An Analysis of "Wicked" Through The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control and Institutional Betrayal
"Wicked," the renowned Broadway musical reimagining of "The Wizard of Oz," offers a compelling narrative for exploring the intricate dynamics of power, manipulation, and coercive control within both personal relationships and institutional contexts. By employing a multifaceted approach that combines my Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control, Evan Stark's framework of coercive control, Steven Hassan's BITE Model, and Harsey & Freyd's theory of institutional betrayal, we can uncover profound insights into the characters' motivations and actions, and learn potentially effective ways for addressing coercive control in our own families, groups, businesses and communities.
This analysis will demonstrate how Elphaba's journey in "Wicked" mirrors the insidious progression from being ensnared, entrapped, and exploited by systemic coercive control, before culminating in her acts of resistance and escape. Through this lens, we will explore how the musical serves as a powerful allegory for the complex interplay between individual agency, institutional power, and societal expectations, reflecting real-world dynamics of manipulation, betrayal, and the struggle for autonomy.
By examining the characters' experiences through these theoretical frameworks, we can gain a deeper understanding of how coercive control operates on both personal and institutional levels, and how resistance to systemic coercive control can manifest even in the face of overwhelming odds.
The Quicksand Model® and Coercive Control: A Brief Overview
The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control, developed by me, Kate Amber MSc, is a tool used to understand and articulate patterns of power, coercion and control, particularly in relationships. It emphasizes how the target becomes gradually entrapped, much like sinking in quicksand, with the coercive controller exerting control subtly and progressively.
This model aligns with Evan Stark's work on coercive control, which highlights how abusers use various tactics to dominate and control their targets, extending their dominance over time and through social space. Stark's research emphasizes that coercive control is not merely a pattern of abuse, that may or may not include physical violence, but a pattern of behavior that can predict extremely negative outcomes.
Elphaba and The Mirage of Coercive Control
Elphaba's journey in "Wicked" reflects the often circuitous steps of the Quicksand Model®, from the coercive controller ensnaring and entrapping her to her acts of resistance and escape from the quicksand of coercive control. Her experience can be analyzed through the lenses of Steven Hassan's BITE Model, which outlines four primary methods of control: Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.
At first, Elphaba's unique magical abilities are celebrated and nurtured by Madame Morrible and the Wizard. This admiration is part of 'The Mirage' – a triad of manipulative behaviors including future-faking, mirroring, and manipulative kindness (also known as love-bombing). These tactics align with the Emotional Control aspect of the BITE Model, where cults, high-control, or coercively controlling groups use emotional manipulation to foster dependency and loyalty.
Future-faking involves making grand (but false) promises about the future to seduce the target into the relationship. Madame Morrible and the Wizard fill Elphaba with visions of a future where she can use her powers for the greater good, ensnaring her in the quicksand. This aligns with the Thought Control aspect of the BITE Model, where members are indoctrinated and discouraged from questioning the group's teachings.
Mirroring, the act of mimicking the target's desires and values, is also used to draw Elphaba in. The Wizard, in particular, presents himself as a kindred spirit, further deepening Elphaba's trust and dependence on him. This tactic falls under the Information Control category of the BITE Model, where information is manipulated to maintain control.
Manipulative kindness, or love-bombing, is used to make Elphaba feel special and valued, setting the stage for deeper entrapment. This emotional manipulation is a key aspect of coercive control as described by Stark, where abusers use a range of controlling behaviors to dominate their targets.
The D's of Coercive Control in "Wicked"
The Wizard's interactions with Elphaba in "Wicked" exemplify a stark abuse of power through the application of insidious double standards, as he exploits her innate magical abilities for his own agenda while simultaneously vilifying her as the "Wicked Witch of the West" to the public, thereby maintaining his facade of benevolent leadership while covertly undermining Elphaba's autonomy and reputation. This type of behavior is common with covert narcissists, who often maintain their dominance through subtle and subversive means.
This manipulation not only serves to isolate Elphaba but also reinforces the Wizard's superficial authority, highlighting the disparity between his public persona as a wise and just ruler and his private machinations of coercion and deceit. The Wizard's actions reflect a broader pattern of authority figures using double standards to maintain control, where their own morally questionable behaviors are overlooked or justified, while resistance or challenges to their power are swiftly condemned and punished.
