Diagnosing Child Contact Disputes Between Parents

(Are there solutions?)

Ludwig.F. Lowenstein Ph.D

Southern England Psychological Services

Abstract

It is important to diagnose child contact disputes between resident and non resident parents. Such disputes usually follow an acrimonious separation or divorce. Such parents fail to consider what is in the best interest of their children. The custodial parent therefore in such cases often perpetrates emotional abuse by preventing good contact between children and the now absent parent. Courts frequently fail to spot the signs of parentally induced alienation against the now absent parent. Instead, the court acts on the basis of what the child/children say they want- no or little contact with the absent parent. The two appendices “Diagnosis of lack of good contact” and “Possible signs of Programming Parental Alienation (PA) of Child by the Custodial Parent Against the Non Custodial Parent”, have been found useful by the current psychologist.

Diagnosing Child Contact Disputes Between Parents

 (Are there solutions?)

Due to the large number of relationships between parents ending in a parting, there have been increasing signs of disputes over contact with children. This is usually due to an acrimonious parting of the parents.  In the appendix there is a diagnostic schedule used by the current psychologist in the diagnosing of child contact disputes.

What follows deals with the recent research concerned with the area of contact disputes due to “implacable hostility” between the former partners. This is followed in turn with some research by the author into diagnosing and treating this condition. Some of these cases end in the family courts. The result frequently is a lack of justice for the non resident parent whether it be the father or mother, but it is usually the father. Children usually remain with one parent, most likely the mother, with the other parent, most commonly the father, having minimum or no good contact with the children.

In the long term, the children become the main victims due to the fact that one or both parents are more concerned with their own rights and the acrimony they feel towards the other parent than wishing to do what is in the best interest of their children. An illustration follows of such a case. This is balanced by a second example of good contact with a non resident parent and his children.

Illustration 1

This illustrates poor or no contact between an absent parent and children.

Mr X and his ex-wife were aged 48. They had had an unhappy marriage for some considerable time. The father stated that love had gone out of their marriage many years ago. Due to his love for his two daughters, he decided to curtail his own needs for a sexual relationship and persist with the marriage. When one daughter was twenty and the other seventeen, he decided to leave the home and the relationship and live on his own. He divorced his wife after two years but maintained a close relationship with both his daughters.

Eventually he met and married another woman somewhat older than himself. Both parties appeared to be happy in their new relationship. Mr X noted that his ex-wife’s attitude towards him changed after he became involved with someone else. His former wife became hostile and aggressive. His daughters with whom he had always had a close relationship now also changed. The older daughter now at university had some contact with her father. The younger one wished nothing more to do with him.

The younger daughter who was once very close to her father had been alienated against him due to the vehement dislike of the mother towards her former husband. Eventually she refused even to speak to her father  on the telephone. This was an extremely distressing event for the father. He was advised to not to continue phoning his daughter and suffering from the humiliation of being rejected. Instead the psychologist dictated a letter to be sent to his daughter giving her the opportunity of contacting him at any time and resuming the close relationship that they had before he remarried. He was asked to emphasise the fact that he loved his daughters and that this would never change, and although he had once loved their mother this was no longer the case through no fault of anyone. Father then waited for his younger daughter to return to him at some point in time in the future. He fully realized that his former partner and wife had done as much as possible to turn this daughter against him when she could have done the opposite, as is the case of the next example.

Illustration 2

This illustrates a good positive contact between a non resident parent and his children.

Mr and Mrs Y were married for ten years before they realized that they were not really suited to one another. Both were happy to accept the fact that although they both loved their children they no longer loved one another. This is why, despite feeling some unhappiness about her husband leaving her, Mrs Y accepted that the young children they had both created had the right of contact with both parents and that this should be good contact. She therefore encouraged both children always to have contact with their father and even from time to  time would go out as a family to enjoy activities such as bowling and swimming. Both Mr & Mrs Y eventually remarried with other partners but this did not interfere with the fact that the natural father Mr Y continued to have good contact with his children mainly due to the fact that matters were in harmony between himself and his former wife because they considered what was in the best interest of their children.

