The argument that children who reject parents after divorce and separation are doing so because that parent has been abusive, has gained traction this year, along with claims that children are being handed to abusive parents by professionals in the family court who do not understand domestic abuse. The more lurid claims suggest this is a mysoginist plot to traffic children from the arms of protective parents to abusers, claiming that children are plucked from their beds at night to be reprogrammed. At this end of the spectrum, the false belief that mothers in these circumstances are then routinely banished from the lives of their children is also promulgated. In this world, mothers are all victims of coercive control and fathers are all domestic abusers.
In the real world however, the evidence shows that mothers AND fathers manipulate children and enmesh them or control them into a mindset in which they reject a parent outright. Therefore, as the circle of denial that children can be manipulated against a loving parent becomes clearly visible around the world, it is incumbent upon those of us who work to help children who are emotionally and psychologically abused this way, to speak up and offer the evidence to those with the capacity to understand it. We must ensure, at this juncture, that what lies beneath a child’s alignment and rejection, is properly and fully articulated, because to fail to do so, will allow the tsunami of what is clearly a planned strategy of intimidation and obfuscation, to sweep away the rights and needs of yet more generations of children.
I have been articulating the problem of children’s alignment and rejection behaviours since 2009 when I first encountered a child who said he hated his father but who, in protected space, showed that he loved his father and was entirely comfortable with him. This story, of the first child I observed to be alienated, is told in Thomas Moore’s book ‘Please Let Me See my Son‘. The story is the template for all of my work with children who reject parents since and, as I am still in touch with Thomas and his son, I have had the opportunity to understand the recovery journey of the child who aligns and rejects. That is another story in itself, which is told and retold by all of the parents and children I have worked with over the intervening years. In 2023, those stories will be widely heard, as our evaluation of residence transfers, in the words of children themselves, will be told. Evidence indeed that when a child is removed from an abusive parent, the road to recovery and the capacity to thrive, depends upon the parent who has been rejected. Those same parents who are being so horribly denigrated by this joined up campaign to destroy public understanding of what really lies beneath this transgenerational trauma.
Dispelling the myth that children reject a parent outright because that parent is abusive.
This is a strong theme which is repetively used by campaigners to try to persuade the outside world that parents are simply being rejected because of their behaviour. The problem with this myth is the evidence which disproves it, not least that which uses neuroscience to do so.
In their article entitled Fear in Love – Attachment, Abuse and the Developing Brain, Sullivan and Norton Lasley, describe their work which demonstrates why children remain attached to abusive caregivers. Their work describes the epigenetic changes to the brains of the descendents of abuse victims, explaining why the trauma of a child’s alignment and rejection is transgenerational.
The brains of children who suffer neglect or abuse—about 10 out of every 1,000 children in the United States in 20081—also develop in a way that reflects the child’s experiences. And the effects of early abuse can be notoriously difficult to detect. Contrary to commonly held beliefs, it is difficult to identify an abused child unless there are obvious signs, such as bruises or injuries. The child’s behavior usually provides few clues—in fact, when social workers, doctors, or police officers attempt to rescue a child from an abusive situation, the child will often lie to protect the parents.
Regina Sullivan, Ph.D.,, Elizabeth Norton Lasley
The issue we are working with when a child aligns with one parent and completely rejects the other, is, in my clinical experience, the transmission of unresolved trauma which resides in the family system, often silently recognised by family members who accomodate that trauma by treading carefully around it. The sign that the trauma exists, lies in the use of primitive defences of denial, splitting and projection, attachment maladaptations such as enmeshment and triangulation and coercive controlling behaviours. When parents separate, the eruption of unresolved trauma creates the systemic pressure upon the child as the structural power asymmetry renders the most vulnerable people in the system helpless to the power of the unresolved trauma. This is when we see children being induced into the mindset of the parent with unresolved trauma, the defence of splitting, which pushes the child back into an infantile dependency upon this parent, is the outward display of the systemic pressure.
When we work with children who reject a parent outright therefore, the first thing we examine for is the presence of psychological splitting in the child’s relationship with their parents. A child who tells us that one parent is perfect and the other is not, who cannot tell us anything good about the demonised parent but who can tell us endlessly that the parent to whom they are aligned is wonderful, is showing us the presence of the primitive defences of denial, splitting and projection. When we see this, we know that the powerful drive in the child to cling to a parent, is precisely because of the biological drive to remain attached to a parent who is causing harm. The harm being caused however, is not simply that a loved parent is being rejected, the harm is the splitting of the child’s ego or sense of self, leading to the child’s sense of who they are fragmenting. In this scenario, the child is vulnerable to both attachment and developmental maladapatations which mirror the influencing parental mindset. This is why this problem is so harmful to children
In Sullivan and Norton Lasley’s article, the neuroscience of attachment is described, including the way in which the amygdala plays a key role in biological survival strategies. The science is a complex mix of chemical responses in relational bonding but it explains why, in biological terms, children do not reject abusive parents outright but instead seek to remain bonded to them. When we combine this knowledge, with the theory of latent vulnerability, which explains how neurocognitive and biological systems adapt to early adverse environments to achieve short term advantage, all the while increasing future risk of poor psychological/psychiatric outcomes, we see the reality of what happens to some children of divorce and separation.
But when the parent and the nest are themselves sources of danger, the suppression of fear circuits in the amygdala unfortunately still works. The fear, avoidance, and even memories associated with pain are extinguished—explaining why an abused child, even while trying to escape pain, will later seek contact with the abuser.
Regina Sullivan, Ph.D.,, Elizabeth Norton Lasley
What is really happening when a child rejects a parent outright
The evidence is clear that a child who rejects a parent outright after divorce and separation, is not doing so because that parent is abusive. Instead, it is the parent to whom the child is aligned who is causing harm and it is the alignment we should be looking at because it is this which is abusive to the child. It is abusive because, even though it looks like love, it is a fear based response which is underpinned by the biological imperative to survive. In the framework of latent vulnerability, what we are seeing when a child aligns in this way, is a child who is already vulnerable in the parental relationship, succumbing to underlying disorganised attachments. These cause the child to hyper align as a survival strategy, the rejection of the other parent being simply a by-product of that alignment. In this respect, the onset of the splitting defence, is a simple way for the child to resolve the tension in the family system caused by the dilemma of being unable to hold two realities in mind – that of the healthy parent and that of the parent with power and unresolved trauma based issues.