The Wizard's regime creates Double Binds for Elphaba, forcing her into situations where any choice leads to negative consequences, such as when she must decide between using her powers for the Wizard's agenda or being labeled as wicked.
Double Speak is a prevalent tactic employed by both the Wizard and Madame Morrible, who use ambiguous language and propaganda to obscure the truth about their oppressive regime and Elphaba's true nature.
The Double Team tactic is demonstrated when the Wizard and Madame Morrible enlist the flying monkeys to turn against Elphaba, creating a hostile environment that amplifies her isolation, and provokes them to attack her unfairly.
The Wizard's promises of acceptance and power to Elphaba, which he never intends to fulfill, exemplify the Double Cross tactic.
When confronted with the truth, the Wizard often Doubles Down on his lies, reinforcing the false narrative about Elphaba's wickedness.
The cumulative effect of these tactics results in Double Vision for Elphaba, distorting her self-image and sense of worth as she struggles against the labels imposed upon her.
Finally, the Wizard's regime employs DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) by consistently portraying Elphaba as the villain while presenting themselves as the protectors of Oz, manipulating societal sympathies to maintain their power. Through these intricate character dynamics and plot elements, "Wicked" provides a nuanced exploration of coercive control within a fantastical setting, mirroring real-world power structures and manipulation tactics.
Glinda's Role in Elphaba's Isolation and Resistance
Glinda's character development in "Wicked" plays a crucial role in the dynamics of coercive control and isolation experienced by Elphaba, illustrating key aspects of The Quicksand Model®. Initially portrayed as a superficial and naive young woman, Glinda undergoes a transformation that highlights the complexities of complicity in systems of oppression. Her relationship with Elphaba exemplifies the "divide and conquer" (aka Double Team) tactic often employed in coercive control situations, where the creation of rivalries and jealousies serves to isolate the victim.
Glinda's silence and compliance with the Wizard's propaganda, despite her friendship with Elphaba, contribute significantly to Elphaba's isolation and eventual labeling as the "Wicked Witch." This dynamic reflects the "Double Team" tactic from The Quicksand Model®, where multiple parties, even unwittingly, collaborate to reinforce the isolation of the targeted victim. This juxtaposition between Glinda's conformity and Elphaba's defiance underscores the themes of The Quicksand Model®, particularly the goals of the coercive controller to ensnare, entrap, and prevent escape through escalation, and ultimately the target's resistance and escape from coercive control.
Institutional Betrayal in Oz
As the story progresses, the Wizard and Madame Morrible exploit Elphaba's abilities for their own purposes, manipulating her into believing that she is using her powers for the greater good. This exploitation can be seen as a form of institutional betrayal, a concept developed by Jennifer Freyd and Sarah Harsey.
The Emerald City, as an institution, fails to protect Elphaba and instead perpetuates harm through its actions and policies. The Wizard's regime demonstrates various forms of institutional betrayal:
This betrayal is particularly damaging because it involves a violation of trust and dependency, which can have severe negative effects on mental and physical health.
Entrapment and Isolation
Elphaba's journey also illustrates the concepts of entrapment and isolation central to Evan Stark's work on coercive control and The Quicksand Model®. As she becomes more deeply involved with the Wizard's regime, Elphaba finds herself increasingly isolated from her former life and relationships. This isolation is a key tactic in maintaining coercive control, as it limits the targeted victim's access to support and alternative perspectives.
The Behavior Control aspect of the BITE Model is also evident in how Elphaba's actions are increasingly dictated by the Wizard and Madame Morrible, from her public appearances to her use of magic. This control extends to her social interactions, further isolating her from potential allies.
Resistance and Escape
Despite being ensnared, entrapped, exploited, and enslaved, Elphaba ultimately shows remarkable resilience. Her journey of resistance and escape embodies the entrapped target's goal - 'Resistance and Possible Escape.' This resistance aligns with Stark's emphasis on the importance of recognizing and addressing the full scope of coercive control, including its psychological and emotional dimensions.
Elphaba's escape from the Wizard's control can be seen as an act of "institutional courage," a concept proposed by Freyd and Harsey as a counterpoint to institutional betrayal. By standing up against the corrupt regime, in the final song Defying Gravity, Elphaba demonstrates the power of truth-seeking and moral action in the face of systemic oppression.
