Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as a Form of Family Violence and Child Abuse
Edward Kruk and Jennifer J. Harman
Edward Kruk and Jennifer Harman have recently published a scientific paper with countering arguments against the 13 most false claims against PA theory. The paper cites more than 100 different research papers that underpin PA theory and shows how many of the claims against PA theory are false or based on misunderstandings of what PA is.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01926187.2024.2396279
Parental alienation (PA) is defined as a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict separation or divorce, allies strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification (Bernet, 2020). This unjustified rejection, in which children’s views of the targeted parent are almost exclusively negative, to the point that the parent is demonized and seen as evil, results from a coercively controlling family dynamic in which a parental figure, engaging in largely unreciprocated, abusive behaviors, uses a child as a weapon or tool to control or hurt the other parent (Harman & Kruk, 2022; Sharples et al., 2023).
Parental alienation does not refer to those cases where a child has been victimized by other forms of child abuse (such as physical abuse), or witnessed the abuse of a parent, and is fearful of the targeted parent as a result. Scholars have identified five main factors that aid in the identification of PA: (1) the child refuses contact, and expresses hatred or indifference toward the targeted/rejected parent; (2) there was a prior positive relationship between the child and the now-rejected parent; (3) there is an absence of abuse or neglect, or grossly deficient parenting by the targeted parent; (4) there are multiple parental alienating behaviors (PABs) by the alienating parent; and (5) there are eight behavioral manifestations of PA in the child: denigration of the targeted parent by the child; frivolous, weak or untrue rationalizations for the child’s rejection; lack of ambivalence toward the child’s parents; absence of guilt for the rejection and maltreatment of the targeted parent by the child; presence of borrowed scenarios from the alienating parent; reflexive support for the favored parent; an independent thinker phenomenon where the child expresses that their negative attitude and behaviors toward the targeted parent have not been influence by the favored parent; and rejection of the targeted parent’s extended family and social network (Baker, 2020; Bernet & Greenhill, 2022). While there are several rhetorical critiques of the Five-Factor Model (such as Garber & Simon, 2023), empirical tests of the model for identification of PA have found it to be reliable and valid in several peer-reviewed studies (Baker, 2020; Morrison & Ring, 2023), and qualitative research with family court judges indicates a reliance on factors reflected in the Five-Factor Model in their decision-making (Marques et al., 2022).
The strategies that alienating parents employ in the alienation process align with what are known to be coercively controlling abusive behaviors (Harman & Matthewson, 2020), such as those depicted on the Duluth Model’s power and control wheel. Parental alienating behaviors, studied and documented in over fifty studies published prior to 2020 (Harman et al, 2022), fall under emotional abuse (e.g., spurning, corrupting, exploiting, and denying emotional responsiveness of their children), threats and intimidation (e.g., terrorizing, stalking, legal and administrative aggression), isolation, economic abuse, and other forms of coercion such as using privilege (Harman & Matthewson, 2020). The impact of these behaviors on the family dynamic can result in increased psychological distance between the child and the targeted parent, over-empowerment of the child to reject their disfavored parent, increasing the targeted parent’s negative feelings regarding their child’s rejection of them, and creating conflict between the targeted parent and child (Baker, 2005; Harman & Matthewson, 2020; Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Parents who try to alienate their child from his or her other parent convey a three-part message to the child: “I am the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself; the other parent is dangerous, unavailable, has never loved you, and has abandoned you; and pursuing a relationship with that parent jeopardizes your relationship with me” (Baker, 2005).
A consensus has been reached among PA scholars and custody evaluators on the definition and distinguishing features of PA (Bernet et al, 2021), yet PA remains controversial in the realm of family law, policy-making, and professional practice, and the opposition to acknowledging PA and alienating behaviors as a form of family violence remains strong. Misleading statements, misinformation, errors, use of science denial techniques, and misrepresentations of the current state of peer-reviewed published research and case law support regarding intimate partner violence and PA have been made by vocal critics (Bernet & Xu, 2023; Varavei & Harman, 2024). For example, the claim that abusive fathers, seeking to escape prosecution, bring forward false allegations of PA victimization to deflect attention away from their own perpetration of intimate partner violence is used to discredit the concept of PA, and induce a moral panic seized upon by popular media accounts based on misunderstandings about the concept (Harman et al, 2023; Varavei & Harman, 2024).
Fourteen Arguments Refuting Parental Alienation Theory
Numerous arguments against the concept of PA have been made but each are easily refuted by the wealth of scientific evidence that has emerged, particularly in the past two decades, from empirical studies on family violence, intimate partner violence, and PA (Harman, Warshak, et al., 2022). In this article, we present and refute the fourteen most common arguments that have been advanced against the scientific construct of PA, and against the proposition that PA and PABs are a form of child abuse and intimate partner violence. These spurious and erroneous arguments are prevalent in current judicial, legal and clinical practice, as well as the popular media.