Rejected Parents and Therapeutic Parenting
All of this explains why the parent in the rejected position is the best person to provide healing for the alienated child. This parent holds the healthy attachments for the child and has the capacity to provide stable care which is child focused and free of conflicted dynamics and unresolved trauma. When this parent is anchored in the position of safe parent, their therapeutic power is clearly demnstrated by the reconnection and rebuilding of the child’s sense of authenticity as the false self falls away, no longer needed or necessary for self protection. This is why rejected parents are so essential for the recovery journey for the child, whilst therapists can provide the protected space, the holding of the dynamics which cause splitting and the support for the child to reconnect, it is the rejected parent who possesses the biology of attachment. In my clinical experience, that attachment is life long, it does not die or disappear, it lies beneath until activated by proximity. It may take time to emerge and for it to be a felt sense in the child, which is why the early days of reunification can feel strange to children, as if something is rusty or low in energy or sleeping. With time and protected space however, that part of self which is identified with the rejected parent, that part which has hitherto been denied and split off, comes back into consciousness and when it does, the tsunami of attachment comes with it. This is why in my work I champion rejected parents, it is because they and only they, hold the real key to healing children who are alienated from their own right to their own sense of the whole of who they are.
Far from rejecting a parent because they are abusive, some children of divorce and separation reject as a by product of the harm they are suffering at the hands of a parent they are aligned (clinging to). What lies beneath this however is the survival adaptations caused by a threatening environment, which biology overrides in the deepest parts of the brain.
What looks like love, is in fact child abuse. It is alignment and not rejection which is the source of the pain and it is this which we must articulate in the outside world as a matter of urgency.
20th December – 19:00-21:00 – a Special Christmas Circle focused on the needs of rejected parents – Cost £20 per person (family members can join for the cost of one place).
Listening Circles have proven to be very popular with parents around the world and have been spaces in which much love and care is shared amongst those who join us. This circle, like all others, will begin with a short input from me but will then expand outwards to welcome in the experience and expertise of parents in the rejected position who know that they are their child’s best hope for a healthy future.
This circle is reduced in cost to £20 to enable as many parents to join as possible and if any parent cannot afford the £20 cost but would like to join, they can email request a free place by emailing parenting@familyseparationclinic.co.uk
For the cost of one place, family members can join free of charge, our aim is to bring as much support as possible to those with the power to help and heal.
This circle is focused upon the health and wellbeing of rejected parents and grandparents as well as wider family members and offers support and care to every member of a family where a child is currently rejecting.
The needs of rejected parents are many but the first need is to be recognised and understood. This circle provides a safe space for those who are grieving, those who are surviving, those who are coping and those who are reconnecting.
This is a place to pull up a chair, light a candle and be together to share stories, be hopeful understand more deeply the journey of the alienated child and know that you are not alone.
Karen Woodall 
Dear Karen,
<
div>This is such a brilliant post th
LikeLike
May 2011
FEAR, AGRESSION AND DEPRESSION
From a neurobiological and gender perspective
(for references to div books you can also look at
http://www.marcamericalezingen.nl under the heading ‘Library’)
Marc America Male Female Differences in anxiety aggression and depression
The emotion fear, with accompanying behavior aggression or depression, would fit well in the article about emotions, about EQ and about male-female differences; however, because the connection between emotion and gender is so dominant in determining all interpersonal relationships in private, work and leisure time, I devote a separate article to it.
It is an abstract of:
Martine Delfos, ‘There may be a difference’
Louann Brezendine, “The Female Brain”
Louann Brezendine, “The Male Brain”
Dick Swaab, ‘we are our brains’
With cross connections to the behavioral styles in ‘All People’ , to Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman , to Pitfalls in your Life by Klosko and Young and to ‘All Dissenters’ by Hofstede.
Men and women differ from each other in many respects and the biological basis for this lies in hereditary predisposition, structures in the brain and substances in the brain (neurotransmitters and hormones). In addition, the basis lies in the mental programming, whereby the upbringing in the primary environment is an exponent of the cultural programming (see article Cultural differences).
For example, the differences between men and women are not only measurable in terms of experiencing and dealing with sexuality, but also in terms of anxiety, depression and aggression.
In my book ‘All people’ I talk about preferred behavioral styles and in it I write that fear and motives are the engine behind behavior.
Fear makes you try to avoid something and drives make you pursue something, they are just two sides of the same coin.
Martine Delfos identifies fear as a basic motivation.
(Throughout all the articles and books you notice that different words are often used to express the same thing. That is not a problem. It is not about the word, but about the thought that is meant by it.)
Fear determines your behavior, provided the fear is not too great. As described earlier in the article on emotion theory and the article on EQ, too much emotion hinders listening and thinking. So fear does determine your behavior, but if it escalates to panic, there is no longer any planned behavior.
Above I wrote that the origin of fear lies in biological factors and mental programming. That is, fear (for a certain situation) can be learned. E.g. a girl who was raped in childhood may become anxious in adulthood at the approach of intimacy with her partner. Or: a war-traumatized person can get violent shock reactions to the bang of a falling object.
The emotion is formed in the amygdala (almond nucleus) and the context is linked to this emotion in the adjacent hippocampus. Memory resides in the hippocampus.
THE FEAR MODEL ( stress, but the stress is not the AMOUNT of work, but the EXPERIENCE of it.
In other cultures, high work pressure can be experienced as completely normal and do not cause stress.
MODEL: When stressed, the body produces adrenaline and testosterone.
In men, testosterone is almost completely bound to protein, but can be released and made available very quickly, much more so than in women.
As a result of that large amount of adrenaline, the psychological state (emotion) arises: fear.
So if it weren’t for that adrenaline, you wouldn’t feel fear. The intensity of the fear therefore depends on the amount of adrenaline and not on the degree of danger!!!
For example, it can happen that some people feel a lot of fear when there is little danger and others feel little fear when there is great danger.
Feeling a lot or little fear is therefore not a merit, but a biological fact. That is to say, everyone has a right to his own fear, the fact that someone has fear cannot be held against him; what you do with that fear, because behavior is partly controlled by your cortex (cerebral cortex).
Within this neurobiological context, the concept of “courage” takes on a relative meaning, because it is easier to take a risk if you feel little fear. Research has shown that abnormalities can be found in the brains of psychopaths: the hippocampus (important for processing emotions) is smaller than normal, the tonsil nucleus is 20% smaller than normal and the prefrontal cortex (for controlling behavior) works less well than usual (source: Gerlof Leistra, crime reporter Elsevier).
The level of stress hormones produced depends on the (conscious and unconscious) assessment of the danger, predisposition and experience (life history). So there is also a learning factor here. You can learn stress and therefore you can also (partially) unlearn stress. (compare the behavioral therapy approach to phobias through systematic desensitization). Concerned parents often inadvertently teach their children to be afraid of the doctor: “I hope you don’t get an injection because it hurts”.