Conclusion
By analyzing "Wicked" through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, alongside concepts from Stark's work on coercive control, Hassan's BITE Model, and Freyd and Harsey's institutional betrayal framework, we gain a deeper understanding of the characters' motivations and actions. The musical serves as a powerful allegory for the complex dynamics of coercion, power, control, and resistance in personal relationships and broader societal contexts.
Elphaba's journey from entrapment to resistance illustrates the insidious nature of coercive control and the profound impact of institutional betrayal. At the same time, her ultimate defiance and escape offer a hopeful message about the possibility of resistance and the importance of challenging oppressive systems, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
While we've dived into 'Wicked' and unraveled some of its layers through a coercive control lens, it's worth noting that there's a whole lot more to this musical! Our exploration is just scratching the surface, and there are countless other interpretations and hidden gems tucked away in the complex narrative and colorful characters of 'Wicked'.
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be very dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
As we approach the end of 2024, it's crucial to shed light on the pervasive issues plaguing our family court systems and the devastating impact they have on protective parents, mostly mothers, and their children. Today, I want to delve into the interconnected web of coercive control, parental alienation, reunification camps, and institutional abuse within family courts. These issues are not just theoretical concepts but real-life nightmares for countless families worldwide.
The Insidious Nature of Coercive Control
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that seeks to strip away the victim's sense of self, their autonomy, and their ability to make decisions for themselves and their children. One form of coercive control is domestic abuse which goes beyond physical violence, encompassing psychological, emotional, and financial manipulation, among other types of coercion and control.
A systematic review published in the journal "Trauma, Violence, & Abuse" titled "Interparental Coercive Control and Child and Family Outcomes" highlights the devastating impact of coercive control on children. The study found that children exposed to coercive control between parents experience a range of negative outcomes, including:
- Increased risk of mental health problems
- Behavioral issues
- Poor academic performance
- Difficulties in forming healthy relationships
What's particularly alarming is how coercive control can persist and even escalate after separation, often using the family court system as a tool for continued abuse.
The Misuse of Parental Alienation Theory
One of the most insidious weapons in the arsenal of abusive partners is the misuse of the concept of "parental alienation." This pseudo-scientific theory suggests that one parent (usually the mother) is deliberately turning the child against the other parent (usually the father). However, this concept has been widely criticized by experts in the field of domestic violence and child abuse.
A collective international response to the claim of parental alienation being a "gender-neutral" empirical phenomenon challenges this notion. The response, authored by a group of renowned researchers and practitioners, argues that:
- Parental alienation lacks a clear, consistent definition
- There are no reliable measures to assess it
- It often ignores the context of abuse and violence
- It can be used to silence and punish protective parents, usually mothers
The use of parental alienation claims in family courts has led to dangerous outcomes, where abusive parents are granted custody of children, and protective parents are punished for trying to keep their children safe.
The Trauma of Reunification Camps
In some extreme cases, family courts may order children to attend "reunification camps" or programs designed to repair relationships with allegedly alienated parents. These programs, often lacking proper oversight and evidence-based practices, can inflict severe trauma on children and protective parents alike.
The article "'Swim, swim and die at the beach': family court and perpetrator induced trauma (CPIT) experiences of mothers in Brazil" provides a harrowing account of how these interventions can go terribly wrong. The study documents cases where children were forced into contact with abusive parents, leading to severe psychological distress and, in some cases, tragic outcomes.
Institutional Abuse: When the System Fails Protective Mothers
Perhaps one of the most heartbreaking aspects of this issue is the institutional abuse perpetrated by the very systems meant to protect vulnerable families. The article "Institutional Abuse: When Protective Mothers Become Victims of the System" exposes how family courts, child protective services, and other institutions often re-traumatize victims of domestic violence.
Key findings from this research include:
- Protective mothers are often disbelieved or dismissed when reporting abuse
- The burden of proof is disproportionately placed on victims
- Financial abuse continues through prolonged court battles
- Children's voices and experiences are frequently ignored
This institutional abuse is further compounded by what researchers term "judicial patriarchy." The article "JUDICIAL PATRIARCHY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A CHALLENGE TO THE CONVENTIONAL FAMILY PRIVACY NARRATIVE" explores how deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes within the judiciary can lead to biased decision-making that favors abusive fathers over protective mothers.
