Tweet
Earlier this month a court in Toronto, Cananda, transfered full custody of three daughters ages 9 to 14 to their father after a long-term parental alienation campaign by their mother. She had worked for years to brainwash them to hate their father. Judge McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice found that this constituted emotional child abuse and banned the mother from all further contact with the children except for counselling programs, including a program to help the children recover from parental alienation syndrome.
Parental alienation involves the systematic and frequently repeated denigration of one parent by the other and blocking of access to the parent who is the target of denigration. This is more than the unfortunately common occasional badmouthing during or after a divorce. While any badmouthing by one parent of the other parent in front of the children is detrimental, occasional negative comments are not enough to constitute parental alienation. This is especially the case when the parents making such mistakes recognizes them as such and try to avoid repeating them, respects that the children should have involvement of both of their parents in their lives, and complies with court orders involving visitation, custody, and contact.
Parental alienation is a form of emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse against children. Courts in multiple countries, including the United States and Canada, have consistently viewed parental alienation as child abuse. The way it has been handled has varied widely, however. Some courts have wrongly sided with the alienating parent. Others have shown unending tolerance for the alienation campaign. In both scenarios, the courts are directly contributing to child abuse.
Family law courts have been slowly learning that alienating parents will often not cooperate with any court orders or laws that are designed to ensure children will have both parents involved in their lives. Further, there is an increasing realization that parental alienation causes long-term damage to children that persists into adulthood. The alienator is essentially a criminal and the children and target parent victims. The courts are finally realizing that if they repeatedly cannot force a criminal to behave then they must protect the victims in some other way, most obviously by ensuring that the alienation is stopped by terminating the alienator’s access to the children. We suspect that the recent Canadian court decision is likely to be followed by many more like it.
In high-conflict divorces, there is often one parent who is particularly uncooperative with visitations, custody exchanges, and telephone contact. Such a parent will often practice “access blocking” making it difficult to impossible for the other parent to have involvement in the lives of their children. Such alienating parents often make denigrating remarks about the other parent in front of the children. They may do this when having conversations with their friends or family members within earshot of their children. Even though the comments may not be directed at the children, the children still suffer damage from them.
Alienating parents often push their children to join in the alienation. They may involve them in schemes to deny contact with the target parent, claiming sickness or disinterest. They may also train their children to make false abuse allegations against the target parent.
custody revoked
Parental alienation involves the systematic and frequently repeated denigration of one parent by the other and blocking of access to the parent who is the target of denigration. This is more than the unfortunately common occasional badmouthing during or after a divorce. While any badmouthing by one parent of the other parent in front of the children is detrimental, occasional negative comments are not enough to constitute parental alienation. This is especially the case when the parents making such mistakes recognizes them as such and try to avoid repeating them, respects that the children should have involvement of both of their parents in their lives, and complies with court orders involving visitation, custody, and contact.
Parental alienation is a form of emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse against children. Courts in multiple countries, including the United States and Canada, have consistently viewed parental alienation as child abuse. The way it has been handled has varied widely, however. Some courts have wrongly sided with the alienating parent. Others have shown unending tolerance for the alienation campaign. In both scenarios, the courts are directly contributing to child abuse.
Family law courts have been slowly learning that alienating parents will often not cooperate with any court orders or laws that are designed to ensure children will have both parents involved in their lives. Further, there is an increasing realization that parental alienation causes long-term damage to children that persists into adulthood. The alienator is essentially a criminal and the children and target parent victims. The courts are finally realizing that if they repeatedly cannot force a criminal to behave then they must protect the victims in some other way, most obviously by ensuring that the alienation is stopped by terminating the alienator’s access to the children. We suspect that the recent Canadian court decision is likely to be followed by many more like it.
In high-conflict divorces, there is often one parent who is particularly uncooperative with visitations, custody exchanges, and telephone contact. Such a parent will often practice “access blocking” making it difficult to impossible for the other parent to have involvement in the lives of their children. Such alienating parents often make denigrating remarks about the other parent in front of the children. They may do this when having conversations with their friends or family members within earshot of their children. Even though the comments may not be directed at the children, the children still suffer damage from them.
Alienating parents often push their children to join in the alienation. They may involve them in schemes to deny contact with the target parent, claiming sickness or disinterest. They may also train their children to make false abuse allegations against the target parent.
custody revoked
Comment