Research into contact disputes

Compared with the problems encountered via family courts there has been relatively little research in the area of how to deal with contact disputes effectively (Lowenstein, 2007). Lowenstein saw the courts as an essential area in dealing with difficult contact disputes. He felt the courts were on the whole unaware of the deeper psychological aspects when implacable hostility in one or both parents led to a parent preventing contact between children and the absent parent. Such custodial parents frequently employ the process of alienation or brainwashing the children against the now absent parent. In most cases, but by no means all, this was the absent father with the mother having custody of the children. The purpose of the alienation was to prevent good contact, or any contact for that matter, between the absent parent and the children. In some cases the custodial parent may have remarried or started a new relationship and wished to totally eliminate the now absent parent from the lives of the children.

The emphasis of the research that does exist considers a relatively superficial view of children being heard by the courts and not considering that what they reveal may be based on a bias in favour of the custodial parent (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008).
Perry & Rainey (2007) seek to provide an alternative to using courts if possible. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be effective in many cases due to the implacable hostility between parents. The case may well respond to mutually agreed mediation by the parents. Mediation is always worth attempting, even when this results in failure. A report by the mediator, usually a psychologist or psychiatrist, can then be placed before the courts suggesting who is responsible for the failure of the mediation and who is in fact alienating the children against the other party. It is for the Judiciary, however, to make the ultimate decision about what to do in such cases of alienation. This will, hopefully be based on conclusions reached by the expert witness.

Some members of the Judiciary seek involvement with cases by interviewing children themselves in court or in Chambers before making decisions (Parkinson, Cashmore & Single, 2007; Parkinson & Cashmore,2007).

It is unfortunate, however, that judges are likely to be unaware or wish to avoid the way children’s minds can be manipulated by vindictive parents who have custody of children. This can lead to injustices and a judicial outcome which results in the now non custodial parent being ousted from the good nurturing contact with the children (Trinder & Kellett, 2007).

One empirical study of 30 divorcing parents noted the frequent inter-parental hostility leading to child alienation (Altenhofen, Biringen, & Mergler, 2008). The children in this study were 12-59 months old. Non traditional families where parents are unmarried are on the increase but there should be no difference between these non traditional arrangements than in more traditional ones involving marriage. Unmarried fathers and grandparents and step-parents are therefore frequently pressing claims for contact with children born from a relationship (Wassoff, 2009).

Although frequently imperfect, Trinder & Kellett (2007) in their efforts to provide justice in disputes between former parents consider that professionals such as Psychologists and Psychiatrists have a great contribution to make to understand and deal with the underlying factors of the process of alienation and how this can effect a lack of contact between the non custodial parent and children (Perry & Rainey, 2007).

Current research ongoing with 45 parents suffering contact disputes

The table which follows attempts to provide some information about the feelings of non custodial parents self-referred to the current psychologist due to their problems relating to lack of contact with their children. The table is self explanatory and 1) indicates the gender of the custodial parent which is predominantly the mother; 2) the length of time non resident parents have sought contact unsuccessfully; 3) the age of the children involved in the initial seeking of contact by the non resident parent; 4) the number of  non custodial parents had indirect contact of either a supervised or unsupervised nature; 5) what were the main concerns in achieving good direct contact by the non resident parent; 6) the relationship of non resident parent before break-up; 8) cases where domestic violence allegedly occurred; 9) number of cases where  the non custodial parent felt the child was controlled by the custodial parent; 10) cases where the child has become abusive to the non custodial parent due to the influence of the custodial parent.