The Silencing of Mothers
Another critical aspect of this issue is the silencing of mothers who experience abuse from their adolescent children. The study "Silenced Mothers: Exploring Definitions of Adolescent-to-Parent Violence and Implications for Practice" sheds light on this often-overlooked form of family violence.
The research reveals that:
- Mothers experiencing violence from their adolescent children often face disbelief and stigma
- There's a lack of appropriate support services for these mothers
- The violence is often a continuation of patterns established by an abusive partner
This silencing further compounds the trauma experienced by mothers navigating the complex landscape of family violence and court interventions.
A Framework for Change
In light of these interconnected issues, it's clear that a comprehensive framework is needed to address allegations of domestic violence in child custody disputes. The article "A Framework for Addressing Allegations of Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes" proposes a model that:
- Prioritizes child safety and well-being
- Recognizes the impact of coercive control on parenting
- Implements evidence-based assessment tools
- Provides specialized training for judges, lawyers, and court personnel
- Ensures ongoing monitoring and accountability
As we move forward, it's crucial that we continue to raise awareness about these issues and push for systemic change. The lives of countless mothers and children, and those who love them, depend on our ability to recognize and respond to the complex dynamics of family violence, coercive control, and institutional abuse.
In conclusion, as the creator of The Quicksand Model® of coercive control, I urge all professionals working in the family court system, policymakers, and the general public to educate themselves on these critical issues. Only through increased awareness, evidence-based practices, and a commitment to prioritizing the safety and well-being of victims can we hope to create a justice system that truly protects the most vulnerable among us.
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be very dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
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.
If you are a protective parent attempting to navigate the family court system in the US (or any other country), you have probably run into the problematic use of the terms Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Alienation and Alienation... all of which refer to the same phenomenon. (Read my prior blog on Parental Alienation here, if you are unfamiliar with these terms and their deceptive use by coercive controllers in family court).
Parental Alienation "experts" have infiltrated the family court system in many countries, causing a hostile environment for protective parents, especially mothers, when attempting to prevent their children from being further coercively controlled by the child's coercively controlling parent. Parental Alienation theory has been debunked by every credible organization, including the UN. It does not, and has not ever, been included in the DSM. However, untrained professionals, often monetarily motivated, continue to introduce this unscientific theory, created by Richard Gardner, an advocate of pedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, klismaphilia and urophilia, into family court proceedings as a strategic means of obtaining custody of children for coercive controllers and other abusive parents.
The introduction of PAS into a family court case is often the death nil for protective mothers (and sometimes protective fathers) facing a sadistic coercive controller in family court.
If that weren't bad enough, there appears to be a distressing trend emerging. Parental Alienation "Experts" appear to be re-branding themselves as Coercive Control Experts. As a legitimate coercive control expert, with decades of lived experience, and a master's degree in the psychology of coercive control, this infuriates me!
Let me be crystal clear... Parental Alienation Syndrome is NOT Coercive Control! These two phenomena are diametrically opposed. You are either on the side of the debunked science of parental alienation, assisting coercive controllers to DARVO family court into granting custody of a child to an abuser, or you are an expert in coercive control, helping to prevent a coercive controller from obtaining custody of a child. While a person may be an expert on both terms, as I am, if you are making claims that coercive control and parental alienation are the same, you are either highly confused, or, more likely, a wolf in sheep's clothing and NOT an expert with true scientific knowledge!
The parental alienation "experts" appear to be trying to cash in on the growing trend to criminalize and/or include coercive control into legislation. As the term coercive control becomes more widely recognized and respected, and parental alienation further debunked and dismissed, these so called "experts" need a new gravy train. They have been parasites on the family court system for decades now, robbing protective parents of healthy relationships with their children, and now they are jumping ship and turning to coercive control to save them.
BEWARE! If someone claims to be a proponent of both parental alienation AND coercive control, I recommend you do your due diligence before hiring someone who may turn out to promote the exact OPPOSITE of what you need to protect your children!
In my next blog I will go into how and why this confusion is taking hold and the importance of keeping the terms Parental Alienation and Coercive Control from becoming synonymous... especially in family court proceedings.
As I have discussed before in previous blog posts, DARVO is perhaps the most effective and often used strategy of coercive controllers. And of the possible uses of DARVO, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) or Parental Alienation (PA) is arguably the most commonly used DARVO strategy of coercive controllers in family court.
