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. 

The group dynamics and individual factors of teen violence
Matthew Silliman’s death has everyone thinking; how could such a horrible crime be perpetrated by such young people? Four teenagers allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and killed Matthew, and he was thought to be their friend. A major issue brought to the forefront with this crime is the group dynamic. Would such as crime have been committed if one person objected? Would one person have committed this crime on their own?

There are several major tenants of social psychology at play with group crimes. Many of these phenomena are heightened in adolescents and young adults (12-21) given their general tendency to be concerned with how others are evaluating them, which is called evaluation apprehension. Being around people in general arouses us. Heightened arousal increases stress, which is called social facilitation. It we experience mild to moderate levels of stress (like work or school) we may increase our level of performance. However, if there is a high level of stress (like pressure from a peer group to commit a crime), we tend to perform more poorly, i.e., our decision-making is affected.

In groups, people can experience a sense of deindividuation, a loss of self-awareness and
evaluation apprehension. This occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, whether they are good or bad. A notorious example is the Rodney King beating. This is, in part, because people feel more anonymous in a group. This diminished self-awareness disconnects one’s behavior from one’s attitudes or values. Another component is group polarization, a group-produced enhancement of the members’ preexisting tendencies. This is a strengthening of the member’s average tendency, not a split within the group. In other words, not every person in the group will have a preexisting tendency towards crime. However, a risky shift can occur where the group is willing to make a riskier decision than they would as individuals. Group consensus may occur and after discussions individuals also alter their ways of thinking about the situation often because they want to be accepted by others.

Group think is an exaggerated example of this phenomenon. Group think occurs when an amiable, cohesive group exists, there is relative isolation of the group from dissenting
viewpoints, and there exists a directive leader who signals what decision she or he favors.
Several processes occur within the group:
 - They tend to overestimate their invulnerability.
 - There is an unquestioned belief in the group’s morality.
 - Group members rationalize their decisions and behavior and close off their minds to other possibilities.
 - They tend to view their ‘opponent’ through stereotypes that the other person is too weak or unintelligent to defend themselves against the planned initiative.
 - There is pressure to conform to the group.
 - People censor their disagreements which creates an illusion of unanimity.
 - Some members of the group become mindguards and protect the group from information that would call into question the effectiveness or mortality of its decisions.

Since not all groups of people commit acts of violence, you still may be asking, what happened? What contributes to violence? While there are always several reasons for someone to become violent, there are some general conditions in most cases. There tends to be a pattern of interactions between genetics, temperament, the family system and socioeconomic level, the school and community environments.

Family environments where there is physical abuse, sexual abuse, conflict in the home, and/or broken-families may influence the development of criminal behavior. These families tend to display a lack of warmth, have limited involvement and supervision, and/or inflict harsh corporal, lax, or inconsistent discipline. Poor parent-child relations, antisocial parents, and rigid traditional gender roles with patriarchal values has also been found to contribute to the development of violent behavior.

Genetic factors such as low IQ and being male contribute to being violent individuals.

Temperament plays a role such that some people are more prone to have high needs for
stimulation, to learn slowly from consequences, and do not feel as anxious when they are doing things wrong.

Individuals with few economic resources are at higher risk of both perpetrating and being victimized by physical violence. Also, being a member of an ethnic minority group, although this is complicated with socioeconomic status in our country and related to lack of resources, also tends to elevate the chances of violence. This is further  connected to criminal behavior, disorganization, and drug use in the community.

On an individual basis, there are warning signs of possible violent behavior. None of these alone suggests someone may be violent. Again, there is an interaction between the above mentioned risk factors and these behaviors.

1. Low school grades, school failure, and drop-out.
2. Poor social ties, delinquent peers, and gang involvement: The most important factor that distinguishes a gang from a healthy group of friends is the violent, criminal behavior of the members, for example some illicit drug activities. If a young male is involved with a gang, he will likely be violent along with other gang members.
3. Restlessness and difficulty concentrating – Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder can be a precursor to antisocial behavior.
4. Risk taking such as reckless driving.
5. Substance use – Alcohol and marijuana are just as dangerous as other drug use.
6. Victimization by others.
7. Early sexual activity.
8. Conduct disorder which is characterized by:
  a. Aggression toward people and animals
  b. Destruction of property
  c. Deceitfulness or theft
  d. Serious violations of rules

If your concern is that the teen may be prone to violence, is spending time with other teens that engage in violence, or is engaging in violent behavior him or herself, be sure to choose a psychologist experienced with delinquent teenagers and juvenile delinquency diversion.

Early intervention can be key in preventing escalating juvenile delinquent behavior and adult criminal behavior, and studies have shown therapy to be effective even when the adolescent or adult does not want to go (such as when parents make a child go or when the courts order therapy).

As one of the risk factors for violence is being victimized by others, an adolescent can also benefit from therapy if they are the victim of teasing, bullying or violence by peers.
Additionally, if a child has poor social skills, which can lead to the child being targeted, it may be helpful to take a preemptive approach and get the child some social skills  coaching with a psychologist who specializes in that area.