Table 1

A study of 45 self-referred mothers and fathers suffering from the effect of PAS

Discussion of results

It was clear from the research reported in the tables that most absent parents had had a good relationship with their children before the break-up of the relationship. Despite this fact there followed a deterioration of contact with the children. The reason for such lack of contact in not seeing the children at all was due to the fact that the implacable hostility of the custodial parent directly or subtly prevented this. It was also felt by many that the courts were not very helpful and neither were CAFCASS in eliciting good contact between worthy absent parents and their children, most especially when children refused such contact at the instigation of the custodial parent.

Some non resident parents had been seeking contact for many years after separation from the custodial parent. Some had struggled as long as 5 years to have some kind of contact with their children. In most cases this had failed. The most common form of contact experienced was indirect, followed by supervised and very little direct contact, or unsupervised short of long term contact.

Non resident parents who were deprived of contact with their children were very critical of the courts as the courts did not show any real determination to provide an opportunity for non resident parents to have good contact with their child. They frequently listened more to what the child said, not taking into account the fact that the child could, and often was influenced in their opinion by the custodial parent. They did not consider what positive emotion the child felt deeply about the absent parent. Many parents felt that what the child said was merely vocalising the views of the hostile, alienating custodial parent. Domestic violence if and when it occurred in some families was more often mutual, than one sided.  Hence both fathers and mothers were equally responsible for such violence. Most non resident parents felt the children were under total control of the custodial parent having identified with that parent. These children frequently felt guilty if they had any positive contact, especially good contact, with the now absent parent. Frequently there was jealousy from the custodial parent toward the non custodial parent concerning material possessions (house, car, more income etc) which the custodial parent could not provide for the child. This influenced the opinions that the custodial parent were put forward to the child concerning contact sessions. It is sad to say that the reaction of many children was to abuse the non resident parent, mainly verbally, especially in front of the custodial parent. This “bad mouthing” provided support for the custodial parent and made the child feel that they were being loyal to the custodial parent by attacking the non resident parent. This was particularly the case if the non resident parent found another partner or if there was a difference in material income and possessions between the custodial parent and the non custodial parent where the custodial parent was the poorer and could provide less for the child.

Appendix 1:  DIAGNOSIS OF LACK OF GOOD CONTACT

Survey Concerning Non Custodial Parents Seeking Direct Access to Child/Children

Introduction

            This survey consists of two parts. The first part is more of a personal nature relating to direct contact, while the second deals with areas that may be responsible for lack of contact with a child by the non custodial parent. Part 2 is based on a longer article dealing with signs of parental alienation by a programming parent who has custody of child/children.

1.         Gender of non custodial parent          Male □             Female □    Age _______

2.         Length/time in which direct contact has been sought. _____________________

            _______________________________________________________________

3.         Age of child/children. ______________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

4.         Has indirect contact been used?                    Yes □              No □

5.         Has it led to direct contact?                            Yes □              No □

6.         Has supervised contact been achieved?        Yes □              No □

7.         Has it led to direct contact?                            Yes □              No □

8.         What are your main concerns  experienced in seeking direct contact?       

_______________________________________________________________

        _______________________________________________________________

        _______________________________________________________________

        _______________________________________________________________

9.         How was your relationship with the child/children before separation from partner?    

    _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

10.       What criticism do you have of the court’s laws and those involved
            when one seeks direct contact?

______________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

11.       How could matters be improved?____________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

12.       Have you achieved direct contact or are you likely to do so?

            Yes □                          No □                            Uncertain □

13.       If “Yes” how was direct contact achieved?_____________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

14.       If “No” what caused non contact? ___________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

15.       Have you any advice to a parent regarding seeking direct contact? _________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

    _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

16.       Have there been acts of violence by yourself against a partner?_____________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

17.       Has there been an act of violence against your by a partner? ____________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

18.       Have the acts of violence been mutual during your relationship? ___________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

19.       Suggestions for improving the current situation of obtaining direct contact with a child/children by a non custodial parent.

    _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

NOW PLEASE COMPLETE PART II CONCERNED WITH PROBLEMS RELATED TO DIRECT CONTACT AND POSSIBLE ALIENATION
.

