Relationship Ambivalence: Torn Between Staying and Leaving

One of the most painful places to be in a relationship is not in love—or out of love—but stuck somewhere in between. Relationship ambivalence is the experience of being deeply uncertain about whether to stay or go. You may find yourself going back and forth daily, even hourly, weighing the positives against the negatives. This state of indecision can be emotionally exhausting, and it often leaves people feeling paralyzed.

Mira Kirshenbaum’s book, Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay, offers a compassionate framework for navigating this dilemma. Rather than pushing for either reconciliation or separation, she invites people to carefully assess the health of their relationship by asking a series of guiding questions. These questions help clarify whether the relationship is fundamentally viable—or whether the struggles point to deeper incompatibilities.

Why Ambivalence Feels So Heavy

Ambivalence in relationships doesn’t necessarily mean failure. Many people experience moments of doubt in long-term partnerships. But when uncertainty becomes chronic, it can erode trust, intimacy, and self-esteem.

Kirshenbaum reminds us that clarity often comes not from endless “pros and cons” lists, but from deeper reflection. Some questions to consider include:

These questions can reveal whether ambivalence is rooted in temporary struggles - or in fundamental misalignment.

How Do You Know When the Relationship Might Be Salvageable?

Whether you feel stuck around ‘superficial’ conflict or disagreements about values, intimacy, or lifestyle, there are many approaches that can help partners break out of painful cycles and rebuild a sense of connection and safety.

These approaches remind us that ambivalence does not always mean the end. Sometimes it signals the need for repair, growth, and deeper understanding.

The Cost of Staying Stuck

Remaining in chronic uncertainty without movement toward clarity or repair takes a toll. Anxiety, sadness, lack of focus, and physical stress are common. Even if not spoken aloud, children often sense the tension. Doing nothing is itself a choice - one that prolongs pain.

Moving Toward Clarity

If you are struggling with whether to stay or leave, there are supportive paths forward:

Ambivalence is painful, but it can also be a turning point.

You don’t have to go through this alone. Whether you choose to work toward repair or make the difficult decision to part, support is available to help you navigate the journey with clarity and compassion. If you find yourself torn between staying and leaving, I invite you to reach out. Together, we can explore your options and help you move from uncertainty to empowerment - toward a future that feels more authentic, connected, and hopeful.

Interested? Contact drkatrina@kkjpsych.com.

Among the topics:

How do you work towards the best interests of the children in a co-parenting agreement?

What can you do with your ex to make sure you have a stable yet flexible co-parenting agreement?

What happens to the agreement when the family expands to allow for new in-laws?

Interested in working on your co-parenting relationship?
Contact lisa@kkjpsych.com to discuss your co-parenting options.

By Dr. Julianne Ludlam
This is the second article in a series of three.
Part 1 | Part 2 (here) | Part 3 (coming)

Parental alienation is a controversial concept in mental health and legal fields, despite its continued use in high-conflict family-court disputes. New research and several alternative terms have now been applied to cases of children who resist contact with a parent, and these cases continue to be challenging for courts, clinicians, and attorneys.

This series of articles describes the current research on parental alienation (PA) and parent-child contact problems. The first installment described the overlapping terms and concepts related to PA, such as gatekeeping and parental alienating behaviors (PABs), as well as some of the models used to assess and describe the problem. This second article describes some of the major conceptual and practical issues surrounding alienation, based on recent reviews of the literature. The third will discuss interventions and offer recommendations for attorneys and evaluators involved in such cases.

Current Issues

The Utility of PA as a Concept
Due to the lack of consensus around definition, etiology, and prevalence, many researchers have reported concerns about the continuing use of the concept of PA, particularly in court proceedings (Fidler & Bala, 2020). There are no valid empirical assessment protocols or tools that can reliably measure or establish the presence of alienation nor distinguish it from other types of parent-child problems, such as estrangement or justified rejection (Fidler & Bala, 2020).

For this reason, some researchers have suggested alternative terms, such as parent-child contact problems (PCCPs) and resist-refuse dynamics (Fidler & Bala, 2020). However, others have argued that changing the terms does not resolve the issue, as PA concepts may still be applied loosely and without standards (Johnston & Sullivan, 2020). Fidler and Bala (2020) noted that most professionals involved in these cases are dedicated to the best outcomes for children and families and agree that the goal is to determine if rejection of a parent is justified (realistic estrangement) or unjustified (alienation). Disagreement arises around the utility of the concept of PA. However, there is general agreement that there are different types of PCCPs with multiple contributing factors, and that resisting or rejecting a parent may occur for either justifiable or unjustifiable reasons.

