Beyond the manufactured arguments about the label and theory of parental alienation, the reality of how children are emotionally and psychologically abused after family separation is becoming increasingly clear. In the UK, where the Judiciary continue to demonstrate their understanding of the complexities which lie beneath the label ‘parental alienation’, there is increasing clarity in public judgments which show that child protection is the primary goal in the family courts. Also clearly shown, is the judicial committment to publishing judgments which give full details of the psychological and psychiatric realities of what lies beneath a child’s alignment and rejection behaviour. Without ever needing to use the label or theory of parental alienation, the work of protecting children who are hamred by a parent in divorce or separation continues.
In a recent fact finding hearing, the details of the impact of disorganised attachment in two children were laid bare, giving a clear depiction of why the underlying harms which are caused in cases where children align with one parent and reject the other, are necessary to identify and understand. This is incredibly helpful to anyone with an interest in this child protection issue because –
a) it directly counters the promulgation of the narrative that all cases of children’s alignment and rejection are false claims designed to defend against allegations of domestic abuse
and
b) it sets out in great detail the way in which the psychological evidence of the harm being caused to children must be properly applied and understood.
The case I refer to has crossed the welfare threshold, which in England and Wales means that the concern for the children is such that the Local Authority is involved which means that it has moved from private law to public law. In my experience, many of the cases of children’s alignment and rejection are properly placed within public law because these are not about the contact relationship between a child and parents but about the need for child protection due to harm being caused by the parent to whom the child is aligned. In this case, the harm being caused is identified by a team of professionals from Great Ormond Street Hospital in addition to social workers from the Local Authority.
‘The commentary included in this judgment is comprehensive and taken from the evidence given by the court appointed professionals. The clear description of the underlying patterns of behaviour which causes children to align with an abusive caregiver and reject a healthy one, are useful to help the outside world to understand the reality of these cases.
At point 62 of the judgment is set out the following description of the projection onto the children of this mother’s unresolved trauma and mental health needs.
Most of the professionals working with the family have now met and we share concerns about Mum projecting her own trauma and mental health needs onto the girls, This concern, combined with her telling different stories depending on the agency she is talking to, increases our worries about the girls’ safety, in relation to any genuine mental health needs (or the risk of their mental health deteriorating), school attendance and engagement with both lessons in school and support agencies. We are also concerned that the breadth of referrals Mum has made is a technique to maintain disguised compliance with actions the various agencies have asked her to attempt, in order to help her own children. We suspect that there is a risk of emotional abuse and neglect arising out of mum’s own mental health needs not being fully met, including her self-diagnoses of the children. We are particularly concerned at Mum’s repeated requests to agencies that Sasha should be hospitalised, as an indicator that she wants social care and support agencies to take the steps required to address her older daughter’s needs and that this pattern will be repeated with Tara as she approaches adolescence.’
At point 63, the impact on the children and the mother’s control of them, is described clearly.
Sasha is not being educated. Mum continually self-diagnoses both her children. Tara has stated her mum told her she is depressed. Mum sends an unprecedented amount of emails which list one or both of her children having PTSD, autism, complex trauma, selective mutism amongst other issues and stated her eldest child needs inpatient mental health care. Neither the school or myself have been provided with any paperwork to support these statements. …. During sessions mum has remained either in the room and the children have seemed very restricted and unable to answer basic questions.’
‘We understand Sasha’s presentation to be a psychological response to an experience of early childhood instability and conflict, changes in caregivers and experience of neglect by her mother, in comparison to the better care provided to her sister. [the mother] has been preoccupied with Sasha’s physical and mental health, perceiving Sasha to have numerous things wrong with her. Sasha has internalised this sense of herself as odd, different and defective. This has had a profound impact on her self-esteem and ability to cope in society.
The findings in this case include –
Sasha has been exposed to emotional abuse and neglect. … Sasha’s experiences include:
- Emotional unavailability and neglect: [the mother] has been unable or unavailable to respond to the Sasha’s emotional needs.
- Negative attributions and misattributions to the child: describing Sasha as narcissistic, a ‘bitch’, blaming her for the family’s problems and exposing Sasha to over-assessment, in search of labels to explain Sasha’s distress. Sasha appears to believe in these negative attributions, believing herself to be faulty, or problematic.
- Developmentally inappropriate or inconsistent interactions with the child: this includes limitation of exploration and learning (for example failure to promote friendships and schooling) and exposure to confusing or traumatic events and interactions.
- Failure to recognise or acknowledge the child’s individuality and psychological boundary: inability to distinguish between the child’s reality and the adult’s beliefs e.g., a belief that there was something ‘wrong’ with Sasha.
- Failing to promote the child’s social adaptation: promoting mis-socialisation (into believing that she has multiple diagnoses), psychological neglect (failure to provide adequate cognitive stimulation and/or opportunities for experiential learning). This category contains both omission and commission, including isolating children.
The findings in the case are extensive and demonstrate that when children are harmed in this way there are psychological and psychiatric concerns. An example of this are findings 3/4
Findings 3 and 4
[The mother] has over-medicalised Sasha’s behavioural difficulties by seeking a variety of referrals / diagnoses. [The mother] has told professionals that Sasha has diagnoses/problems for:
PTSD
ADHD
Sensory processing disorder
Selective mutism
Eating disorder
Learning disabilities
An undiagnosed syndrome
Lactose intolerance
Food allergies
Dyslexia / Dyspraxia
Autistic symptom of intolerance to noise
ASD with element of OCD
A new allergy growing every day
Dyscalculia
Sasha does not have any of these conditions.