Appendix 2

Possible Signs of Programming Parental Alienation (PA) of Child/Children by a Custodial Parent (CP) Against Non Custodial Parent

1.         The child expresses attitudes toward your which resemble those of the custodial parent.                Yes □              No □

2.         Has there been evidence that your efforts to communicate with your child have been interfered with by the custodial parent?

   _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

            _______________________________________________________________

3.         Do you feel you have been blamed unfairly, or in an exaggerated manner, for what you have or have not done?         

Yes □ No □

4.         Have you been abused verbally by your child, the abuse (insults) resembling the views of the custodial parent i.e. called liar, abuser etc?

Yes □  No □

5.         Do you feel you are being unjustly rejected by your child/children?

Yes □  No □

6.         Do you have evidence the CP is actually programming children against you?

            Yes □ No □

7.         Did you in the past have a good, warm relationship with your child/children which has changed since your absence from the home and your child/children?

            Yes □ No □

8.         Do you feel that your child/children are under the total control of the custodial parent?

            Yes □ No □

9.         Do you feel your child would feel guilty or even feel fear if your child is    affectionate and loving towards yourself due to the PA against you?

            Yes □ No □

10.       Do you feel you will be unable to achieve a positive and good relationship with your child while the child lives with the custodial parent?

     Yes □              No □

11.       Have you been accused of abusing your child/children physically, sexually or emotionally by custodial parent?       

Yes □              No □

12.       Do you think your child/children  is/are using inappropriate statements for his/her age which resemble the statements of the custodial parent?

   Yes □              No □

13.       Have your immediate family (grandmother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews etc) also been rejected by the fact that there has been little or no contact with them by your child?

   Yes □              No □

14.       If a therapist or mediator has been involved who has considered PA as actually existing, has the custodial parent turned against the psychologist/psychiatrist/   mediator?

    Yes □              No □

15.       Has there been for some time a hostile relationship between CP and yourself?

            Yes □              No □

16.       Has the custodial parent  moved away with the child/children or has threatened to do so without your permission?

    Yes □              No □

17.       Has the custodial parent threatened or actively changed the surname of the child?

            Yes □              No □

18.       Do you consider the child/children’s reason for not wishing contact is based on frivolous reasons?

    Yes □              No □

19.       Are you aware of the fact that if the frivolous reasons were eliminated the child/children would still not wish for direct contact with you?

Yes □              No □

20        Have there been difficulties in the past in arrangements made for direct or other contact with the child/children by yourself. Is this not being honoured or observed or obstacles being placed in the way thereof?

  Yes □              No □

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE MAKE OTHER PARENTS AWARE OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

Bibliography:

Altenhofen, S., Biringen, Z., & Mergler, R. (2008). Significant Family Dynamics Related to Postdivorce Adjustment in Parents and Children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49(1), 25. doi:10.1080/10502550801971280.

Cashmore, J., & Parkinson, P. (2008). Children's and Parents' Perceptions of Children's Participation in Decision-Making After Parental Separation and Divorce. Family Court Review, 46(1), 91-104.

Parkinson, P., & Cashmore, J. (2007). Judicial conversations with children in parenting disputes: the views of Australian Judges. Int J Law Policy Family, ebm005 doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebm005

Parkinson, P., Cashmore, J., & Single, J. (2007). Parents and children’s views  on talking to Judges in parenting disputes in Australia. Int J Law Policy Family, ebl022. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebl022

Perry, A., & Rainey, B. (2007). Supervised, Supported and Indirect Contact Orders: Research Findings. Int J Law Policy Family, 21(1), 21-47. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebl020

Trinder, L., & Kellett, J. (2007). Fairness, Efficiency and Effectiveness in Court-based Dispute Resolution Schemes in England. Int J Law Policy Family, 21(3), 323-340. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebm009