Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

NPOV

This article does not appear to maintain a neutral point of view. There have been a number of published criticisms of the constructs used by proponents of parental alienation (PA) explanations of children's reluctance to have contact with one parent, as well as of treatments like Family Bridges that have been claimed 1) to be psychoeducation rather than psychotherapy and 2) to have been shown by systematic research to be effective.

I am also concerned about the use of PA-based language in this article. The terms "targeted" or "alienated parent" and "alienating parent" are far from neutral and can easily be replaced by the neutral terms "preferred parent" and "non-preferred parent".

I plan to edit along these lines. JeanAMercer (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the Talk page JeanAMercer. There are certainly many problems with the overall article and I think you're right, for instance, that it's generally not helpful to use the terms "targeted/alienated/alienated" in this Wikipedia page unless expressly as references to uses in the literature. However, I don't think the terms "preferred/non-preferred" are better; they're certainly not "more neutral".

With respect to the opening paragraph, as you can see, there has been extensive discussion among a number of authors over many years on this Talk page (see above). Given the consensus reached, it would be great if further changes could be properly discussed and agreed here first (as requested above). There are certainly issues with an NPOV in other parts of the article but if every Wikipedia article were to start by saying that the term being defined "is a term used by some people to describe x/y/z", it would become quickly unreadable. I think the changes made to the long-standing text make it less accurate and readable, though I acknowledge that they do appear to reflect the views you have expressed in the paper of yours which you've cited (which could readily be referred to in the body of the article, as you may have done). Similarly, critiques of the term or concept should best be reserved for later in the article. To suggest that estrangement is not a recognised outcome of parental alienation when it's one of the defining characteristics is also not representative either of the available evidence or of consensus. I'll make appropriate re-adjustments to the text and look forward to further discussion here. Skythrops (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Skythrops-- thanks for your comments. Can you suggest more neutral terms than preferred/nonpreferred? I chose these because the child's preference is behaviorally observable and measures of this preference would be easily operationalized.

It has been quite a while since I have edited, but I do not buy the idea that changes should be discussed in Talk before they are made. I plan to make edits as seems best to me, so that if they are deleted they will at least appear in the article history. This article has evidently been constructed and maintained by editors who are strong supporters of PA and as it has stood has been little more than an advertisement for the work of certain PA advocates. There has been no suggestion of the extreme controversiality of PA principles and practices, and that is why I inserted a sentence in para 1 to the effect that there has been serious criticism. This fact should be made plain even to those who look only at the first paragraph to find a definition.

As for readability, of course it is awkward to point out that the concepts of PA are not universally accepted, but I would argue that accuracy should win over readability. Articles that represent strong evidence and a strong consensus would not need to use the kind of language I used, but the PA article is not one of those.

I don't think I've said that estrangement is not a possible aspect of PA. However, discussions of PA even by its strongest supporters generally consider the term estrangement to cover situations of visitation refusal that are not caused by PA, but by other factors such as poor parenting skills on the part of one parent.

Over the last several years, considerable attention has been paid to the connections between allegations of PA and accusations of child abuse or domestic violence. This material needs to be added to the article, but in my opinion it is important first of all to establish the nature of the controversy and to counter the claims made here by PA proponents-- claims that are essentially "proof by assertion".JeanAMercer (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. I'm not sure it's easy to find a single, entirely neutral term instead of either 'targeted' or 'preferred' - it depends a bit on context. I think that to suggest that a child's preference is behaviorally observable, though, is essentially to deny the existence of parental alienation for it ignores the issue of undue influence upon what a child says or does that lies at the core of most publications on this subject.