There are also clear intercultural differences in the perception of fear. For example, Hofstede showed that the cultural core value ‘uncertainty avoidance’ correlated strongly with fear: countries with a strong uncertainty avoidance such as Germany or Switzerland have a more fearful culture than, for example, England or the Scandinavian countries.
In response to fear, you can either ACT or NOT ACT.
Action leads to the consumption (=decrease) of adrenaline and thus to a reduction in anxiety (action can be a physical activity, but also a constructive thought).
Inaction, on the other hand, leads to an increase in anxiety.
The extreme form of action = aggression
The extreme form of inaction = depression.
This shows differences between men and women, based on hormones: due to the much higher testosterone content in men, the adrenaline/testosterone (A/T) ratio is much more optimal in them, making action possible. With a disturbed A/T balance you see aggression (higher testosterone) or depression (higher adrenaline).
Men not only have more testosterone, it is also released more easily and there are also more testosterone receptors so that the effect of the larger amount of testosterone is also stronger.
A low testosterone level leads to a high cortisol level, which is related to emotionality and anxiety.
High testosterone is associated with: -aggression
-sexuality
dominance and success
This is the neurobiological explanation for a theme that is currently (2011) widely reported in the media following a sexual escapade by the director of the IMF: the relationship between sex and power.
There are therefore clear gender differences with regard to fear and aggression, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
The type of aggression in men is more physical and in women more verbal and more indirect (excluding, slandering, insulting).
Men commit five times as many murders as women; of these murders, only 20% are related, women kill 60% related (Dick Swaab). The peak of homicides in men is between the ages of 20-24, when their impulsive and aggressive testosterone behavior is not yet controlled by their immature prefrontal cortex.
When action (testosterone) is taken, the fear decreases because adrenaline is consumed. IT’S THAT SIMPLE!
What is the fundamental difference between men and women in response to fear?
Men: fight or flight (action) : testosterone effect
Women: nice or victim (no action): oxytocin
Men ‘do’: they have more testosterone (which is also available more quickly from protein binding) and they have more testosterone receptors so that the effect is even stronger.
Women “talk”: Their way of reducing stress is less through the testosterone pathway and more through the pathway of the calming neurotransmitters endorphins, oxytocin, and serotonin. These substances are released more by talking, caring, socializing. This socializing is the ‘nice’ factor. Oxytocin therefore has a calming effect in the event of danger. This substance is also released during an orgasm, so sex is a good remedy for stress; but this may not tell you anything new.
Women also have more to talk about because their memory for emotional events (=hippocampus) is also significantly greater than men. They still clearly remember all kinds of details that a man doesn’t seem to have remembered at all (“yes, and then Trudy came to visit with her husband; you know, that woman with the beige jacket and the too striking earrings in…)
So where women in the fertile phase of life have too little testosterone to take action, they seek relaxation and security by being nice or submitting (victim). If they no longer produce estrogen after the transition and the precursor estradiol becomes more available for testosterone production, they become somewhat more powerful and aggressive. Men, on the other hand, produce less testosterone as they age, can process their adrenaline a little less and are more likely to become depressed as they age.
The detection of danger is done by the amygdala and is NOT a conscious process.
Experiencing danger (information is forwarded to the cortex) is a conscious process.
This amygdala is physically larger in men than in women and also contains more testosterone receptors, while the center that regulates anger, fear and aggression (ie the prefrontal cortex) is larger in women. That’s why you get men angry more easily. As men get older and their testosterone levels drop, they also suffer less from a short fuse.
(This is the biological explanation of the saying: Life consists of 3 stages, the first 20 years are for learning, the second 20 years are for fighting and the third 20 years are for learning)
Detection in the amygdala is not always flawless; experiences are stored in the brain and also drive the “selection system” of the amygdala. For example, bad experiences earlier in life can forever ring the alarm bell, even with similar experiences that are in no way threatening in the current situation. This is the origin of the so-called “pitfalls” in your life (see my article Pitfalls, based on Klosko & Young).
In case of danger, you distinguish a quick reaction > by adrenaline
And a late response > by cortisol
As soon as there is cortisol, the production of adrenaline is inhibited.
As mentioned above, an excess of stress hormone can be converted by exercise; this occurs through HYPERACTIVITY (wiggling, shaking, waving of hands) or through obsessive behavior. In addition to more physical activity, you can also produce soothing neurotransmitters and hormones that have a calming effect through PSYCHIC activity (constructive thoughts), namely oxytocin, endorphins and noradrenaline.
With age, the testosterone level in men decreases and the testosterone level in women rises (ie less consumed for conversion to estradiol in menopause).
That is why women are less depressed then (turning point 54 years) and men more depressed. They are not only less depressed, but also more energetic and sexual. Another phenomenon related to this is that women in menopause do not make as much effort as before to please others, now they want to please themselves more (Louann Brezendine). This is because her ovaries no longer produce the hormones (estrogens) (and with them her oxytocin) that so boost her communication and emotion circuits, her tendency to nurture and care, and her need to resolve conflict at all costs. to avoid.
In her book The Female Brain, psychiatrist Louann Brezendine writes that she treats women of childbearing age with testosterone patches to improve their desire to have sex. (this does require some knowledge, because the therapeutic range is narrow and side effects are quickly lurking, so don’t try this at home!).
Anxiety seems more reserved for women. Still, men are not less afraid, but they are more effective in resolving fear.
When people experience significant stress, they exhibit their preferred behavior to a greater extent.
Compare my book ‘All People’ in which I also wrote that someone’s pitfall behavior (= reinforced form of preferential behavior) becomes more visible when you put someone under pressure.
Problems between men and women become more apparent during stress.
The reason for this is that the pitfall behavior of one person is an allergy for the other. Stress drives men and women apart.
For example, a woman wants to talk more during stress or tension, while a man often does that exactly what he does NOT want; a man wants to work (act). Women blame men that they don’t want to talk but flee in their work. (“Stone walling ” , see my article on Emotions)
There is also a lot of stress in children and here, too, a difference is already visible in the processing between boys and girls (5-16 years): boys often show behavioral problems when stressed and girls often have stomach aches when stressed.
The different response to stress is a major challenge for couples under pressure (and higher risk of divorce). This risk is further increased when postmenopausal women have less estrogen and oxytocin and therefore experience reality differently, cherish and worry less and become more assertive become. Most divorces (65%) in this phase of life are initiated by women, contrary to popular belief.