[The mother] has asked for referrals to:
Occupational therapist
sleep specialist
allergy specialist
[The mother] has made a number of requests for Sasha to be admitted to an inpatient psychiatric facility]
In my experience these issues are familiar in the severe cases where children align with an abusive caregiver and reject the other, the underlying problem being the mental health profile of the parent to whom the child is aligned.
This judgment is from a fact finding hearing. At no point in the judgment is there a focus on the use by the children’s father of allegations of parental alienation to defend against allegations of domestic abuse. Whilst domestic abuse was claimed by the mother, particularly in relation to the father’s concern about his children’s wellbeing, this was not upheld by the Court and it did not prevent the deeper investigation which was necessary.
The findings which are made in the judgment are extensive and extraordinary and describe a wealth of psychological and psychiatric issues of concern in the mother. This is the reason why judgments of this nature are so valuable, they illuminate the reality of the risks to children when a parent is harming them and it enables an understanding of just how far away from the misleading campaign narratives, this problem for children really is.
In all I counted over fifty psychological or psychiatric issues of concern in this judgment, all of which relate to the mother’s mental health and her control of the children and projection onto them of her own unresolved trauma. Further findings for example, show the impact on the younger child of parentification, where she is described as being competent beyond her years and unusually self reliant. The descriptions of the attachment disorders involved in such a case are clear and the neglect aspect in terms of not having her needs met by her mother is the conclusion.
Finding 11: Tara has suffered significant emotional harm and neglect whilst in the care of [the mother].
Finding 12: Due to the care received by [the mother], Tara:
- presents with a predominantly anxious-avoidant style of attachment alongside features of disorganisation;
- She presents as competent far beyond her years; and
- she is, unusually, highly self-reliant.
Further, Tara:
- Has not had her needs met by her mother
Whatever we call it the problem remains the same
Whatever we call the problem of children’s alignment and rejection in divorce and separation, the problem for children remains the same, they are vulnerable to this childhood relational trauma and vulnerable to having their experience of childhood overshadowed by a controlling parent or the mental health profile of a parent or both. Whilst the campaign to eradicate the use of the label parental alienation continues, supported by MPs and even the Association of Clinical Psychologists who appear to have swallowed whole the manufactured arguments around this issue, those who understand what lies beneath the problem of children’s alignment and rejection behaviour are simply getting on with the work to protect children. And thank goodness they are because judgments like this show beyond doubt, that in the face of the constant efforts to cover up this child abuse, this work to protect children must continue and those who understand what lies beneath must continue to speak up about it.
Hearing the Voices of Formerly Alienated Children
Our project with formerly alienated children who are now adults will shortly begin to deliver outputs and we are looking forward to launching something very new for children and young people at risk of this form of harm in 2024. We will shortly be holding a private seminar in the Palace of Westminster to inform MPs and policy makers about the harm suffered by children in divorce and separation and I will write more about that after the event.
Therapeutic Parenting for Children of Divorce and Separation
Our learning and study resources for parents of children with disorganised attachments are currently in development and in December we will be launching the full range of online courses and groups which will be available to you for the Winter Term 2024. We will also publish details of the Therapeutic Parenting Intensives to be held in the USA/Canada, UK/Europe and Australia/New Zealand in 2024/5. This area of work is a major focus for us currently and will continue to develop over the coming years to provide for families affected by children’s alignment and rejecting behaviour, a comprehensive support service which enables parents themselves to support their children to recover from the harm they have suffered.
Therapeutic Parenting Newsletter
You can keep up to date with all of the information about our courses and resources plus learn more about trauma responsive caregiving for children of divorce/separation via our newsletter. If you would like to receive this please email me at karen@karenwoodall.blog and put the words ADD ME in the subject line. The next newsletter will go out in early December and will contain all of the new courses and groups for January to March 2024.
Social Work Training Pathways in UK and Europe
We continue to partner with Local Authorities in the UK and with Social Work Teams in European countries to deliver therapeutic interventions to children who have been harmed by a parent in family separation. Evaluation of this work continues and will provide an evidence based model for statutory services in treatment of the problem of children’s alignment and rejection behaviours.
Listening Circles 2023
Our final listening circles for 2023 are on December 5th and December 12th and you can book here
Lighthouse Keeping for Christmas – A Free Circle for Families Affected by the Trauma of Rejection – December 19th at 18:00 hrs GMT
On 19th December I will be holding a special circle for all families affected by a child’s alignment and rejection behaviour in which I will discuss the ways in which children experience Christmas and other special days without you and how if you keep the beam shining bright, Lighthouse Keeping provides a path for them to return to you. Based upon five years of working with families outside of the court system using Structural Therapy, I will share with you the importance of continuing to be there for your children even in the silence and how shining a light into the void, provides hope for children, who like the children in the judgment above, are neglected and abused.
If you would like to join this complimentary circle, please email karen@karenwoodall.blog and put the words LIGHTHOUSE KEEPING CIRCLE in the subject line.
Karen Woodall - Psychotherapist, Writer, Researcher, Trainer 
Leave a comment