I think it's fair to say that, over many years, this article has been written by a range of authors some of whom accept and some of whom deny the existence of parental alienation - and some, on both sides, have indeed made contributions based on advocacy rather than evidence. That certainly doesn't make it easier to ensure that the article is based on the strength of available, scientifically valid evidence, as Wikipedia would like. I think, though, that scientific accuracy and readability go hand-in-hand. Your own work [e.g. the recent publication you've cited and, if another Wikipedia article is correct, as founder and a leader of the controversial advocacy group, Advocates for Children in Therapy] and comments here suggest that you are one of the serious critics of PA to whom you refer and it will be important to balance this with other, current scientific evidence published in respected, peer-reviewed publications. I would hope that discussion on this Talk page may facilitate consensus. Skythrops (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A number of the publications already cited here provide empirical evidence of estrangement being a consequence of parental alienation, though you are correct to point out that some academics specialised in studying parental alienation attempt to distinguish alienation ['illegitimate estrangement'] from estrangement ['legitimate estrangement']. Skythrops (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary to discuss all changes on this page before they are made and, further, the history of this page suggests that such demands get in the way of making necessary updates and corrections or, in fact, of establishing NPOV. See the Wikipedia talking and editing policy. (In general "Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes.") If and when the need actually arises, absent such issues as the introduction of obvious error or vandalism, it seems that the better path would be to notify editors and seek consensus prior to reversion. See policy pages, revert only when necessary, ownership of content.Arllaw (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all and particularly JeanAMercer. Firstly, welcome to the discussion and thanks for your contributions.

To add my two cents worth: I do tend to agree with Skythrops that editing of the content, especially significant sections such as the introduction, should be done by consensus rather than unilaterally, particularly on topics that are as controversial as this one. Further to that I think that the introduction section should seek to succinctly define the concept at hand rather than introduce all the nuances and arguments, those should be reserved for the body of the article.

With regards to the terms “preferred” vs “alienating” I have to again agree with Skythrop’s comments that using the term “preferred” effectively denies the possibility of alienating behaviour and indeed the role of parents/carers, both positive and/or negative. The term “preferred” implies that it is simply a neutral choice on the part of the child with no external influence. However it is unrealistic to suggest that a child exists in a vacuum and is in no way influenced by the people surrounding them. I think there would be few (if any) people who would deny that the very basis of being a parent (or indeed school teacher, coach, therapist, etc.) involves influencing the child, hopefully in positive ways, as they grow and develop (the terribly sad examples of the profound and lifelong impact on children denied any early attachment to positive, caring people is well documented – this influencing is vitally important!). There is sadly no doubt that a child can also be very negatively influenced by the people around them - a quick review of child soldiers in the most extreme case highlights this, however negative family beliefs (racism, sexism, violence, etc) handed down through generations is a far more common place example. To then suggest that it is not possible to influence a child to reject someone is pretty hard to justify and would be completely contrary both to commons sense and research. This is, of course, the principle that lies at the heart of parental alienation – the possibility that one or both of the separating parties do attempt to influence the children negatively to completely or partially reject the other parent. In situations of family breakdown involving family court proceedings (colloquially know as custody battles!), to suggest that both parents are going to stand aside and not let their personal feelings towards the other party affect the way they portray the other party to the child and to not seek to win the child's favour and to not influence them against the other party is to live in denial of human nature! If that was the case then the need for court intervention would not exist, and that is clearly not the case!

Therefore using the term “preferred” as opposed to “alienated” on the basis that it is neutral is, as noted previously, actually counterproductive as it takes away the whole concept that is being examined – i.e. that it is possible for a child to be negatively influenced to reject a parent without justification. I do agree that the term “parental alienation” is not ideal and sometimes adds confusion to the topic however I think it is perfectly possible to examine this topic in a neutral way using appropriate (or at least widely accepted) terminology that is representative of what is being examined.

Further to this you note that using the term “preferred” is behaviourally observerable, but as Skythrops also notes, using this metric in isolation completely ignores the underlying process. Doing this, I would suggest, is the same as saying that a child soldier clearly prefers to kill people (ignoring the fact that they’ve been “brainwashed”) or that a child prefers to hate coloured people (ignoring the fact that their parents were racist).

I agree with you that creating effective measures of the topic is certainly exceptionally hard to operationalize, the variables and interdependencies are hideously complex. However it might be worthwhile reviewing some of the work done by Bernet et al “An Objective Measure of Splitting in Parental Alienation: The Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire” (DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13625) for an attempt to develop some practical tools?

