Ten Fallacies of Parental Alienation

There are several myths or fallacies about parental alienation that may derail appropriate decisions in custody cases (as explained by a leading psychologist working in the field of parental alienation, Dr. Richard A. Warshak (2015):

Fallacy 1 – Children never unreasonably reject the parent with whom they spend most of the time. The alienating parent is often not the custodial parent. Judges who reject this fallacy will be more inclined to give proper weight to evidence of the noncustodial parent’s influence on the children’s negative attitudes toward the custodial parent when such evidence exists.

Fallacy 2 – Children never unreasonably reject mothers. Those who believe that mothers cannot be the victims of their children’s irrational rejection are predisposed to believe that children who reject their mothers have good reasons for doing so. We need to keep an open mind about the possibility that children’s rejection of either parent is not warranted by the rejected parent’s behavior.

Fallacy 3 – Each parent contributes equally to a child’s alienation. Sometimes the target parent may share some of the blame, but the instigator is the main actor. Significant research has demonstrated that the attitudes and behaviors of the parent with whom the child appears to be aligned are a key element in understanding the genesis of the problem.

Fallacy 4 – Alienation is a child’s transient, short-lived response to the parents’ separation. While this is one possible outcome of divorce, often it merely masks alienation. Numerous studies show alienation failing to dissipate and indeed lasting for years. Some research has documented disrupted parent-child relationships ranging from six years to more than 22 years.

Fallacy 5 – Rejecting a parent is a short-term healthy coping mechanism. An alienated relationship with a parent is clearly a deviation from the norm, even among children whose parents are divorced. Most children want regular contact with both parents after divorce. Growing up with a severely conflicted or absent relationship with a parent is associated with impaired development.

Fallacy 6 – Young children living with an alienating parent need no intervention. Without help to change, the family environment places these children at risk of developing a fragmented identity with the characteristics and consequences of irrational alienation and of parental absence.

Fallacy 7 – Alienated adolescents’ stated preferences should dominate custody decisions. This is the same as teens knowing what is best for them! Adolescents are suggestable, highly vulnerable to external influence, and highly susceptible to immature judgment and behavior. At times adolescents show extreme deference to others’ views, make choices primarily to oppose another’s preferences and can form a pathological alliance with one parent against the other.

Fallacy 8 – Children who irrationally reject a parent but thrive in other respects need no intervention. There is a need for intervention even with the appearance of a well-functioning child. A child’s apparent good adjustment may be superficial or coexist with significant psychological problems. Regardless of the appearance of good adjustment, the state of being irrationally alienated from a loving parent is a significant problem in its own right and is accompanied by other indices of psychological impairment. In addition, growing up apart from and in severe conflict with an able parent risks compromising children’s future psychological development and interpersonal relationships.

Fallacy 9 – Severely alienated children are best treated with traditional therapy techniques while living primarily with their favored parent. Despite the failure of previous treatments, courts frequently order another course of therapy or counseling while the children remain under the care of the parent with whom they are aligned. Courts should be informed that psychotherapy with severely alienated children has been repeatedly shown to not only be ineffective but actually exacerbates the problem.

Fallacy 10 – Separating children from an alienating parent is traumatic. Despite repeated reports that alienation abates when children are required to spend time with the parent they claim to hate or fear, some experts predict dire consequences to children if the court fails to endorse their strong preference to avoid a parent. Usually, such predictions are based on undocumented opinions, and irrelevant research. There is no peer-reviewed research that has documented harm to severely alienated children from the reversal of custody.