To cope with this, it is necessary that both are better able to put themselves in the position of the other, better recognize and control their own emotions.
The big challenge in marital problems is not the type of problem (money, sex, children, etc.), but the way they communicate with each other about this. The way of giving each other feedback is decisive for the stability and sustainability of the relationship and this has everything to do with empathy and impulse control. (see article on EQ)
Mark America
Marc America Male Female Differences in anxiety aggression and depression
https://adoc.pub/vanuit-neurobiologisch-en-gender-perspectief-voor-de-verwijz.html
LikeLike
great point! can advocate change of law.
LikeLike
This part looks like Disturbed attachment adapted child with adapted behavior
Far from rejecting a parent because they are abusive, some children of divorce and separation reject as a by product of the harm they are suffering at the hands of a parent they are aligned (clinging to). What lies beneath this however is the survival adaptations caused by a threatening environment, which biology overrides in the deepest parts of the brain.
What looks like love, is in fact child abuse. It is alignment and not rejection which is the source of the pain and it is this which we must articulate in the outside world as a matter of urgency.
Disturbed attachment
Due to early childhood abuse, sexual abuse or neglect, there has been no opportunity to form a healthy bond with the parents. This affects all subsequent relationships. The development of self-image is also influenced by this.
In the contact there is often talk of an adapted child with adapted social behaviour. This adapted behavior is originally aimed at not causing offense and thus trying to prevent subsequent abuse or maltreatment.
This adapted behavior includes a ‘submerged’ emotional world, in which sadness, fear, disappointment, aggression and carelessness play a major role, but which are pushed into the background as much as possible.
Complex Trauma Diagnostics and Treatment (Martijn Stöfsel & Trudy Mooren)
Object relations theory
The object-relationship theory has gained popularity in recent years, including with regard to traumatization in early childhood (Fonagy & Target, 2003). Violence and insecurity in the upbringing sphere seriously hinder the development of an adequate and healthy attachment relationship between parent and child. Basic conditions for healthy identity development are not met. The child in a pinch does not feel safe enough and forms distorted mental representations of people and the world around them. As a result, all kinds of developmental tasks (such as detachment, autonomy, creativity, assertiveness) are compromised. The development of mental representations based on interactions in the daily living environment is central to this view. Parents who are inconsistent, unpredictable or unsafe in their behavior (physical abuse, neglect or spoiling) and who do not adequately meet their child’s needs influence the perspective with which children view the world. In a cognitive sense, this involves the development of schemas.
14.6 People with early childhood traumatization
People with early childhood traumatization form a diffuse group, because traumatization may have taken place in childhood in different ways. The similarity is generally the attachment problem. Furthermore, there has sometimes been parentification and almost always there are problems with individuation in later life and with relationships.
The National Center for Early Childhood Chronic Traumatization (LCVT) defines early childhood chronic trauma as the harmful psychological, biological and social consequences of traumas such as abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), emotional neglect, being in war conditions, undergoing painful medical procedures, traumatic losses in the family and/or witnessing violence during childhood, starting before the age of eight (National Center for Early Childhood Chronic Traumatization, 2008). The criterion for traumatization is not the nature and severity of an event, but an individual’s subjective response to exposure to that event.
14.6.1 Common login issues
Characteristics for complaints when the early childhood traumatized adult clients are registered are gloom, low self-esteem, fragmented self-image, low self-esteem, all kinds of indefinable fears, sub-assertiveness problems or enormous overcrowding thereof, post-traumatic stress complaints, very alert and vigilant, difficulty in giving confidence, therefore often all kinds of relationship problems and cooperation problems, not being able to relax, emotion regulation problems and personality problems with dependent and avoidant traits.
14.6.2 Factors Influencing Treatment
Disturbed attachment
Due to early childhood abuse, sexual abuse or neglect, there has been no opportunity to form a healthy bond with the parents. This affects all subsequent relationships. The development of self-image is also influenced by this.
In the contact there is often talk of an adapted child with adapted social behaviour. This adapted behavior is originally aimed at not causing offense and thus trying to prevent subsequent abuse or maltreatment.
This adapted behavior includes a ‘submerged’ emotional world, in which sadness, fear, disappointment, aggression and carelessness play a major role, but which are pushed into the background as much as possible.
Problematic relationships
There are often difficulties in relationship formation. Quite often there is a pattern of turbulent, unbalanced relationships, the fear of being abandoned or dominated, difficulty with boundaries and difficulty developing an integrated identity.
Dissociations
Especially in children who have been traumatized very early, dissociative phenomena occur more than average. There is a greater chance of dissociation, especially in children who have been traumatized preverbally.
Unrealistic expectations of the client regarding the treatment outcome
The consequences of early childhood trauma are often far-reaching. Treatment therefore often takes a lot of time. The result will not always be satisfactory for the client. It is therefore good not to raise too high expectations in the client or to temper them.
Switching between victimization and oppositional or sabotaging behavior.
(this looks like passive aggression)
The function of the adjusted behavior was to prevent subsequent abuse and/or maltreatment. This coping style leads to adapted and sometimes passive behavior in the here and now. The repressed feelings of anger and frustration can come out in a safer environment and sometimes lead to oppositional or sabotaging behavior in the here and now. This changing picture of coping styles can be a difficult factor in treatment.
14.6.3 Typical cognitions
Referring to the classification of Young’s schema therapy (Young et al., 2005), this client group, as with the second generation, mainly concerns cognitive schemas from the cluster ‘impaired autonomy and impaired functioning’, such as ‘dependence / inability ‘, ‘vulnerability to disease and danger’, ‘entanglement/tangle’ and ‘failure’.
Cognitive schemas from the cluster ‘focus on others’ also play a role, such as ‘submission’, ‘self-sacrifice’ and ‘seeking approval and recognition’. Schemas from the cluster ‘disconnection and rejection’ also occur, such as ‘abandonment or instability’, mistrust and/or abuse’, ’emotional neglect’, ‘inferiority/shame’ and ‘social isolation/alienation’.
Cognitive schemas from the cluster ‘weakened boundaries’ may also play a role to a lesser extent. Finally, the following cognitions also occur: ‘people cannot be trusted’, ‘I am not worth it’, ‘you are not worth it’, ‘first you have to show that you can be trusted’ and many others. cognitions around a lack of self-esteem, difficulty trusting the other and low self-esteem.
LikeLike
Thank you Karen for this precise and accurate summary of what real parental alienation is. I have been suffering from it since 4 years now and I have been reading on the problem since then all that was written in the past and througout these 4 years.
