NOTE: This blog is written primarily for victimized mothers of coercive control. The statements within are not intended to imply that mothers are never abusive or coercively controlling, or that fathers are never victimized. Some are. However, the majority of coercive control within families is perpetrated by males against adult females and children, so this article focuses primarily on that evidence-based finding.
Let me start by saying that you have the right and the freedom to call these behaviors whatever you choose to call them. The following are my thoughts on the usefulness of using certain terms within the family court system in the US...
Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Alienation, and Alienation all refer to a theory created by Richard Gardner, who promoted victim blaming and pedophilia. (Read prior blogs on Parental Alienation here, and here). This theory, which is not evidence-based, refers to one parent intentionally turning the child(ren) against the other parent.
Parental alienation is most often used in custody cases as a legal strategy, where coercively controlling parents (usually fathers) claim that the protective parent (most often the mother) has convinced the children to dislike the father and to make "false" allegations of abuse against him. In other words, parental alienation theory is used to DARVO the court into disbelieving valid abuse allegations and instead reversing the blame for the children's natural fear of the abusive parent onto the adult victim.
There is no valid empirical evidence that mothers make false abuse claims and coach their children to turn against their father. This is a widespread misconception in family court, that false abuse claims are common. They aren't. Research indicates that false allegations of abuse are no more common than false allegations of other crimes. However, the misconception has taken root, co-opting legitimate research regarding alienating behaviors and estrangement.
To be clear, there is evidence that some parents turn their children against the other parent. However, this is most often the case with the coercive controlling parent using the tactics, not the victimized one.
Parental Alienation "experts" sprung up all over the US after Gardner's theory took root, and these "professionals" have been facilitated by the AFCC (Association of Family & Conciliation Courts) and the court evaluators who are indoctrinated into this dangerous theory. The AFCC has been so successful in using parental alienation to remove children from their protective mothers in the US that it has spread to most of the rest of the world. (Do I smell a class action lawsuit?)
On April 13, 2023 the United Nations banned the use of parental alienation theory. Check out what Doreen Ludwig, an expert on Govt-funded Custody Court Systematic Malfeasance, had to say about the AFCC and it's connection to the "father's rights" movement (I call it the abuser's rights movement).
"AFCC members include judges, court employees, legal and mental health practitioners. AFCC’s genius is in this symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and those that profit from positions of appointment (judicial orders for services). An obvious, unethical interdependence reaps enormous profits for those who align themselves within this structure. AFCC’s publications and conferences bring an ever-increasing number of family court dignitaries into the fold. An illusion of legitimacy helps hide a subterranean layer of family court operators – those who willingly commit fraud and align themselves with the more nefarious principles of the father’s rights movement."
There are two main reason not to use the terms parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation, or even the further watered-down term "alienation".
First, we don't want to promote a debunked theory of Parental Alienation, which has led to misconceptions about tactics of child estrangement and primarily functions to remove children from protective parents and give them to abusive coercive controllers (usually fathers). And second, if you are a protective mother, claiming parental alienation is not likely to work for you in court anyway.
Joan Meier's research showed that claiming alienation in family court really only works for fathers (usually coercively controlling fathers). When mothers claimed alienation, in the cases she reviewed, it rarely worked. The AFCC claims parental alienation is non-gendered, but that appears to be another deceptive smokescreen to protect their interests by falsely claiming they are unbiased.
Unfortunately, the wide use of parental alienation theory, and especially this misconception that women lie about abuse, has caused a great deal of confusion for genuine victims of coercive control and domestic abuse who discover the theory on legitimate-sounding web sites promoting its use in family court. Promoters of parental alienation do not come right out and say they function (primarily) to protect coercive controlling abusers from accountability, so when targeted victims of coercive control read articles on parental alienation, they think this is what they are experiencing.
What targeted victims of coercive control are really experiencing is just another tactic of coercive control, where their coercive controller is weaponizing the children, and the unscientific aspect of Gardner's theory, to maintain control over them and/or punish them for daring to leave.
