HeyAnnette

New website & blog!

This blog has moved! Please take note and click over to the new location: http://www.heyannette.com/blog

Parental Alienation — One of the Easiest Terms to Throw Around, and One of the Most Difficult to Address

It seems that every time a child rejects a parent, or is even somewhat reluctant to spend time with one parent, or makes it obvious that he prefers one parent over the other, parental alienation is alleged.

Being rejected by one's child has to be devastating. I can imagine why a parent would find comfort in seeking an explanation for the rejection that has little to do with that parent or the child. Finding an explanation in an outside source is self-protection.

It's not so simple. A child rejecting a parent, even if the child also favors the other parent, does not by itself equal parental alienation. To fall within most professional definitions of "parental alienation", a child must irrationally reject a parent primarily as the result of negative influence of the other parent. Unfortunately too many people, including attorneys, forget those italicized words. To some, if a child rejects a parent, parental alienation is presumed, and the other parent MUST be to blame.

Professionals working with high conflict couples must remember that a child's rejection of a parent is NOT prima facie evidence of parental alienation, and remember to look for all three of the elements of parental alienation before jumping to conclusions.

Richard Warshak notes that in the continuum of parental alienation, some (professionals, researchers, parents) will absolutely deny the possibility that a child could be irrationally alienated from a parent. If a child is alienated, then by definition there must be a rational reason. See Bringing Sense to Parental Alienation: A Look at the Disputes and the Evidence. [Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, Summer 2003].

Others might acknowledge that irrational alienation might occur, but that this is a normal occurrence, and that irrational alienation can exist entirely separate and apart from the influence of the favored parent.

Yet others will argue that a child's alignment with one parent over the other is a natural by-product of a divorce, or the result of the child's developmental needs.

Let's start with the basic requirements of parental alienation (according to Warshak):

• A child is rejecting a parent
• The rejection is irrational
• The rejection is primarily or at least partially due to negative influence from the other parent.

If a situation has only one or two of these factors, it's likely not parental alienation.

What is irrational? According to Warshak, it's extreme animosity toward or fear or a parent that is not reasonable or consistent with the history of that relationship.

There are at least two ends to the alienation spectrum. As mentioned above, to some there is no such thing as irrational alienation, so if a child rejects a parent, there MUST be a good reason, and therefore all rejected parents deserve what they get. The other end is the extreme that if a child rejects a parent, it MUST be the fault of the favored parent's negative campaign.

Do I believe that parental alienation exists? Of course. But when I review a situation where a child is rejecting a parent, I don't automatically jump to either conclusion -- I don't automatically assume that rejected parent did something to deserve it, and I also don't automatically assume that the favored parent caused it. I focus on the child; his age and developmental stage; his needs; his social, school and personal life. I am fortunate, as I'm not a mental health professional, that I don't have to make diagnoses or assign labels. I just have to deal with what's there. Unfortunately, the parents and attorneys are often so concerned with assigning blame and placing labels that they lose sight of the child and his needs.

When you think about it, only the first factor ---- the existence of the alienation itself—is really important when it comes to the child. The child doesn't care if his alienation is rational or not; he experiences it either way. Factors #2 and #3 are important only for treatment purposes. Therapy for the child will take different directions depending on whether the alienation is rational or not. If the rejection of a parent is based on rational reactions to experiences that the child has had with that parent, the child' therapy will focus on strategies to deal with the parent's shortcomings or issues (such as a parent's personality disorder, different parenting styles, or lack of parenting skills). If the estrangement is based on irrational justification, the child's therapy can focus on returning the child to a more realistic and accepting view of the estranged parent.

As pointed out by Johnston, the term "parental alienation" focuses on the parent (and fault) rather than on the child. A more helpful and appropriate term, according to Johnson, might be "alienated child". Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent and Refuse Visitation: Recent Research and Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child [Family Law Quarterly, Vol 38, No. 4, Winter 2005] A change in terminology might allow the court system and professionals who are trying to help the family focus on the child rather than blame.

Military Housing Should Be Included (or at least considered) in Income for Child Support Calculation

The Arizona Court of Appeals in Patterson v. Patterson rules that the value of military-provided, on-base housing might be included in a parent's income for child support calculations, based on the court's determination as to whether the value of that benefit is significant and reduces the parent's living expenses.   The definition of "gross income" in the Guidelines is broad enough to include employment benefits received by a spouse "if they are significant and reduce personal living expenses.     The Court noted that this decision was entirely consistent with its holding in Hetherington (2008) as well as with numerous other jurisdictions on this issue.

Pending Bill Would Change Relocation Actions in Arizona

Although a current national trend is for relocation statutes to provide no presumption either in favor of or against a relocation with a child [Elrod, National and International Momentum Builds for More Child Focus in Relocation Disputes, Fam. Law Quarterly Vol 44, No. 3, Fall 2010], Arizona's proposed relocation bill forges ahead with a decided presumption against relocation.

The Elrod article notes that predicting the result of any relocation request has long been difficult or impossible, as each decision is so entirely fact-driven. Elrod then examines the recent trend that is abandoning a statutory presumption about relocation in favor of a "best interests of the child" test that requires each parent to show that his/ her position on a proposed relocation is in the child's best interests.

Despite the national trend moving away from a statutory presumption, the Arizona bill, SB1083, would substantially increase the burden of proof on a parent who wishes to relocate with the child. The pending bill would abolish most relocation provisions of existing ARS 25-408, replacing those provisions with a presumption that the following criteria mean that the proposed move substantially or adversely impacts a current court-ordered parenting plan:

a)      A move which results in a change to the child's school;

b)      A move which increases the travel time to such a degree that the child's time with either parent will be decreased significantly; or

c)      A move which significantly impacts the child's established routine in the child's home, school or community.

The bill provides no definition for the word "significantly" or for the term "established routine".

It would appear that SB1083, if passed in its current form, will create relocation petitions for moves which are substantially shorter than the existing "100-mile rule". A proposed move from Mesa to Surprise would undoubtedly result in a change of the child's school, would impact travel time, and would, arguably, "impact the child's established routine" (although I have no idea what that phrase is intended to mean).

This bill would also modify the factors the court must consider in determining the child's best interests, as follows:

a)   removes the requirement for the court to consider the motives of the parents and the validity of the reasons given for moving or opposing the move, and instead requires the court to consider whether the parent's primary motive in requesting or opposing relocation is to gain a financial advantage related to child support;

b)   removes the requirement for the court to consider whether the relocation is being made or opposed to interfere with or to frustrate the relationship between the child and the other parent or the other parent's right of access to the child, but maintains the requirement to consider whether the relocation is being made or opposed in good faith;

c)   removes the requirement for the court to consider the prospective advantage of the move for improving the quality of life for the custodial parent.

A statutory presumption in favor of the move is imposed if both of the following apply: the moving parent has primary physical custody and the exclusive right to make educational decisions for the child, and the change in residence would allow for reasonable and meaningful access that is not significantly less than provided under the existing parenting plan.

Honestly, I Was Going To Stay Away From This

Charlie Sheen is just too easy a target, and I planned to stay away from it completely.  I was led astray by these two posts

HIs Wife's Sworn Affidavit in support of the restraining order that took away his children last night;

and  commentary on personality disorders and quotes from Bill Eddy of High Conflict Institutein HuffPost Divorce

I'll try not to go overboard on this.