A huge evolution from Gardner , through mainly US followers , through many critics trying to find the reason for rejectionin the rejected parent… Even You accepted the “pure alienation” and that where the rejected parent is somehow involved in hybrid alienation.
The abusive parents are not alienated.
They are treated in a diffrent manner. They are the ones to be affraid of not to be badmouthed…
I see the clear evolution of your view upon the alienation. I am really happy because I have walked through this evolution with all your articles since 2012. And I finally understand everything that happened to my children and me.
It is easy to see a child abuse when the alienation is obvius , primitive in its methodes. ( the pure alienation?) But is is extremely difficult to recognise when the alienator works in the shadow od little manipulations, fear management, grimaces etc. when nothing is clear and obvious – maybe the rejected parent really had something done ? Or he treated the child badly? (Isn’t it a possible explanation of so called hybrid cases in the past?)
I am an alienated father of 2 children from Poland . I regret very few polish terapeutists follow your work. Those who know it, do not understand it well and do not use it in our psychological-legal dyspute.
I hope to see you as much as possible in Poland to turn the real light on upon alienation.
Thank you very much
LikeLike
The Fantasy Bond: Structure of Psychological Defenses
by Robert W. Firestone, Ph.D., in collaboration with Joyce Catlett, M.A. (1985)
Chapter 4
ORGANIZATION OF THE DEFENSIVE PROCESS
THE PRIMARY DEFENSE
The primary defense is the process of parenting oneself both internally in fantasy and externally by utilizing objects and persons from one’s environment. It relates to an individual’s reliance on internal fantasy for gratification (the fantasy bond) as well as the external manifestation of making connections (forming bonds) with other significant persons. A person who comes to depend on self-mothering through fantasy, together with self-nourishing habits and routines, develops an illusion of self-sufficiency, of needing nothing from the outside world in terms of love and care. Paradoxically, the more a person relies on this process, the less able one is to function in society and actually satisfy basic requirements for living.
SECONDARY DEFENSES
Secondary defenses are misconceptions about reality that keep the individual from yielding to the temptation to be open and vulnerable. They are systems of ideas and beliefs about the self and others that prevent one from taking a chance again on being gratified in reality. These defenses act to justify, support, and confirm a person’s retreat into an inward fantasy state. They protect the primary defense or fantasy of self-sufficiency from intrusion. This secondary line of defense keeps the primary defense intact.
Most people retain the specific patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions that they used in childhood to protect the primary defense or self-mothering process. Once they have been hurt, people are quite reluctant to take a chance again and really come to trust another relationship. Often they will precipitate a rejection because the fantasy anticipation works as a real motivating force and can create anxiety in an interpersonal relationship. The end result is that the person becomes strengthened in the conviction that he or she is the only one who can take care of or love him or herself.
The degree to which a person depends upon fantasy for “nourishment” and psychological survival will determine the extent to which he or she will have to invent rejection where there is none. For example, a woman who falls in love, then finds herself suddenly disillusioned with her lover or imagines that he is rejecting her, is in all probability protecting the self-nourishing process. Because she cannot tolerate the intrusion of genuine love into her fantasy of self-sufficiency, she must eventually push her lover away.
A dominant characteristic of the schizophrenic patient is an aversion to any intrusion into his or her fantasy world. The patient often reacts with physical aggression when the therapist attempts to enter his or her world, whereas the neurotic pulls away in subtle maneuvers or mildly provokes hostility in others. All paranoia in the schizophrenic process is essentially related to the secondary defensive process and the system of thoughts whereby threats are seen as originating in others. Thus, all perceived “threats” from the outside world support and strengthen the self-mothering process.
People who are less disturbed psychologically also have periods of withdrawal from transactions with the outside world. Indeed, inwardness or a withdrawn state can be viewed on a continuum ranging from the mild introversion of a normal individual to the extremely withdrawn, regressive state of the schizophrenic patient. People in an inward state project their fears and anger onto others and so avoid contact with them.
In the secondary defensive process, there are two ways whereby the mechanism of projection works to justify the retreat to an inward state. First, the opportunity for positive gratification by other persons is minimized by perceiving the world as essentially negative, hostile, or even dangerous.
Secondly, by acting angry or hostile while imagining that others are out to get him, the person provokes other people and pushes them away.
Thus, the male mental patient who physically attacks his therapist for tempting him with the attractions of reality is acting to protect his core defense, as is the woman who becomes defensively closed off from her lover and rejects him. Their methods and thought processes differ in terms of intensity and style but both serve a defensive solution. Psychotic aggression and neurotic distortions and maneuvers that keep distance between people are all manifestations of the secondary defensive process that preserve the primary defense of imagined self-sufficiency.
RECAPITULATING THE PAST
The neurotic individual achieves psychological equilibrium when he or she arrives at a particular solution to the basic conflict between reliance on an internal fantasy process for gratification and seeking satisfaction in the external world. When this equilibrium is threatened by events that contradict earliest childhood experiences, anxiety is aroused and the individual retreats to a more inward state of parenting the self. One’s identity as the “bad” child is disrupted if one is valued or loved by a person who has significance in adult life. To defend against intrusions into this inner fantasy, the person utilizes three major modes of defense: (1) selection; (2) distortion; and (3) provocation. These defenses are behavioral operations that serve to protect the fantasy bond.
(1) Selection
Selection is a method whereby the neurotic person attempts to arrange present-day relationships in order to replicate the early family situation. This individual is resistant to forming associations with people who would behave toward him or her in a way that differs qualitatively from the treatment received as a child. He or she tends to choose a person for a friend or mate who is similar to the parent because this is the person to whom the defenses are appropriate. The neurotic individual externalizes the introjected parental image onto this new person and uses that person to keep the “good” parent/“bad” child system intact.
Thus, people may be attracted to someone who physically resembles their father or mother. A man may choose to marry a woman whose reactions to him are the same as his mother’s. For example, one man who had an indulgent, possessive mother tended to repeat the pattern by gravitating toward controlling women of this type. Finding such a woman and marrying her served to re-establish his original fantasy bond or connection with a new, significant person in his adult life. In another instance, a woman who has a doting yet intrusive mother would probably not be attracted to a man who refused to cater to her whims or who was independent and free-wheeling. She would be more likely to marry a man who idolized her, gave in to her every wish, and who needed to possess her because of his own insecurities.
(2) Distortion
Distortion is another method that is used to protect the primary fantasy. The person who utilizes distortion as a defense alters perceptions of new objects in a direction that corresponds more closely to the members of the original family. Not all distortions are negative. Both positive and negative qualities may be attributed to significant people in the neurotic person’s life.