Single Factor vs. Multifactor Models
Theories developed to explain PA have been expanded from a single-factor model to a multifactorial predictive model, but beliefs and assumptions based on the single-factor model persist. Johnston and Sullivan (2020) explained that the single-factor model – that the alienating parent is primarily the source of a child’s rejection of a parent – continues to be widely believed despite the actual complexity of the problem. A single-factor model assumes a child is either a victim of abuse or a victim of PA, precluding the possibility of both. It also assumes that any alienation present must be the fault of the favored parent, and that the alienated parent is without parenting deficits if no abuse is found (Johnston & Sullivan 2020).

In contrast, the multifactorial model (initially developed by Kelly & Johnston in 2001) is based on substantial social science research and considers an array of factors that can create an alliance with one parent over another (Deutsch, Drozd, & Ajoku, 2020; Johnston & Sullivan, 2020; Fidler & Bala, 2020). Resistance to contact with a parent may involve, for example, a history of inadequate parenting by the alienated parent, an overanxious and protective favored parent, and/or a child’s discomfort with the custody schedule (Johnston & Sullivan, 2020).

In the multifactorial model, parental alienating behaviors (PABs) are viewed as one factor that may account for a child’s resistance or refusal of contact; many other factors, such as developmental or attachment issues, divorce and step-family transition issues, a previous absence of an alienated parent, problematic parenting by either or both parents, third-party influences, chronic litigation, a history of marital conflict, and psychological disorders in a parent are possible. Fidler and Bala (2020) stated that although some cases of PCCPs may be due to one parent, both parents often bear some responsibility, and “focusing on a single cause is rarely helpful” (p. 576). They listed eight broad contributing factors to PCCPs:

Reunification in Cases of PCCPs and Abuse
Another issue related to cases of PA, PCCPs, and gatekeeping involves the goal of family reunification or of maintaining contact with both parents, even in situations involving abuse or IPV. Several authors noted there is substantial research to support the idea that children benefit from good relationships with both parents when no safety issues are present, and the law generally follows that presumption (Austin, Fieldstone, & Pruett, 2013; Fidler & Bala, 2020). Some researchers suggest it may still be in a child’s best interest to repair and maintain a relationship with a rejected parent even in cases of abuse, neglect, or poor parenting, and “even when the child has good reasons to be fearful or feel stressed, uncomfortable, hurt or angry with a parent,” as long as safety issues are no longer present (Fidler & Bala, 2020, p. 590; Deutsch et al., 2020). Fidler and Bala (2020) stated:

Developmental research and legal policy in child protection, as well as in custody and access contexts, support children having healthy and safe relationships with both parents; this applies to children who may have been abused and those who may have been alienated (p. 585).

Deutsch and colleagues (2020) agreed that reunification with a resisted parent may be in a child’s best interest even with confirmation of abuse but stated that each case should be evaluated individually to determine the best approach. Both reviews warned that some children who experience abuse do not resist an abusive parent and may seek out contact with that parent. Both also agreed that there are cases in which a relationship between a parent and child should not be supported, such as when safety risks continue despite interventions or when children who have experienced abuse are resisting the parent who abused them (Fidler & Bala, 2020; Deutsch et al., 2020).

Conclusions: Current Issues Related to Parental Alienation
The concept of PA is heavily criticized in the research due to problems with clarity, validity, and reliable measurement. Less ambiguous alternatives, such as parent-child contact problems (PCCPs) or resist-refuse dynamics, have been suggested. PCCPs are now believed to have multiple contributing factors, and resisting or rejecting a parent can be considered either justifiable or unjustifiable. Current issues involve cases of both PCCPs and child abuse. Despite significant research indicating that a child’s rejection of a parent is likely complex and multifactorial, family courts may tend to frame such problems simplistically, as either abuse or alienation. Finally, although research generally supports reunification with resisted or even formerly abusive parents, there are cases in which such relationships should not be supported.