PAS is a theory created by Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist, who developed the theory exclusively from his own work, and without any empirical evidence in 1985. He specifically created it for custody cases and used it often "on behalf of father's accused of molesting their children". This theory became widely touted by groups formed under the deceptive misnomer of "father's rights". What these groups are actually pushing are abuser's rights. They want to obscure the fact that they are abusive by using DARVO and PAS to paint the victim as the perpetrator.
How do DARVO and PAS work together in family court to protect abusers from accountability and demonize the protective parent?
When a protective parent accuses a partner or ex-partner of abuse, domestic violence, or coercive control, whether that's abuse of the adult survivor and/or the children, attorneys worldwide have learned that the most effective legal strategy to hide the fact that their client is a coercive controller is to DARVO the court.
DENY: "Your honor, my client would never abuse his ex-wife or children. My client is a loving father who just wishes to maintain contact with the children that he desperately loves. He works hard every day to provide for them, and he is insulted by these baseless accusations against him."
ATTACK: "It is sad to say, but Ms. ______, has mental health issues. She is an addict and regularly neglects and abuses the children. Because she was abused as a child, she thinks everyone is abusive. That is why she has falsely accused my client of abuse."
REVERSE VICTIM & OFFENDER: "Ms. _____ has alienated my client's children from him and has made him out to be a monster. She withholds the children from him, because she is vindictive, and she only wants full custody so that she can bleed my client dry through child support."
This strategy, unfortunately, is incredibly effective in family court, where most judges are untrained and hold implicit bias against mothers who allege abuse. It is so effective that many attorneys advise their clients NOT to raise abuse claims, no matter how egregious or provable, because the very presence of abuse allegations raise suspicion in the eyes of uneducated biased courts.
Joan Meier's research uncovered significant gender bias in US family courts when abuse is alleged, and she found that counter claims of parental alienation further reduced protective mothers' chances of obtaining custody. Here are some of her findings:
In cases where alienation is NOT cross-claimed:
- "Courts accept Mothers’ reports of Fathers’ abuse less than half the time (41%)"
- "Courts are far less likely to accept child abuse claims than partner violence. (DV)." For child abuse, courts only credit claims 29% of the time and for child sexual abuse only 15%.
When alienation IS cross-claimed:
"Alienation cross-claims dramatically reduce rate of acceptance of abuse - especially child abuse (average: 23%)". In these cases DV is credited only 37%, child abuse 18% and child sexual abuse is only credited (believed) 2% of the time.
Although previous research studies have revealed that 50-73% of cases of child sexual abuse are valid, Meier's research showed that only 1 out of 50 cases of child sexual abuse was believed in US family court between 2005-2014.
These figures are astonishing and outrageous! But they are not surprising to those of us who work in the field or to survivors of coercive control. Every day I receive phone calls from protective parents, mostly moms, desperate to protect their children from a coercive controller in family court.
Last year I lost primary custody of my child to a convicted family violence perpetrator whom a jury found guilty of family violence assault with bodily injury, and who repeatedly violated a family violence protective order. My coercive controller's deceit and manipulation were not only invisible to the court, his unsubstantiated lies were taken at face value, while my actual evidence of abuse was ignored.
Meier's research did not distinguish between alleged cases of family violence and proved cases. However, my own experience, and that of my clients, tells me that family court judges are regularly prioritizing father's rights over the well-being and safety of survivors and their children by placing children into the hands of known abusers.
Attorneys, judges, GALs, court evaluators, social workers, therapists, police, and all other professionals who come in contact with coercive controllers (often mislabeled "high conflict" cases) need to learn about the strategy of DARVO and how Parental Alienation Syndrome, and all it's permutations, are actually EVIDENCE of coercive control. That is what I testify to, when I am called as an expert witness in cases of coercive control. Persons who use DARVO and claim "alienation" are not victims, they are actually perpetrators exploiting the system to avoid accountability and continue their coercive control over the adult and child survivor.
THE GOOD NEWS!
On April 13, 2023 the United Nations released information, recommendations and warnings about the use of Parental Alienation pseudo-science within the family court systems worldwide. This is fantastic news! Hopefully, it will begin to undo some of the damage DARVO and PAS have done to protective parents and children across the globe.