered by the
Judge the Judge asked the expert witness some questions.
Judge: “Do
you not agree that a period of therapy with John and perhaps also including
his mother could alter the picture so that John was more willing to engage
with his father.”
Expert Witness: “I do not believe such
a therapy would be effective even though you may wish to try it. If therapy
is available, and I believe there is some limitation here, I would suggest
the following and my reasons for it:
1) Some
form of therapy has already taken place but was unsuccessful with John
shouting at the therapist and leaving the therapy room showing absolutely
no respect for the therapist who was trying to get him to understand that
good contact with his father was to his advantage.
2) My
second reason is that we are dealing with a “folie a deux”
situation. John is
entirely entwined with his mother
psychologically and shows the same implacable hostility towards the father
that mother does. Until this is changed, John will neither engage with the
therapist or with his father.
As it turned out by the end of the court case
no therapist was found.
Final decision
As of the completion of this article no
decision was reached by the Judge. The reader therefore should be the one
making his/her own determination or decision. It was clear to the expert
witness in the case that the Judge was unlikely to adopt the view of what
the expert witness advocated. It was most likely that the Judge did not
favour the extreme view expressed by the expert witness on how the case
should be resolved. The reader however, is left to make his/her own decisions,
in theory at least. That decision is determined by whether the status quo
is to be accepted and John will remain with his mother and thereby create
limited problems in relation to his own emotional state. Should the father
have to accept that he will have no further contact with his beloved son?
Should the view of the expert witness be accepted or discounted?
It is clear from what has been stated that
Judicial decisions in the final analysis are decided on subjective factors
and most importantly the Judges’ orientation and subjective thinking.
Injustice prevails – a postscript
The author of this article was obviously
interested in obtaining information as to how the court case over John
continued, and its conclusions reached. Sad as it may be, the father
reported that he was unlikely to have contact with John as the Judge
decided, after hearing the evidence from Social Services and others, that
the child’s view should prevail, this being that he did not want to
have any contact with his father despite the fact that the two expert
witnesses indicated clearly and without doubt, that John had been alienated
against his father by the implacable hostile mother in this case. The
expert witness encouraged the father to seek an appeal about this decision.
