Dissociation of Moral Values

The absence of guilt is one of the most striking features of parental alienation.  It is especially noteworthy when it occurs in the context of otherwise morally intact children.  The child’s hatred of the parent stands in marked contrast to a personality organization that is generally modulated by guilt.  How is it possible to feel hatred for one who previously has been loved?

Johnson and Szurek noticed the paradox of antisocial behavior in delinquent children who otherwise presented no pervasive disorder of conscience. These children violated norms and acted on forbidden impulses selectively rather than universally.  In other spheres of their lives, they lived in accordance with rules and social conventions.  They evidenced a capacity for moral deliberation and, in some instances, possessed a developed ethical sense.  Johnson and Szurek explained the paradox thusly:

“…[P]arents may find vicarious gratification of their own poorly-integrated forbidden impulses in the acting out of the child, through their unconscious permissiveness or inconsistency toward the child in these spheres of behavior.  The child’s superego lacunae correspond to similar (unconscious) defects of the parents’ superego…” (p. 324).  In circumstances of uncertainty, conflict, and moral ambiguity, the child adopts attitudes on the basis of unconscious fantasies that find direct expression in transgressive action.  Whereas these attitudes may be activated when the child interprets parental passivity as tacit approval of antisocial actions, they are engendered as well by wishes to protect a vulnerable parent or right a perceived wrong.  While motives vary, what is critical is that the child’s fantasy correspond to an aporia in the aligned parent’s value system.  This correspondence promotes and sustains dissociation and explains the intractability of alienation over time. Unconscious encouragement leads the child, first, to believe that it is permissible to act on otherwise forbidden wishes; and, second, that focusing of his or her frustration and hatred on the alienated parent will be respected, reinforced, and interpreted as an expression of love.

Especially important about Johnson & Szurek’s view is its appreciation of how parents unconsciously influence particular attitudes and behaviors in their children.  Unlike Gardner whose view rests on conscious and deliberate programming, these investigators draw attention to how a child may interpret his or her actions as permissible when they are sanctioned tacitly by the parent.  On this view, parental alienation requires neither indoctrination nor brainwashing in the strict sense of these terms.  Rather, it rests on the creation of an intersubjective space in which selective transgressions no longer are perceived as wrong.  A high conflict divorce provides fertile soil for this dynamic to root.

Mrs. X., the mother of Mark and Sarah, engaged in a host of behaviors that were alienating.  They were offensive to her children and strained their relationships directly.   She seemed to impose her will arbitrarily, without regard for the children’s needs and interests.  She held Mark especially to standards so high that successes were treated like failures.  Teachers were horrified by her criticisms of the children.  She berated them even when they won awards, turning triumphs into failures.  It was not enough to take first place in a contest or competition; the children had to meet her standards.  She was so competitive, demanding, and intrusive that she alienated all of the local professionals working with children, such that she had to spend hours per day transporting them for voice, dance, and acting lessons.  By all accounts, she was relentless and uncompromising, intolerant of any advice to give her children some space.

At the same time, Mr. X. was not blameless in this matter.  He contributed to the children’s estrangement from their mother by passively acceding to her wishes, however much he privately disagreed with them.  His were largely sins of omission.  He feared vicious recrimination when he took the children’s side.  Feeling powerless and fearful of making matters worse for everyone, he rationalized his inaction as the only way to keep the peace.  Ultimately, he concluded that divorce would protect him and the children from abuse.  He felt ashamed, a failure as a husband and as a father.  He secretly turned to the affections of another woman, leaving his children emotionally on their own to deal with their mother.

From the examiner’s perspective, parental alienation in this case was significant, but failed to conform to Gardner’s paradigm.  It was sustained and deepened by Mr. X.’s behavior, but not unilaterally caused by it.  Instead, the children had legitimate grievances with their mother.  Various family members and third party witnesses described her as impossibly controlling, devaluing of the children’s efforts, and oblivious to the impact of her behavior on the children.  Sarah’s wish to escape from her mother’s influence was no different from that of the many adults who avoided her—there was no way to avoid her wrath when one did not do what she wanted.

Yet, his mother’s impossible behavior did not completely explain the intensity of Mark’s hatred.  He seemed to feel nothing but contempt for her, even when she took a conciliatory stance.  On one occasion, when she refused to allow his sister to attend a social function, he pounded on her bedroom door, screaming obscenities at her.  His father intervened only after the door began to tear away from its hinges, preventing any further escalation of Mark’s aggression.