Coming Next

The third article in this series will describe interventions for PCCPs and offer recommendations for attorneys and evaluators.

Want to talk to someone about this? 

Contact Dr. Ludlam: drjulianne@kkjpsych.com or call 919-493-1975.

References
Austin, W. G.  (2018).  Parental gatekeeping and child custody evaluation: Part III: Protective gatekeeping and the overnights “conundrum.”  Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 59(5), 429-451. 

Austin, W. G., Fieldstone, L., & Pruett, M. K.  (2013).  Bench book for assessing parental gatekeeping in parenting disputes: Understanding the dynamics of gate closing and opening for the best interests of children.  Journal of Child Custody, 10, 1-16. 

Deutsch, R., Drozd, L., & Ajoku, C.  (2020).  Trauma-informed interventions in parent-child contact cases.  Family Court Review, 58(2), 470-487. 

Drozd, L., Saini, M., Walters, M. Fidler, B., & Deutsch R. M. (2020). Changes in Resist-Refuse Dynamics Checklist (CRDC).

Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N.  (2020).  Concepts, controversies and conundrums of “alienation:” Lessons learned in a decade and reflections on challenges ahead.  Family Court Review, 58(2), 576-603. 

Johnston, J. R., & Sullivan, M. J.  (2020).  Parental alienation: In search of common ground for a more differentiated theory.  Family Court Review, 58(2), 270-292. 

Saini, M. A., Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N. W.  (2017).  Adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes: Implications for child outcomes after separation and divorce.  Family Court Review, 55(2), 260-272. 

By Dr. Julianne Ludlam
This is the first article in a series of three.
Part 1 (here) | Part 2 | Part 3 (coming)

The concept of parental alienation has been the subject of much controversy in the mental health and legal fields, and related concepts, such as gatekeeping, are often poorly understood. Johnston and Sullivan (2020) noted that controversy over parental alienation has lasted over three decades, and the concept has managed to remain a “complaint du jour” in high-conflict family court disputes. Simplistic ideas about parental alienation are currently promoted on the internet and in the media and unfortunately sometimes referenced in court cases (Fidler and Bala, 2020). Deutsch, Drozd, and Ajoku (2020) noted that cases involving children who resist contact with a parent are challenging for courts, clinicians, and attorneys and typically require significant resources.

This series of articles will describe the current research on parental alienation and parent-child contact problems. The present installment will describe the overlapping terms and concepts related to parental alienation and some of the models used to assess and describe the problem. The second article will describe some of the major issues surrounding alienation, and the third article will discuss interventions and offer recommendations for attorneys and evaluators involved in such cases.

Terms and Concepts Related to Parental Alienation

Parental Alienating Behaviors
Johnston and Sullivan (2020) provided the definition of parental alienation from Wikipedia:

“‘Parental Alienation’ is the process, and the result, of psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility toward a parent and/or other family members” (p. 270).

The authors maintained that this definition of parental alienation (PA) is inadequate. PA can refer to three different aspects of a child-parent relationship problem: the alienating behavior of the parent, the characteristics of an alienated child, and a general theory of how alienation occurs (Johnston & Sullivan, 2020). The researchers also describe the importance of focusing on parental alienating behaviors, or PABs, in order to clearly operationalize the problem. PAB is broadly defined as:

…an ongoing pattern of observable negative attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of one parent (or agent) that denigrate, demean, vilify, malign, ridicule, or dismiss the child’s other parent (p. 283).

There are many examples of PABs, including communicating false beliefs or stories about the parent, withholding positive information about the parent, or not assisting in the development or maintenance of a child’s relationship with the parent. PABs also include portraying the other parent as dangerous or exaggerating their negative qualities or behaviors.

Gatekeeping
In a 2013 bench book (an updated compendium of guidance for judges’ immediate reference about court procedure), the related concept of parental gatekeeping was defined as “how parents’ attitudes and actions affect the involvement and quality of the relationship between the other parent and child” (Austin, Fieldstone, & Pruett, 2013, p. 2-3). One way of understanding gatekeeping is to consider whether a parent is “either opening the gate to support the other parent’s relationship with the child or closing the gate to restrict the other parent’s relationship with the child” (Saini, Drozd, & Olesen, 2017, p. 261). The bench book notes that gatekeeping can be productive in intact families, defining parental roles and responsibilities, but after separation, those roles must be re-negotiated, which is challenging. Austin (2018) reported that gatekeeping has become increasingly useful in family law due to its research base, although he pointed out that gatekeeping overlaps with other concepts, such as co-parenting and parental alienation. Saini and colleagues (2017) stated that gatekeeping “is a useful framework for assessing parental behaviors and attitudes that can facilitate, protect, or restrict the involvement of the other parent with the child” (p. 260). Although the concept was originally developed to describe maternal behaviors that either facilitated or restricted the involvement of fathers, it has become more gender-neutral and is applied to either or both parents.

As the concept of gatekeeping has evolved, researchers have expanded the definition to describe it as a continuum that varies in degree (low, medium, and high), in quality (how facilitative or restrictive a parent is), and across specific behavioral domains (such as information sharing, communication, or appreciation of the other parent; Austin, 2018). The quality of gatekeeping behavior has been a subject of much research and has been divided into two primary types or patterns: facilitative gatekeeping (FG) or restrictive gatekeeping (RG). The 2013 bench book provided a table to illustrate the range of behaviors and attitudes associated with each end of the continuum (Austin, Fieldstone, & Pruett, 2013, p. 4):

According to these authors, FG involves a parent supporting involvement and a meaningful relationship with the other parent, whereas RG involves a parent interfering with or not supporting such involvement.  Facilitating behaviors are considered to be “proactive, inclusive, and demonstrate for the child that the parent values the other parent’s contributions,” while restricting behaviors would be expected to negatively impact the quality of a child’s relationship with the other parent (p. 5).  FG is often included in state lists of factors that promote the best interests of children. 

In addition to the broad continuum involving FG and RG, researchers have described protective gatekeeping (PG), which is a form of RG (Austin et al., 2013).  PG involves restricting the other parent’s involvement or criticizing the other parent’s parenting skills due to concern about possible harm to the child.  Reasons for PG include a history of intimate partner violence (IPV), harsh parenting, substance use, or a psychological disorder; these claims clearly require evidence.  

The bench book states that parental alienating behaviors are considered a form of RG, as they would be expected to negatively impact the other parent-child relationship (Austin et al., 2013).  The authors also noted, “A behavioral pattern of alienation occupies the extreme, restrictive end of the gatekeeping continuum” (p. 11).  However, Saini et al. (2017) suggested that gatekeeping should be assessed not only in terms of facilitation and restriction, but also in terms of the consequences for or impacts on the child (either positive or negative).  They argue that the child’s sense of safety and well being should be “the paramount focus” (p. 265).  These authors add the terms adaptive gatekeeping (either facilitative behaviors that benefit the child or restrictive behaviors that protect the child) and maladaptive gatekeeping (either facilitative behaviors that fail to address a child’s safety or well being or restrictive behaviors that are unjustified).  Adding the dimension of adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping “emphasizes that not all facilitative gatekeeping supports and protects the child’s safety and well-being, and not all restrictive gatekeeping should be considered maladaptive” (p. 268).

Conclusion: PA Terms and Concepts

Overall, researchers suggest that describing “parental alienating behaviors” (PABs) is preferable to using the broad, loosely defined concept of parental alienation.  The concept of gatekeeping may also be clearer and more relevant than alienation.  Gatekeeping is believed to occur on a continuum that varies in degree (low, medium, and high), in quality (how facilitative or restrictive a parent is), and across specific behavioral domains (such as information sharing, communication, or appreciation of the other parent).  Gatekeeping has been divided into two primary patterns, facilitative or restrictive, and restrictive gatekeeping can be considered either justified or unjustified.  Other researchers suggest using the terms of adaptive or maladaptive gatekeeping to emphasize that the safety and well being of the child may be protected by either facilitative or restrictive parental behaviors, depending on the situation.

Coming Next

The second article in this series will describe some of the major issues and controversies surrounding alienation.

Want to talk to someone about this? 

Contact Dr. Ludlam: drjulianne@kkjpsych.com or call 919-493-1975.

References

Austin, W. G.  (2018).  Parental gatekeeping and child custody evaluation: Part III: Protective gatekeeping and the overnights “conundrum.”  Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 59(5), 429-451. 

Austin, W. G., Fieldstone, L., & Pruett, M. K.  (2013).  Bench book for assessing parental gatekeeping in parenting disputes: Understanding the dynamics of gate closing and opening for the best interests of children.  Journal of Child Custody, 10, 1-16. 

Deutsch, R., Drozd, L., & Ajoku, C.  (2020).  Trauma-informed interventions in parent-child contact cases.  Family Court Review, 58(2), 470-487. 

Drozd, L., Saini, M., Walters, M. Fidler, B., & Deutsch R. M. (2020). Changes in Resist-Refuse Dynamics Checklist (CRDC).

Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N.  (2020).  Concepts, controversies and conundrums of “alienation:” Lessons learned in a decade and reflections on challenges ahead.  Family Court Review, 58(2), 576-603. 

Johnston, J. R., & Sullivan, M. J.  (2020).  Parental alienation: In search of common ground for a more differentiated theory.  Family Court Review, 58(2), 270-292. 

Saini, M. A., Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N. W.  (2017).  Adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes: Implications for child outcomes after separation and divorce.  Family Court Review, 55(2), 260-272. 

Collaborative Divorce is a voluntary dispute resolution process used to help couples get divorced without entering into litigation. The goal is to provide a foundation for non-adversarial negotiation and to develop a mutually agreeable and durable divorce agreement. A full team approach consists of attorneys and affiliated specialists such as a divorce coach, a financial specialist, and a child neutral specialist. The additional professionals can also be used apart from the full team model. These professionals provide specialized guidance to create shared solutions acknowledging the highest priorities of each party. The role of the mental health professional is to help people work through their emotions related to their divorce and assist clients in effectively communicating their needs during legal proceedings.

Divorce coaches are licensed mental health professionals who are used to help the client handle emotional and psychological issues that might otherwise get in the way of the divorce process. They do not act as therapists, although they do provide support related to pain and loss of the relationship. They are utilized to help the client prioritize their needs and interests, improve communication between the spouses, and, when children are involved, keep the clients on track regarding what is best for their children.

Child specialists are also licensed mental health professionals who meet with the parents and child(ren) to advocate for the children. The child specialist may help the parents  develop their parent sharing time plan. The team approach utilizes the child specialist as an educator and sounding board for the child’s concerns but does not make recommendations about time sharing.

Financial specialists are also used to help clients understand their net worth, budgeting, tax laws, spousal maintenance, property values, and cash flow.

The Referral Model and the Full Team Approach
There are two general collaborative divorce processes that utilize experts, the referral model and the full team approach. Regardless of the model used, the collaborative divorce philosophy is that the professionals are there to facilitate the clients’ decision making rather than point them in one direction or another. Attorneys give legal information but do not encourage the client to only think about how decisions impact their client. In fact, all professionals involved are encouraged to think about both clients as the professionals’ client, rather than that one attorney has one client, one coach has one client, etc.

There are several differences between the referral and team approach. In the referral model, attorneys refer their clients out ‘as needed’ to work with mental health and financial specialists. In the full team model, mental health and financial specialists join the team from the beginning of the case. In the team model team members work more closely, consult more often, and have a specified number of meetings to permit the process to move along faster. There are separate meetings to allow conversations between clients and their coaches individually and together; meetings with the child specialist and the children and then feedback to parents; meetings with clients separately and together with the financial specialist; meetings with clients and their attorneys; and the team meetings permit everyone to help clients make decisions and stay on track. Both approaches appear to be very useful for families. However, the benefit of the team
approach is that time is usually saved because other professionals are involved from the
beginning rather than brought in to put out fires. The team approach is particularly useful for families with children and those with complex financial or emotional/cognitive issues.

If you are interested in learning more about collaborative divorce, a great starting point is the book The Collaborative Way to Divorce: the Revolutionary Method That Results in Less Stress, Lower Costs, and Happier Kids – Without Going to Court by Stuart G. Webb and Ronald D. Ousky. You can also visit the website for the International Academy for Collaborative Professionals (IACP) at http://www.collaborativepractice.com.

Collaborative divorce has grown more slowly in North Carolina than in other states. I think as mental health professionals, it is our duty to inform ourselves and our clients about this process, in order to help protect them, and more importantly their children, from the negative effects of the traditional adversarial approach to divorce and a highly contentious, hostile court process.