I hope that you take this in a spirit of promoting positive discussion on a complex topic and that we can continue this discussion with the aim of reaching consensus? --DrPax (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Dr Pax, I do take this as positive and cooperative! I am open to some other terminology is someone can come up with something that is both neutral and operationalizable. Please note that I have not said "the child prefers to hate a parent". I have said that one parent can be described as the one whose presence the child prefers [over the alternative] and the other parent is the one the child does not prefer [over the alternative], I think there is a real distinction here, but also that to prefer one thing over another does not imply the reasons for the preference. Given a choice between maple walnut ice cream and Rocky Road, I prefer Rocky Road, as shown by the fact that I buy and eat one rather than the other. Nothing is said or implied here about the history that has led to that preference-- maybe I was frightened by choking on a walnut, maybe someone I loved and lost likes Rocky Road and the ice cream reminds me pleasantly of that person, maybe my mother has frequently said to me "I know you never liked maple walnut and I don't either." I am sure I don't need to spell out how this analogy works for a child's behavior toward a parent.

However, as I said, I am game to use any neutral term that is suggested, although I consider preferred and nonpreferred to be neutral.

Some authors discussing these issues refer to visitation resistance or refusal (VRR) or contact resistance or refusal (CRR). I would consider these descriptions of the child's behavior neutral but haven't figured out how to use them to describe the parents.

To my mind, the biggest problem with using the "alienating" or "target" terminology is that there are only the most anecdotal reports of the parent behavior, which is generally simply inferred from the child's behavior. Amy Baker's small study looked at this entirely retrospectively and used participants who were brought in by advertisements for people with unhappy childhoods, thus omitting possible interviewees who might have reported that a parent spoke badly of the other parent but it had no effect or simply annoyed the child. Rowen & Emery reported that their interviewees who discussed a parent's denigration of the other parent said that it annoyed them and made them angry at both parents rather than persuading them that one parent was good and one bad.

With no systematic measurement or reporting of "alienating" behavior, it is not surprising that there is no reliable information about incidence or prevalence of either child or adult behavior. In addition, Bernet's measure of splitting (which can happen for many reasons and is not uncharacteristic of children under any form of stress) is not meaningful until there is a way to define and measure the adult behavior that is said to be precede a child's rejection of one parent.

Because there is no well-substantiated measure of the adult behavior, but simply inference of the adult behavior from the child behavior, and because there is more than one possible cause of VRR (if you want to use that term), I think it is essential to consider that there is a broad category of VRR (let's say), and within that there are various subcategories including estrangement of milder or more serious kinds perhaps resulting from a parent's poor parenting skills, children's anxiety about a parent who has been abusive to them or to the other parent, children's concerns about a parent's new partner or home, etc. One subcategory would be children who have genuinely been subjected to and persuaded by a parent's campaign against the other parent. I am far from denying that this category exists, as people do many crazy things and this would be no crazier than lots of others, but I object strongly to the reliance on inference that seems usually to be involved in placing a given case in that category. So, I would like to see this article discuss the child behavior as belonging to a subcategory rather than making it too easy for the reader to imagine that all VRR is the same as PA.

All that said, I hope that a neutral terminology can be worked out. I think that would go a long way toward creating a more objective discussion of this highly controversial topic with its powerful practical significance for family court decisions. JeanAMercer (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi JeanAMercer and thanks for your considered response. My concern with your analogy is that in Parental Alienation we do not have a case where the child is simply choosing between two equally healthy options (not that Walnut and Rocky Road ice cream are necessarily healthy! Lol). I’m sure that I don’t need to point out that the research is abundantly clear that children who are supported to maintain a positive and healthy relationship with both parents have a measurably better long term outcomes in all domains. When a child loses a parent through “natural” causes (death for example) there is a measurable reduction in long term outcomes even if they are positively supported through the experience. In the case of parental alienation the child not only loses that relationship but is also taught to actively reject that relationship. The potential psychological impacts of that are, I would suggest, self-evident, but there is an interesting paper that you may well be already aware of on this topic by Baker .

One of the defining features of the Parental Alienation is that the child(ren) develop an unreasonable and often extremely negative response to the other parent over the course of family separation that is not justified by the behaviour of that parent. Often the child(ren) will have had a demonstrable (if only anecdotally) healthy and positive relationship with the alienated parent prior to the breakup.