To say that Mark presented with parental alienation does not do justice to what was transpiring psychologically within him.  He exhibited an extreme form of hatred whose aim was to dehumanize or symbolically destroy his mother (Kernberg, 1991).  So consuming was this hatred that it compromised any ability to mourn the loss of his relationship with his mother.  This degree of dysregulation always implicates a reliance on primitive defenses and affects personality as a whole.  In concert with a strong identification with his father and intolerance of the latter’s helplessness, Mark endeavored to coerce, dominate and punish his mother, taking a perverse delight in causing her emotional pain.  While both children averted guilt through actions designed unconsciously to protect their father, Mark actively sought revenge for the wrongs that had been perpetrated.  His mother would enjoy no mercy.

That children act on unconscious identifications and wishes in order to avenge injustices suffered by one of their parents enlarges Hartmann’s (1960) claim that moral beliefs and behavior do not follow directly from identifications and internalized prohibitions.  Rather, they are continually reshaped by contemporary influences and must accord, at least in part, with rational standards as well as with the rest of personality. On this reading, parental alienation represents a compromise formation, an effort by the child to preserve an idealized, loving, nurturing relationship with a good object at the expense of estrangement from or the symbolic destruction of a bad one.  Sadly, the dissociative processes that undergird this stance do not always accord with the reality of the situation, which is typically more complex.  While parental behavior plays a key role, it is but one factor whose contribution must be evaluated in the context of the child’s personality organization as a whole.  Mr. X.’s passivity and refusal to hold Mark accountable for his actions caused his statements to the children for greater love and respect of their mother to fall on deaf ears. He neither insisted on compliance nor imposed consequences when the children behaved poorly.  Even when evidence emerged suggesting that Mr. X. encouraged an “us against her” mentality, Mark’s reactions remained out of keeping with what was communicated. It is important that Sarah felt and acted differently, although she had arguably endured the same “abuse.”

read the complete article here:-


Why does your brain hurt?

Why does your brain hurt? Because psychopaths, sociopaths, and narcissists share a particular set of traits that will eventually make any healthy person feel crazy:

1. Superficial Charm

Don’t be fooled by this idea that charm must be confident or arrogant. A psychopath’s charm is specifically suited to their target. Sure, some people respond well to flattery and gifts. But others might have a softer spot for the sympathetic, shy routine. Psychopaths are experts at making their chosen target feel “special”. Whichever persona they choose, on thing is certain: it’s not authentic. Psychopaths are shape-shifting chameleons who constantly rearrange their personalities depending on your individual needs.

2. Manufactured Reactions

Psychopaths intentionally cause chaos and sit back & play innocent while they blame you for reacting. They will provoke you, and then when you (understandably) react, they’ll patronizingly inform you that they’re “not having this discussion with you again”—which starts to make you feel like a hypersensitive nutcase. In the workplace, they’ll use these manufactured reactions to calmly turn others against you and prove how “crazy” you are. In a relationship, they’ll use these reactions to garner sympathy from future potential mates.

3. Pathological Lying

Psychopaths lie constantly, even when the truth would be a better story—even when there’s absolutely no reason to lie. They are so used to shifting personas and stories that lying becomes the default mode for them. If you ever question these lies (even if you have proof), they will promptly turn it back around on you for being paranoid and over-analyzing everything.

4. No Remorse

Normal people feel intense guilt and shame when they do things that psychopaths do (lie, cheat, steal, manipulate). But psychopaths don’t feel any remorse for their behavior. Weirder yet, they actually seem to enjoy it. Psychopaths know that their behavior hurts others, and it’s why they do it. The only time a psychopath will ever apologize to you is to save face, or if they still need something from you. It’s never actually about remorse.

5. Covert Backstabbing and Betrayal

Psychopaths devalue and replace others at the drop of a hat. Although you probably experienced an instant connection of trust and excitement with them, you’ll come to realize they can forge that bond with anyone. After once declaring you better than all the “crazy” people in their life, they’ll go running back to those very same people and declare you crazy. Psychopaths have no loyalty, no attachment, and no love. They leave behind a trail of destruction, and they blame their victims for it every time.

6. Turning People Against Each Other

When a psychopath enters the picture, you’ll find yourself disliking people you’ve never even met. Psychopaths are constantly whispering poison and gossip into everyone’s ears, making each person feel jealous and suspicious of the others. But they do so under a guise of innocence, using pity stories and pseudo-concern to warp your perception. Psychopaths want people distracted and in constant competition for their attention, so they seem in high-demand at all times.