But he IS turning my children against me, if I don't call it Parental Alienation Syndrome, what do I call it?
Great Question! After all, it is well-known to coercive control experts that coercive controllers are divisive and often turn their children against their protective parents in order to further isolate and control both their children and their adult targeted victims. So, when I recommend you NOT use terms related to parental alienation theory, I do so not because alienating children from their parents doesn't occur, but because parental alienation "experts" are using these terms to DARVO family court using deceptive means, and if you want to protect you and your children, while maintaining your integrity, you do not want to associate yourself with these "professionals" or this theory.
Instead I recommend terming it a tactic of coercive control, and more specifically, the term Dr. Emma Katz uses, parent-child relationship sabotage.
Coercive control and parental alienation are diametrically opposed concepts, and coercive control has been widely researched, whereas parental alienation is based purely on Richard Gardner's own ideas. Coercive control research can be found in the related terms of undue influence, brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, domestic abuse etc.
While parental alienation relies on a simplistic patriarchal and misogynistic foundation... that women are "vindictive" and lie... coercive control is more nuanced and complex. Coercive control tactics and strategies can be detected and documented, whereas parental alienation is essentially "see, she must have told them to lie about me", and relies on implicit bias and "himpathy". There is no actual evidence supporting this aspect of parental alienation theory... only the suggestion that women are vindictive, and children love their parents, so therefore, if a child does not want to spend time with a parent, the other parent must have turned them against them.
Parental alienation theory completely disregards what we know about children's development, trauma, abuse, toxic stress, coercive control, ACES etc., whereas coercive control is founded on these evidence-based principles Parental alienation theory that is often used by coercive controllers to entrap their targeted victims. It is a #DoubleBind, because once claimed in court, the person accused has no way to disprove it. Any attempt to disprove alienation would include proof that the coercive controller is abusive, and reinforces the abuser's claim that the victim does not support a relationship between the father and child. Since PAS relies on the false belief that women are deceptive and vindictive (misogyny), those who have internalized this implicit gender bias are often swayed to believe the coercive controller's claim and completely ignore all true evidence to the contrary (or worse, use it against the victim as further "proof" of alienation).
Coercive control is different. Coercive control includes context, while parental alienation intentionally REMOVES context. Someone claiming parental alienation is most often using the theory to cover up their coercive control. If they have been accused of abuse, PAS becomes their defense... their legal strategy. In order to do this, they must decontextualize actions by each party. They must prevent the court from seeing the coercive control they have been perpetrating and shift the blame to their targeted victim. They do this by cherry picking information and re-framing party's actions using DARVO. They exaggerate the victim's responses to their coercive control and use these normal reactions to being tortured and terrorized against the targeted victim, often claiming the victim is "crazy" or "mentally unfit" to parent. Coercive controllers also regularly fabricate "evidence", which indoctrinated court professionals, unfortunately, often take at face value.
Coercive control is backed up by evidence, and parental alienation is not. Coercive control shows a consistent pattern of (usually multiple forms) behaviors over time. Parental alienation claims are often no more than smoke and mirrors. This is why "parental alienation experts" shifting their language to that of coercive control is dangerous. These "parental alienation experts" are attempting to exploit the legitimacy of coercive control to continue their systemic coercive control within the family court system. If a person used to promote parental alienation and now they are claiming it's the same thing as coercive control... Watch Out!
If you are a protective parent, especially if you are a protective mother, parental alienation theory is NOT your friend! If your partner/ex-partner is sabotaging your relationship with your child(ren), what you are experiencing is coercive control and parent-child relationship sabotage (or the newest term Child and Mother Sabotage - CAMS).... NOT parental alienation . If we are going to shift the family court system away from unscientific biased theories to evidence-based science that protects children and targets of coercive control, it is critical that we use the appropriate language.
And I didn't even get into the horrors of reunification therapy, the abusive "cure" promoted by "experts" in parental alienation. Perhaps I will tackle that in a future blog.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment below.