So we have a case in parental alienation where a child is being heavily influenced by one parent to “prefer” that parent and to resist or completely reject the other parent and in doing so is “choosing” an option that is psychologically (and physically as some research suggests) damaging to them. Hence I would suggest your analogy would be more accurate if it was a choice between smoking and a non-smoking with the alienating parent in the background pushing them to choose the cigarette.

You are correct in pointing out that generating real empirical data around this is very difficult as no parents are going to stand up and say “We’re about to breakup, could you please take a baseline on the nature of the relationship our children have with each of us so that we can assess if it changes over the course of this breakdown?”. So we have to rely on retrospective and inferential analysis which, as you accurately point out is fraught with problems. That said, assessing whether a child has developed an unjustifiable resistance (as opposed to justifiable in the case of actual abuse, etc.) is not impossible and is, I would suggest a real indication that the child is being negatively influenced, without justification, against the other parent. This is what Bernets paper on splitting is attempting to do, certainly it is early days for that battery and determining construct validity will require further work but it is a start.

You are also correct in pointing out that Parental Alienation only occurs in a small percentage of breakups, many separating couples are wise enough to recognise that the children do not need to be burdened with their parent’s problems and manage to process accordingly. Also that some children are often not heavily influenced or simply reject the attempt at influencing and that there are also genuinely valid reason for estrangement (actual abuse, etc). However in the situation where one party deliberately (whether consciously or unconsciously) influences a child to reject a previously healthy relationship we have a situation where that party is actually damaging the child. There can be no other way than to define this as abuse, just as encouraging a child to smoke is considered damaging and is appropriately illegal.

So to return to your question about terminology I think it is appropriate to recognise that in the situation where a child develops an unjustifiable resistance to contact with one parent there must be an influencing factor causing this. As you point out people do crazy things and under the stress of a family breakdown are even more likely to do so! What is important to recognise is that attempting to influence a child to reject a parents is a form of abuse, irrespective of whether it is successful or not and needs to be identified accordingly (we don’t let drug dealer go free because they were unsuccessful in getting somebody hooked!). One of the problems with using the term “parental alienation” is that it ends up creating jargon for something that doesn’t really need any! As you point out it should be simply recognised as a sub-category of psychological abuse perpetrated by an abuser against a child (just as sexual, financial, emotional, etc. abuse is) and dealt with accordingly. Obviously the terms “abuser”, “psychological abuse” and “abuse” are not neutral however I would suggest that they are accurate in the context?

You identify that this article should differentiate between VRR (or what some sources refer to as “justifiable estrangement”) and PA and I agree. This is what the “Parental alienation versus parental estrangement” section is intended to explore, but it certainly need a lot more work, part of which is how children’s behavioural responses vary and can be interpreted between the different conditions. Perhaps you could propose some additions to this section to clarify the differences?

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am against "preferred". It is even more POV than "alienat/ing/ed/. Zezen (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think that, Zezen? I would argue that any neutral term must focus on observable events rather than inference. I don't insist that "preferred" is necessarily the best choice, but at least it is derived from the child's observed behavior.

DrPax, I think we are both being polite and we are both well-intentioned, but I think we are talking at cross-purposes right now. Your comments assert, as the article does, that VRR is caused by alienating parental behavior and do not discuss alternative causes. Also, you are willing to say that when alienating behavior occurs it should be equated with abuse (which I did not say). That claim runs into the serious obstacle of the fact that PA practitioners, who are mandatory reporters of abuse, do not report the cases they treat to child protective services. Yet they are willing to argue in court that the family situation should be treated as abuse with respect to child custody decisions. This and other points about PA are huge "cans of worms" that will eventually need to be opened but perhaps this is not the time.

I think the best use of our time at this point would be to try to thrash out neutral language to describe the parents. I'm going to propose a couple of terms: accepted parent for the one the child wants to be with, rejected parent for the one with whom contact is avoided. These terms focus on observable child behavior and do not involve inferences about the cause of the behavior. They would thus be useful for all kinds of VRR cases, not just ones where alienating behavior could be demonstrated, and thus would help in the discussion of alienation versus estrangement, alienation versus a history of domestic violence, alienation versus poor parenting skills, or any other way in which PA is to be regarded as a subcategory.

Do you have alternative suggestions? JeanAMercer (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, while we're thinking about categories and subcategories, I think it would be useful to consider how "alienating" in the PA context differs or fails to differ from a normative level of alienation and triangulation as it occurs in well-functioning intact families--"I know you wanted to go to the party, but you know your father, he doesn't like that family"; "you can skip school for the day, just don't tell your mom"; "oh no, your father left his dirty socks in the kitchen again, this is driving me crazy". This isn't anything that could go into this article, I just mean to add further context as a way to think productively about the topic.JeanAMercer (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On mobile, so short. As per above, it suggests a false free choice. Quickly quoting another Wikipedian who elegantly explained it:

The term “preferred” implies that it is simply a neutral choice on the part of the child with no external influence. However it is unrealistic to suggest that a child exists in a vacuum and is in no way influenced by the people surrounding them.... 

"Alienated" is slightly less suggestive, but also smacks of POV as duly noted in the article itself and the RS quoted there. Respectfully (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Some useful contributions from all authors here:

1. I think Zezen's points are valid;

2. I don't think we need to try to make any definite decisions here as to how to describe both parents; it will depend, to some extent, on context;

3. JeanAMercer's suggestion of referring to "rejected" (a previously used term) and "accepted" (a novel term, I believe) parents could be useful in some contexts (though not because they necessarily reflect what a child either "prefers" or "wants");

4. There has been some confusion even among authors on this page as to what parental alienation actually is (notwithstanding the definition up-front) and this can lead to people talking at cross-purposes. The term is not equivalent to the general scenario of when a child rejects a parent (which has multiple possible explanations). The term parental alienation should only be applied when a child's rejection of a parent (or others) is unwarranted and has been caused by psychological manipulation (cf "gaslighting" and many other instances of people being manipulated into having false beliefs). As such, it is also appropriate to describe the manipulator (if a parent) as the "abusive" parent, as DrPax mentions;

5. There is certainly a spectrum of parental behaviors from the sorts of comments that some might make in relatively well-functioning families (see examples by JeanAMercer above) to those that actually manipulate a child into rejecting a fit parent (an extraordinary phenomenon given that young humans and other animals want and need care from those closest to them). But a real line along that spectrum has been crossed when the latter occurs and that line marks the transition into behaviors that represent quite an extreme form of abuse;

6. With respect to the question of 'alienation' vs 'estrangement', the latter is a relatively neutral term too. It's a statement of a situation - the loss of a previously existing relationship - and says little or nothing as to how that situation arose. By contrast, the label 'alienation' in this context aims to suggest how estrangement occurred.

Skythrops (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi JeanAMercer, and thanks again for your comments and insight.

I agree that the terms you have proposed: accepted vs rejected, are far better than preferred/non-preferred within the context of purely observable behaviour. They are relatively neutral with regards to the reason for the behavioural response, they do not imply an exclusively internal preference in the child and allow for the possibility that the accepting or rejecting may be triggered by external factors. I am a little concerned that the term “rejected” can still be interpreted to imply an uninfluenced decision on the part of the child but I couldn’t think of a suitable alternative, “excluded” was about the best I could come up with but that seems to go too far in the other direction. Thoughts?

That aside we need to be careful not to immediately infer anything from these observations. As you point out there is many reasons why a child may resist contact: if a parent is demonstrably abusive (physically, sexually, etc) towards a child then nobody would question that is it appropriate that the child “reject” that parent and indeed be supported in resisting contact. You also correctly assert that if a parent has poor parenting skills then it is again appropriate that a child might “reject” contact with that parent as exposure to poor parenting is potentially detrimental to the child’s physical and mental health (psychological abuse?). However, in the case of PA where the “alienating parent” is actively manipulating a child to “resist” a previously healthy relationship with the “targeted parent” we have a behaviour in the “alienating parents” that is very definitely a form of poor parenting (forcing a child, through psychological manipulated, pressure or outright blackmailed to suppress their true feelings towards a parent they were previously securely attached to and instead vilify that parent… I’m sure someone of your experience and knowledge can see the psychological ramifications?).

The problem in this situation is that the child, on observable behaviour alone, appears to “accept” the parent who is practicing exceptionally poor parenting and “reject” the “targeted parent” for no justifiable reason. Making assessments and custodial decisions based purely on observable behaviour can then result in children being exposed to exceptionally poor (abusive?) parenting if a deeper assessment of the reasons is not also conducted in cases where there is no evidence of any abuse (other than the alienating parents often voluble allegations and accusations).

On the topic of subcategories, I would suggest that caution needs to be exercised in contrasting “alienation and estrangement” and “alienation and poor parenting skills”. As explored above I would say that alienation is just one of many forms of poor parenting skills, not a separate phenomenon in itself. I would also suggest that estrangement is the result, whereas alienation (or abuse, or poor parenting skills) is the process that potentially leads to estrangement. If a child is abused then they may become estranged (due to appropriate separation), if a child is alienated they may also become estranged (but due to inappropriate separation). Estrangement may also arise for completely neutral reason (geographical separation, etc.). Again this needs to be better articulated in the “PA vs estrangement” section of the article.

I also agree that the “can of worms” you refer to is indeed a tricky issue, rooted I would suggest in history and the very limited understanding of the nature and acceptance of psychological abuse that, particularly courts have historically had available to them. I would hope that this dialogue, along with all the work being done by other parties would help better understand and define the topic so that more accurate assessments and decisions can be made.

Re your comments of alienation within intact families – yes, of course these dynamics exist to varying degrees but the key difference is when "oh no, your father left his dirty socks in the kitchen again, this is driving me crazy" becomes "oh no, your father left his dirty socks in the kitchen again, this is driving me crazy! He’s so crap and you should hate him for making me crazy!". I’m sure you can well imagine the commentary that a particularly vindictive parent might provide to a child during a court assisted relationship breakdown when gaining 100% custody of the child(ren) means they get the house, the car, alimony and full child support!?

DrPax (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you find "accepted" and "rejected" more neutral than "preferred" and nonpreferred", but either pair is all right with me.

Now let me bring up another issue. I do think it's important to use the idea that PA is a subcategory of VRR. Doing that will help avoid the discussion of alienation versus estrangement. It appears that Wikipedia has no article on VRR. I propose introducing the PA article by a brief reference to VRR, then proceeding to PA, thus among other things avoiding the implication that VRR in all forms is equivalent to PA. (That implication was no doubt unintentional, but I think some readers of this article will think it is there.) What do you think of this idea?

BTW, you don't have to convince me that PA can exist. Just reasoning from first principles suggests that it can. However, PA is often claimed on the basis of inferences from child behavior. I am very concerned when it is stated without elaboration that a child's refusal is unjustified, as if justification is only a matter of substantiated abuse or as if a child has to be able to articulate his or her reasons and convince adults of them. Children may be embarrassed or unable to express some concerns that really have nothing to do with the relationship with the parent-- e.g., girls may be exceedingly shy about matters of menstrual hygiene with respect to their fathers (or really any man); pubescent boys may have privacy concerns; both sexes may find it excruciating to be exposed to a parent with a new romantic partner at that time in their lives. Parents' remarriages, stepsiblings in the picture, or unfamiliar neighborhoods and houses may be "the last straw" that causes rejection, and I doubt that most children and adolescents can explain how their attitudes have shifted.

When I mentioned poor parenting skills, I was referring to the skills of the rejected parent. Here are some behaviors of rejected parents that I've seen: Stating a wish for full custody but declaring that the child would be sent to boarding school when custody was won; posting signs in all rooms of the house saying "no parental alienation"; refusing permission for a child to accept an unusual honor she had won; insisting that an autistic child who was fearful of one parent be transported in handcuffs by youth service workers; insisting on having visits at the time a child's sports practice was scheduled, making it impossible for the child to be on the team. To claim that the accepted parent can cause the child to become alienated does not rule out a parallel claim that the rejected parent may have contributed to the rejection. JeanAMercer (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. In considering the difference in terms I am thinking mainly about a legal debate: the difference between accepted/preferred and rejected/non-preferred is that the term “accepted” allows for the possibility that the situation is “accepted” but not necessarily “preferred” (someone can “accept their fate” but might prefers something else) whereas the term “preferred” implies an actual internal desire for that option. In the case of PA the child is manipulated into accepting a situation (rejecting a good parent) that they do not prefer (having a healthy relationship with both parents) and “accept” is then a far more appropriate term than “prefer”. In the case of actual abuse and/or overt bad parenting the term is still applicable – the child “accepts” (and probably prefers) the non-abusive parent and “rejects” the abusive parent.