7. Cognitive Dissonance

This one involves look within. When a psychopath enters your life, you’ll notice an intense and ever-increasing sense of dread and self-doubt. Your brain will struggle to reconcile the “perfect” person from the beginning, with the inappropriate behavior you’re starting to see more regularly. That’s because that perfect person never actually existed. It was a persona, created just for you. This is the hardest thing for our minds and hearts to understand.

With a psychopath, you’re always the bad one. Even though they lie, cheat, manipulate, steal, and con—you’re the one with the problem. Psychopaths have this innate ability to make you feel like there’s something wrong with you for recognizing that there’s something off about them.

read more here taken from:


Splitting Up – A Child’s Guide to a Grown Up Problem

Splitting Up – A Child’s Guide to a Grown Up Problem focuses on parental separation. In the book, children of various ages and from different backgrounds give advice to separating parents on how best to support their child, and offer their support to other children going through the same thing.

The children who contributed represent the views and experiences of other children in our society who find themselves caught between parental conflict and separation. Mishcon de Reya is calling for greater therapeutic input to resolve disputes funded by the public purse.

At the end of each chapter, Dr Stephen Adams-Langley, a Senior Clinical Consultant at Place2Be offers insight and practical guidance on how to address some of the issues the children raise in each chapter.

Writer and long-time Place2Be supporter Sophie Dahl has written the foreword for the book – of which all proceeds will go to Place2Be – and input was provided by the Voices in the Middle project.

click here to order the book:-







solicitors letter page 2
Parental Alienation 24 years on – 2
solicitors letter page 1
Parental Alienation 24 years on – 1

Results so far from “Which punishment should Parental Alienators receive?”



Parental alienation construct

In Brazil, especially because of Law No 12,318/10 (Parental Alienation Act), which address the subject and amends Article 236, Law No 8,069/90 (Child and Adolescent Statute), urges the development of interdisciplinary studies to clarify the nature of this phenomenon to enable correct diagnoses, differentiating alienation from other types of child abuse perpetrated by parents or caregivers.


taken from:-João Claudio Todorov (Editor) Trends in Behavior Analysis Volume 1.0.1

click here to read the full article


Parental Alienation [LATEST NEWS UPDATES]: Does Parental Alienation Really Exist? APA Confirms It’s Psychological Child Abuse

Parental alienation has long been considered a form psychological abuse but now, the American Psychological Association affirmed its existence and confirmed that it is indeed an emotional abuse to the children.

Source: Parental Alienation [LATEST NEWS UPDATES]: Does Parental Alienation Really Exist? APA Confirms It’s Psychological Child Abuse


Cross-Examining Child Custody Evaluations

Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based "Parental Alienation" (AB-PA)

Caveat:  Dr. Childress is not an attorney, he is a psychologist.  His commentary on this blog is as a psychologist, not an attorney.  For legal advice consult an attorney and follow the advice of the attorney.

In my professional consultation work with attorneys, I am frequently asked to help them prepare their lines of cross-examination for child custody evaluators who have reached problematic conclusions relative to the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation” (AB-PA).

There are so many problems inherent to the practice of child custody evaluations that it’s hard to know where to begin.

The multitude of problems all stem from how the practice of child custody evaluations began.  The practice of child custody evaluations developed gradually and piecemeal over the course of time in response to the needs of the Court for guidance in family matters.  But this gradual and piecemeal origin means that the practice of child custody…

View original post 3,549 more words


Recommendations for best practice in response to parental alienation

This study aimed to systematically review the literature pertaining to parental alienation to determine best practice for therapists and legal practitioners. Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO academic databases, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and conference abstracts were searched. Included articles were peer reviewed journal articles or books published in English pertaining to a psychological or legal intervention for parental alienation. Ten articles were included in the review. It was found that changes in custodial or residential arrangements in favour of the targeted parent are effective in ameliorating parental alienation. Specialized family therapy addressing the alienation is effective in restoring family relationships and family functioning. A coordinated approach from therapists and legal practitioners is important in resolving parental alienation.

Practitioner points

  • Parental alienation requires legal and therapeutic management to enhance family functioning
  • Awarding primary parental responsibility to the targeted parent and providing specialized family therapy is effective in ameliorating parental alienation
  • A specialized form of systemic family therapy for parental alienation can improve family functioning and prevent further parental alienation