Admirable characteristics are exaggerated as well as undesirable traits, but the distortion generally functions to make new figures closely approximate the important people in the individual’s childhood.
The child maintains an idealized image of the mother and projects her real qualities onto others. Later, the young person will focus a kind of selective attention on a significant person in his or her life, trying to prove that this new person has negative traits similar to those of the parent.
Transference in psychotherapy is an obvious example of this type of distortion. A major task of the therapist is jointly to analyze the patient’s misperceptions of the therapist. For this reason the psychoanalyst attempts to make him or herself into a blank screen in order for the patient freely to project distortions so they can be analyzed and understood.
Sullivan’s (1953) concept of “parataxic distortion” describes altered perceptions as the basis of irrational behavioral responses and transference reactions to significant figures. He states that:
There comes a time [in the therapy] when it is possible to identify one of the parataxic concomitants that have been permanent complicating factors in the patient’s perceptions of significant other people. (p. 235)
As the therapist points out these distortions, the patient gradually “recalls vividly a series of highly significant events that occurred in interpersonal relations” (Sullivan, 1953, p. 236) with important people in the family.
People who make drastic changes in their relationships or in their life style often need to distort the new situation. Numerous case histories have been documented about children previously neglected or abused by their parents, who, when placed with loving foster parents, have distorted their new surroundings and therefore reacted adversely.
One foster child, whose real mother’s facial expression reflected her disturbed state and inner rage, had difficulty in his new, more positive environment. He mistakenly believed that his foster mother was angry toward him. He often misread her expressive movements and tone of voice, sensing irritation and tension even when she was feeling pleasant or relaxed. Continually misperceiving her as being hostile and threatening, he reacted in a fearful, guarded way. His silence and timidity made him unapproachable and unappealing to his foster parents.
It is characteristic of the damaged child to attempt to reproduce the circumstances of earlier environment, no matter how miserable they were. In the new situation, he or she may even try to provoke treatment similar to that received in the original family, if the child’s use of distortion as a defense is insufficient.
(3) Provocation
Provocation is used by the neurotic person to manipulate others to respond toward him or her as the parent did. To a large extent, the individual will behave in ways that provoke angry, punishing parental reactions in others: employees provoke anger and cynicism in their bosses by unnecessary incompetence and inefficiency; students provoke their teachers to despair with unruly classroom behavior and their refusal to complete assignments; wives and husbands provoke each other to helpless feelings of rage by their forgetfulness, by being late for important engagements, etc. Most people are largely unaware of the fact that their behavior may have the specific purpose of provoking aggression in others.
Several years ago my colleagues and I rented office space to a clinical psychologist. Within moments of meeting my associates, this man succeeded in irritating them to such a degree that his subsequent encounters with them became a standing joke. The most astonishing fact about this man was that he was able to provoke one of my associates—a meek, somewhat passive man who had never been known to lose his temper—almost to the point of physical aggression.
Later, this man asked if he could participate in a series of therapy sessions with the author. In his therapeutic interaction, he revealed his warped, paranoid view of the world. He perceived people as being belligerent, threatening, and as trying to control him. In the sessions, he was condescending and contentious. It was obvious that this person elicited the kind of response that confirmed his distorted view of people. He did, in truth, live in a hostile world where people disliked him, but it was a world of his own making.
The neurotic tendency to recreate the past is particularly evident in couple relationships. Many marriages fail because each partner distorts his or her perception of the other and provokes angry responses in order to maintain a “safe” distance. In general, people have the most difficulty in their intimate relationships because the closeness, sexuality, and companionship threaten their internal methods of gratifying themselves.
Instead of altering their defensive posture and allowing positive intrusion of friendship and love into their inner world, most people choose to distort their perceptions of their loved ones. The most tender moments in their relationships are followed by pulling back to a less vulnerable, more defended place.
All three maneuvers—selection, distortion, and provocation—work to preserve the internal parent that the person later projects onto new associations. A neurotic person anticipates that the destruction of the fantasy bond with the loved one would expose him or her once again to the anxiety, fear, and pain endured at a time in childhood when the person was helpless and dependent. Therefore, at the point where the individual begins to experience more closeness and feels more loving, he or she becomes anxious and retreats to a more familiar, less personal style of relating.
THE BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE DEFENSE SYSTEM
As stated earlier, the primary defense is one of substituting fantasy gratification for real relating. The secondary defense consists of negative hypotheses about the interpersonal environment that justify and support the primary defense.
There are several major aspects of the primary defensive process. Characteristically the psychological defense mechanisms represent an adaptation to the home environment with all its deficiencies and pressures. They become abnormal because of their intensity or degree and the misapplication to new persons or situations.
The Primary Defensive Process
(1) IDEALIZATION OF PARENT, PARENTS, OR FAMILY
(2) NEGATIVE SELF-IMAGE, SELF-HATRED, “BAD ME”
(3) NEGATIVE DISPLACEMENT OF FAMILY TRAITS ON INTERPERSONAL ENVIRONMENT
(4) THE INWARD STATE AND LOSS OF FEELING FOR SELF
(5) WITHHOLDING
(6) SELF-NOURISHING HABITS AND ROUTINES
These six aspects are not discrete entities or specific defenses, but consist of readily observed patterns that tend to overlap to a considerable extent. Therapeutic intervention directed toward correcting one component challenges the entire defensive process. Thus the patient’s resistance will be mobilized whenever he or she is threatened in any one area.
1. The idealization of parent, parents, or family, is a necessary part of the self-parenting system. Because of the extreme dependence during the early years, the child must see the parent as “good” or powerful rather than recognize parental weakness or rejection. The child feels that he or she could not survive with inadequate, weak, or hostile parents, and therefore denies their negative qualities and sees him or herself as bad. In order to parent oneself successfully in fantasy, one must maintain the idealized image of one’s parent.
2. The negative self-image, the “bad” me, exists concomitantly with the idealized image of the parent. In perceiving the parent as good, the child has to think of him or herself as bad, unlovable, and undeserving. The child must interpret parental rejection as being his or her fault since the child needs to perceive the parents as being loving, competent people. The self-hatred inherent in the negative view of the self originates when the child incorporates the parent’s negative attitudes toward him or her. These negative attitudes toward self become a prominent part of the self-concept and are at the center of the individual’s self-hatred.
3. The displacement of negative parental traits onto the interpersonal environment is a result of the child’s blocking from awareness the parents’ weaknesses and their negative qualities. To keep the self-nourishing system intact by preserving the idealized parental image, the neurotic patient projects the parents’ weaknesses and undesirable traits onto others.