I’m not convinced that PA can be defined as a subcategory of VRR, certainly it is a potential cause of VRR and, as such is a subcategory of poor (abusive?) parenting and psychological manipulation. I don’t think that there is any implication in the definition that it is the only reason for VRR, if anything it categorically states that it is a “distinct form” of abuse. I certainly do think that either the “Introduction” or the “Parental Alienation vs Estrangement” sections could do with better clarity in this area – do you have a proposed edit to these sections that would make this distinction clear?

I do agree you that claims made purely on the basis of inference of child behaviour without elaboration are exceedingly questionable, both in relation to PA and allegations (without evidence) of abuse. We know only too well that a child is open to manipulation and that in the adversarial legal system that we have there is enormous pressure to “win” by any means possible. Developing practical tools that can be used to assess the veracity of claims (such as Bernet’s splitting battery) and to conduct a deeper investigation of the child’s responses and the parents suitability is vitally important in avoiding these unfortunate situations.

The examples of bad parenting you provide do highlight that people on both sides are far from perfect (I’m sure you could provide as many example of equally bad parenting from the custodial parent?) It is also certainly the case that children will have a preference for one parent over the other is particular situation (discussing menstrual hygiene, etc). However I’m sure you would agree that this does not constitutes grounds for completely excluding the parent from their lives, especially given that child with a meaningful (if not perfect) relationship with both parents fair better in every domain. Legal intervention would be far better off directing support for separating parents to improve their parenting skills rather than pitting parents against each other in a battle to try and find a “winner” and a “loser”. Sadly the batteries in my wand are flat!

DrPax (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

References

Removed section on Parental Alienation Syndrome (as proposed above in discussions). It does not fit under "History" or on this page and others have consistently made the point here that the two are distinct (PAS has long had a distinct Wikipedia page). Almost every sentence also contained significant inaccuracies and/or was not written from an NPOV. Also removed recent text that repeated more accurate, pre-existing text or was redundant. The phrase that “some empirical research has been performed” and its quality varies widely, for instance, is unhelpful or essentially meaningless; it could just about be applied to any human endeavour.Skythrops (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

I see that @Skythops: has added an Introduction section which I think is an excellent idea for a topic that has a lot of subtleties buried below the surface of the initial description.

I appreciate that I'm jumping in whilst the pixels are still drying but can I suggest that the section regarding the various ways that PA is defined is expanded to make a clearer distinction between them and to provide the lay reader with a required terminology. Perhaps something like:

The term parental alienation is derived from parental alienation syndrome, a term coined by Gardner in the early 1980s to describe a distinctive suite of behaviours, which he had observed consistently in children exposed to family separation or divorce, whereby children rejected and showed unwarranted feelings towards one of their parents. Gardener (check?) developed some specific terminology to describe the various parties involved in this process:

1. The alienating parent - the party that is manipulating the child(ren) into rejecting the other party(s).
2. The targeted parent or party(s) - the party that is subject of the unwarranted rejection by the child(ren).

After Gardeners initial description some objections to the use or medical validity of the term ‘syndrome’, as well as more ideological objections to the entire concept, resulted in academics increasingly using the truncated form ‘parental alienation’ during the 1990s. This has lead to three distinct ways in which Parental Alienation has been defined:

1. By the signs/symptoms observed in the child, which is synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome. This mainly considers the child's behavioural responses to the the circumstances that most commonly give rise to Parental Alienation - family separation with legal intervention. It also considers the short and long term impact of those behaviours on the well-being of the child.
2. By the process or tactics by which Parental Alienation occurs. This specifically deals with the methods that the alienating parent uses to manipulate the child into rejecting the targeted parent.
3. By the outcomes for parents and others who have become victims of the unwarranted rejection. This tends to focus on the mental and physical impacts, both in the short and long term on the targeted parent/people.

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The latest changes to the Introduction section do not appear to be an improvement; they've introduced multiple typos and other errors and removed a clear reference to the origin of the term parental alienation and its different, current usages which is useful, if not essential, to have up-front. The changes have also brought the History section to the front of the article where Wikipedia convention suggests that this should be later in the article, as previously discussed and agreed by other authors on this Talk page. That might be OK were the text accurate, but it's not. The first line states that "parental alienation was first described as pathological alignment"; this and other material here is not correct.

It's also not helpful or accurate or representative of an NPOV to have the idea that everything to do with parental alienation is a "claim" inserted in multiple locations. Skythrops (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you corrected a single typogrpahical error. It's not clear what source you are complaining about. It does not make sense to bifurcate the history of the content, so perhaps the entire "introduction" section should be renamed as "history" and moved to a later place in the article. After all, the lead serves as an introduction. Also, it is not accurate to suggest that "parental alienation" and PAS are widely or even commonly viewed as synonymous. Arllaw (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The paragraphs about PAS, currently under History, don't belong on this Wikipedia page. The reference to the term PA being derived from PAS, along with a link to the PAS page should be sufficient. Skythrops (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The content that you deleted has been part of the article since 2009. It is brief, relevant to the discussion, as evidenced by your own edits that attempt to relate PAS and Parental Alienation, and you do not appear to be disputing its accuracy, so the deletion of the material strikes me as inappropriate. Arllaw (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Arllaw's strongly stated position elsewhere on this Talk page that this article is about parental alienation, not parental alienation syndrome (PAS). As such, it's inappropriate and unnecessary to have paragraphs about PAS in this article. As suggested above, and as 'evidenced by my edits' and suggestions, I believe that the appropriate references to PAS on this page are, firstly, a simple comment that one is historically derived from the other and, secondly, a link to the PAS Wikipedia page for further information (which is already incorporated into that one, simple phrase). Furthermore, the current text in the PAS section lacks an NPOV and is neither accurate nor appropriate for the History section of this particular page.Skythrops (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing the deletion of content, which you do not appear to be claaiming to be inaccurate, but you are not making clear what it is that you want to delete. Are you speaking of that very old passage that you deleted and then restored? The fact that parental alienation evolved out of PAS, even though the concept of a "syndrome" has been not gained any acceptance within mainstream psychology and psychiatry, remains relevant to its history. The fact that the history of PAS is somewhat dubious does not mean that it's irrelevant to the history, as it helps the reader understand how we got from point A to point B, and also helps them evaluate the fringe still mentioned in the article who, despite that history, want to conflate parental alienation with PAS. Given that there is no realistic chance that PAS will be revived as a viable concept, there's an argument to be made for merger: condensing that article and incorporating it into this one.

Also, as there is no longer an introduction section, assuming that you are concerned about matters within what you renamed as the 'history' section, perhaps you should start a new topic to discuss the history section. Arllaw (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some material that was not consistent with the sources. The material was also redundant, the issue being discussed more accurately under the subheading, "Recognition of parental alienation". Arllaw (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please work toward consensus before making massive changes in relation to something that is under disucssion. Arllaw (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal - Activism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose merging Parental Alienation Awareness Day into Parental alienation. The awareness day page has some issues by Wikipedia standards, and has not been updated for years. I suggest creating a subsection in this article for "Activism", merging the awareness day material into that section (while editing and updating it to standard). Perhaps there are other activist efforts that could then be added to such a section. The merger will not materially affect the length of the Parental Aienation article. Arllaw (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe it might be appropriate to include a paragraph entitled "Activism", or something similar, towards the end of this page (providing it does 'not materially affect the (overall) length') and that Parental Alienation Awareness Day could be included. To avoid introducing further inaccuracies into this page, this might involve a considerable amount of original research to determine which States/countries have adopted 25 April or other dates.

As to whether this should strictly be a merger such that the original page is left solely with a link or, instead, the original page is left intact, Wikipedia seems to provide examples of both. I'm therefore personally neutral on which solution is most appropriate.Skythrops (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that the suggestion by Arllaw to create a new section entitled "Activism" and merge Parental Alienation Awareness Day page into that is a good idea. I am aware that groups in the UK and possibly other countries are pushing for the 25th to be recognised and there is a group in Australia that have nominated the 12th of October (not sure why they have chosen a different day but that could certainly be explored in that section). DrPax (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.