4. A defended person experiences a progressive loss of feeling for the self as he or she relies more and more on fantasy gratification. Most of the time this individual exists in an inward state where he or she has very little compassion or self-love; rather there is self-hatred and loathing of the self and of others. In this withdrawn state, a person may feel very little emotional pain or anxiety. Indeed, some patients reported that, prior to therapy, they had felt somewhat content or comfortable in this state. They had succeeded in repressing much of their emotional distress and had only sought help after some sort of environmental stress had broken through their defenses.
5. Withholding is a holding back or a withdrawal of emotional and behavioral responses from others. When the child is hurt and frustrated, he or she withdraws the affection or the psychic energy invested in the parents or other objects—a kind of de-cathexis takes place. Extreme withholding reflects a basic fear of being drained and represents a pulling back from an exchange of psychonutritional products with objects in the real world.
Theoretically, the self-parenting process can be understood as a psychonutritional system wherein the individual imagines that there are limited quantities of nourishment available. Withholding is a broad concept and is largely directed against oneself in the form of self-denial but is incidentally destructive to others. Because of the damage to close personal relationships, however unintentional, it increases self-hatred and guilt and also leads progressively to still more withholding, and completes a neurotic spiral.
6. The concept of “the self-mothering process” refers not exclusively to one’s mother as an individual, but to the process of being a parent to oneself that began at an early stage in one’s life (Firestone, 1957). It relates to the incorporation of the key person in the young child’s life, not necessarily the mother; indeed, some fathers fulfill this function.
The methods and means of an inward style of self-nourishment begin early in life. As they mature, people substitute more refined techniques of satisfying themselves and alleviating pain and anxiety, e.g., overeating, excessive drinking, drug use, masturbating, and various compulsive behaviors. A person’s degree of dependency on painkilling substances, habits, and routines clearly indicates neurotic dependence on the primary fantasy process. Emotional deprivation is at the core of neurotic addiction and abnormal dependency.
PROCESSES THAT BREAK INTO THE PRIMARY FANTASY BOND
When one thinks of neurosis in terms of protecting the primary defense from intrusion, many perverse, puzzling behaviors can be better understood:
for instance, people who become self-destructive following an important achievement, lovers who pull away from each other following a time of being very close and loving, children who are wary of trusting a friendly response after being abused. These reactive behaviors are typical responses to the anxiety that is aroused when bonds are broken.
During a person’s life span, many circumstances arise that intrude on the strong sets, attitudes, and beliefs that characterize defenses. For example, the patient in therapy may progress to a point where the bond with the family is altered or broken. Specialized events catalyze changes in the patient’s defense patterns and disrupt bonds. Developing a more realistic view of the family or learning to accept a more realistic perception of oneself—both threaten a fantasy of connection. Whenever these bonds are threatened, there is resulting tension and disequilibrium.
Anxiety occurs whenever the patient’s state of psychological equilibrium is disturbed. Anxiety states may be described as having a bipolar causality. Because the neurotic person has achieved a stable balance between reliance on the self-mothering process and pursuit of gratification in the real world, anxiety will be aroused by anything that threatens either the self-nourishing process or object dependency. It is important for the therapist to differentiate between these two sources of anxiety.
Positive anxiety results from rewarding experiences, personal growth and achievement that threaten an individual’s early view of the self and disturb the core of defense and secondary fantasies. Negative anxiety, on the other hand, results from personal failure or frustration in interpersonal relationships or object loss. It stems from situations and events similar to those that caused the person to become defended in the first place.
Negative events in everyday life predispose a person to go inward and attempt to reinstate the bond. Some of the factors responsible for arousing “negative” anxiety are: painful emotional experiences, excessive frustration, personal rejection and hurt, physical illness, separation or loss, and death anxiety.
On the other hand, positive experiences may also result in an elevated state of tension. These events include receiving special reward, regard, or acknowledgment of self by others. Love, generosity, and tenderness directed toward others, that is, responses that are not habitual or role-determined, also break into a bond. Reacting with genuine feeling or emotion typically draws a person out of an inward state. Realistic, goal-directed behavior, and planning intrude on the internal process of gratifying oneself in fantasy.
Positive experiences that don’t correspond to the person’s image of him or herself in the family, such as promotion, success, new responsibility, power and authority, positive verbal feedback, and genuine love trigger anxiety states, which are often experienced as feelings of disorientation and fear.
When these feelings are intense, there may be regression as the individual retreats to a more familiar defended posture.
Independence, creativity, and nonconformity challenge psychological defenses. In general, people find it difficult to tolerate the positive anxiety inherent in constructive change. Rather than challenging their defenses and actively pursuing their goals, most individuals spend their lives driven by the dictates of these defenses. Their actions are motivated, for the most part, by fantasies of rejection, which are monitored by an internal thought process that operates as a “voice.” This inner voice or internal dialogue serves to regulate much of the self-nourishing, self-destructive behavior that is symptomatic of the defended state. The voice warns the individual against forming relationships or becoming too attached to others. It cautions him or her against taking another chance on being hurt again, and trusting other people. In effect, the “voice” is the language of the overall defensive process. The development of the concept of the voice plays an important part in the structure of our theory. We have directed specific attention to the application of this concept to therapeutic procedures as discussed later in the section on psychotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Many people become progressively maladapted because of their increased reliance on fantasy gratification. They arrange their lives to avoid anxiety, pain, and sadness, and thus they gradually become more defended, emotionally deadened, and alienated from their real selves.
The aim of psychotherapy with patients who are deeply involved in defending the internal fantasy process is twofold. In the case of the schizophrenic patient, the therapist (1) attempts to expose and attack the fantasy process through direct interpretations and other techniques which produce clear insights about the true state of the family, and (2) he or she encourages the patient to depend upon him or her for satisfaction and security. While somewhat different methods and techniques may be utilized with neurotic patients, the goals of therapy are similar.
Exposing the fantasy bond is a vital part of the therapy process with all patients, whether psychotic or neurotic. At the same time, therapy is an attempt to make reality more inviting. Each person is encouraged to leave the inward world and self-nourishing habits. The patient’s energy and effort must be redirected toward taking another chance on finding satisfaction in the external world through goal-directed behavior.
LikeLike
Thank you for your compassionate and powerful article. I cried while reading it and yet, felt seen and my experience and pain affirmed. The pervasive level of ignorance, arrogance, and even manipulation/collusion through misdiagnosis, triangulation, counter-transference, and reinforcing dissociation by so many therapists regarding parental alienation, has, in my experience, exacerbated and undermined an already painful and monumental journey of awareness, recovery, renewal, and reconnection. How I wish I had known what you’ve put forth here three years ago. My daughter and I would have had a chance to heal together and renew the beautiful relationship we had. Time does not heal this wound, especially when the child is an adult and within their rights to lead and live their lives independently. If ever there was an image depicting the experience of the targeted parent, it is the sculpture by Albert György. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albert_György,_Mélancolie,_2012_%2844551153491%29.jpg
LikeLike
What things should a targeted parent do to prepare that safe space for their children when they have the opportunity to provide it? What kind of help does an alienated child need once they have a place of safety to heal? Where does a parent go to get the help needed for their child(ren)? Thank you?
LikeLike
Hi,
I hear what you are saying, but I am also very concerned that in absence of vast psychological knowledge, which comes with thorough education, it is clear that this does not acknowledge for example , fawn responses.
Psychology of a child is very complex and it is not as easy as happy/not happy.
It makes me then terrified as such narrow minded views are damaging people’s lives much further.
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying but children with a ‘fawn’ response, do not display contempt towards a parent they are rejecting. The vast psychological literature around trauma is clear about how children respond to abusive parents and it shows that outright rejection with contempt is not part of that response. I will compile and post the full evidence list on traumatic response to abuse, it is very clear that children who are traumatised by abusive parents do not reject them with contempt but instead seek to placate and regulate them.
LikeLike
Any comment on the recently published UN recommendations?. The one where they have debunked this absolute junk science you have peddled and profited from by putting children in danger. You should be ashamed of yourself
LikeLike
Yes, I have a comment. The report is written from the standpoint of feminism, it also relies on the testimony of those involved with promoting the rights of women over the needs of children. It is riddled with evidence of inherent bias and dismisses the needs of children who are alienated from their mothers as well as those alienated from their fathers.
I am not ashamed of myself and never will be. I am not ashamed because reports like this simply show me that the women who campaign against the worldwide consciousenss of harm done to children in divorce and separation, are those who disregard the needs of children in favour of their own demands. Those women, like you, operate often from the shadows, they do so anonymously (i note the name you have given yourself for this nasty little jibe) and they do not take responsibility for their own projections onto others of blame and shame.
The UN report was to be expected, it comes from the stable of a feminist driven agenda and it has no real value other than to strengthen the hands of those who are too cowardly to stand in the light and argue their point.
The peddling and the profiting are in your imagination, in mine, I see you as the perfect example of why my work to bring to light the dreadful harms done to children by those who deny this child abuse, must go on – and it does and it will.
So, thank you for your comment it inspires the determination in me to keep on exposing those who stand in the shadows.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments ,which were as expected.
Can I just check what your opinions would be on Elizabeth Fritzl? Surely according to your logic she is a classic alienator?
LikeLike
As your imagination is somewhat fevered, I don’t think there is anything else to say here.
LikeLike
No of course not Karen, as it would go against the junk science you peddle. You keep to your “imagination” and the logical fallacies you peddle. I have a feeling you will be out of a job soon enough.
LikeLike
We shall see – meanwhile, you are there in the shadows and I am here in the light, where everyone can see me……
LikeLike
When you come out of the shadows you can post on my blog, until then, there is nothing more for you to say here, I don’t like cowards, particularly those who seek to hide child abuse.
LikeLike
OMG as long as this group strives for their security of existence, it will always be at the expense of the safety and development of defenseless minor children, it will always be at the expense of the bond and understanding between partners/parents, the battle will always continue, you are and will always be self-destructive so your category is the fuel that ultimately ensures that there is enough known today to distinguish those kinds of character structures from the rest even with your eyes closed.
Maybe even make a calculation of the damage each kind of individual causes to relationships, families and society.
Then calculate what an average treatment costs.
Then a calculation of how likely it is that a treatment will succeed.
A cost-benefit analysis, because it has already been made in the past, and it is not worth the time, effort, and money to start it.
So or worldwide solidarity towards that (you’re) kind of Dyscivilized Character Structure.
Or worldwide we opt for the safety, well-being, and development of our own children and grandchildren in our Civilization
Do you think you have built the credit on the entire worldwide population,
that is greater than the unconditional love & loyalty between parent and child?
Then there is 1 catch we do not make this choice because this choice is made for us, probably by Klaus Schwab. Just imagine that those golden times of Grandpa & Grandma Schwab come back again because they filled their pockets until ’45.
Your group is on a pedestal that gives you all the space to be yourself because when they kick you off no one will catch you because the self-destructive behavior is spreading around the world just as fast as:
The last words of George Floyd ”I Can’t Breath” and the slogan associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, how fast did cause riots everywhere over the whole world.
You will be haunted for a reward that’s greater than a whole month of work,
all for the best interest of Humankind & Human Civilisation.
LikeLike
If you look for the similarities between yourself and Elizabeth Fritzl.
Traumatized from Birth.
If you look for the similarities between yourself and Josef Fritzl.
Neighbors, tenants, and acquaintances noticed, however, that Fritzl could be very authoritarian.
So you are the alienator in this question because you want everybody to see your ex-partner as a person who isolates his daughter for most of her life and raped her 4000 times and has made her pregnant several times and has given birth to 7 children from her own father.
That you even spread you’re . . . for that kind of guy is still a mystery, and I question the fact that even in your right mind you voluntarily get pregnant by people who fall into this category because you simply fall for people like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer by default.
So where exactly is the problem?
Do you know what I think is that you are still trying to level with your ex-partner so that you feel he is on the same level as what influences the development of (probably) your daughter!
Only the difference may be that you have not raped them 4000 times, but you level that with your behavior and attitude towards your child, due to the emotional and psychological damage that your daughter has developed in the meantime, which you expect in advance taken for granted, because instead of learning from each other and absorbing each other’s shortcomings, you consciously choose that everything and everyone has to adapt and conform to your inner conflicts, just like Josef Fritzl!
LikeLike
The Best Interests of the Child: Does it Have Substantive Values or Functional Values?
Substantive (emotional, personal, moral, principled) values:
⦁ Emotional – personal – moral – principled – point of view.
⦁ Words have their value in deeds.
Functional (for EGO enrichment) values:
⦁ Intellectual point of (image-distorted) view file formation/imaging.
⦁ Influencing the behavior of others.
Conclusion: When the interest of the child of the professional has the same values as the parents, that determines what the outcome will be, because they use the trajectory together (gives them the space) to achieve the desired result. The result was known even before the first guided association had started, for together they worked towards the same goal.
[One Size Fits All]
LikeLike