Abstract
The psychological treatment of antisocial personality has fallen to the wayside because most individuals with this disorder are excluded from therapy due to the punitive philosophy of the correctional system. These individuals continue to have unhealthy interactions with others, commit crimes, and return to prison after they have served both short and prolonged sentences. This suggests some reform needs to occur in the treatment of offenders with antisocial personality disorder. After reviewing current literature, a common factors approach is suggested for use in the correctional system. This involves a treatment package which includes motivational techniques and treatments for impulse control, social deviance, negative affect, criminal behavior and thinking, and reactive violence. This treatment is suggested only for use with persons with sociopathy, which is operationally defined as an individual who is unsocialized due to parental failures rather than inborn disposition. Future research explores ideas such as including more specialized populations such as women, juveniles, sexual offenders, substance abusers, and those with major mental illness.

Full Research Project
To read the complete research, please click here. 

Colloquially known as manic-depression, effective treatment is available.
What is bipolar disorder and how do you know if your client has it and needs help?

Bipolar disorder used to be called manic-depression because it includes major depressive and manic episodes. To be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, there must be a change from previous functioning, and the behavior cannot be due to a medical condition or substance induced. Some people may also remain undiagnosed for many years. Therefore, their behavior might not appear to be much of a ‘change’ from previous functioning. However, it is clear that it is in excess of ‘normal’ behavior and interferes with the person’s functioning. 

Bipolar disorder can complicate any legal case. Your client may have difficulty participating in the legal process and require therapy. The event precipitating legal action may be a result of a manic episode. Bipolar disorder is often co-morbid with alcohol and drug abuse or dependence. If you are able to recognize the symptoms of bipolar disorder, you can obtain an expert to help argue a stronger case for your client.

Major Depressive Episodes include five or more of the following symptoms within the same two week period. At least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.

There are two types of bipolar disorder, Bipolar I and Bipolar II. People with Bipolar II may only have hypomanic episodes, but a major depressive episode must occur. An individual can have bipolar I without depression but must have a full blown manic episode. Bipolar disorder is often comorbid with other disorders such as alcohol or drug abuse or dependence, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and personality disorders.

Bipolar disorder is the result of genetic and biological vulnerability that leads to mood disorder symptoms and dysregulation. This, combined with life and family stressors, triggers episodes.

How Does Bipolar Disorder Affect Functioning?
Symptoms of depression may affect someone’s work performance and relationships. When people find it difficult to get out of bed and they lack energy and motivation, they tend to be easily distracted, disorganized, and have a hard time attending to their job. They might feel irritable, be a ‘downer’ to be around, or withdraw from others. People also spend more time going to doctor’s appointments because of physical symptoms, which takes them away from time at work and with family and friends.

Individuals who are manic often find themselves at odds with others, both socially and at work. People are often argumentative and may get into fights. They are not focused at work and may jump from task to task. They may put themselves in situations where people no longer want to be associated with them, such as criminal activity. They fail to fulfill obligations, whether it’s showing up for work or picking their child up from school.

Sometimes severe depressive and manic episodes can lead to hallucinations (hearing voices, feeling things crawling on you, seeing things) and delusions (thoughts that you are receiving messages from God, people are out to get you). This can lead someone to be psychiatrically hospitalized, or at the very least, in the emergency room.

In other words, if bipolar disorder goes untreated it can interfere with someone’s functioning. However, with appropriate treatment, most people with bipolar disorder can return to a normal level of functioning. The key is consistently taking medication, attending individual and family therapy, and education about the disease process.

If you think your client suffers from bipolar disorder, now is the time to seek a consultation for your client. Contact drkatrina@kkjpsych.com.

What are the differences between a clinical psychological and a forensic evaluation?

How do you pick the right expert for your evaluation?

Knowing when and how to obtain a forensic evaluation - which typically goes beyond the scope of a basic clinical interview - could make or break your case.

Following are several things you should look for in a forensic evaluation:

Following are several things you should look for in a forensic evaluation:

In all evaluations, psychologists complete a clinical interview with the client. Some psychologists stop here, and while a clinical interview is certainly better than no evaluation, it is not the most thorough method of assessment as it is purely self-report.

It is more helpful to use psychological testing so that the bulk of information is not based on the client’s self-report. Many psychologists administer psychological instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), which is an objective measure of personality and major categories of psychopathology. The MMPI-2 is widely used because it is well
known to be a reliable, valid test. It also has a Lie Scale to help determine if someone is trying to form a favorable impression or mislead the examiner regarding severity of illness. However, though better than an interview only, this test is, again, based on the client’s self-report.

It is therefore recommended that multiple tests be completed. A full battery should look at the client’s cognitive, emotional, and personality functioning. A battery gives added weight to your argument that the client was fully evaluated. (Tests that are specific to the situation are described below.) This may be where some psychologists end their evaluation.

However, a full battery could still be a clinical evaluation and not a forensic evaluation. According to the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, a full forensic evaluation includes actively seeking information from more than one source that would differentially test plausible rival hypotheses. This means psychologists need to actively seek prior records. They also need to talk to people who know the client, to assess both pre- and post-functioning. These collateral contacts are not only family members with a vested interest in the client, but also professionals or disinterested parties who will provide impartial accounts of the client.

Competency to Stand Trial

Psychologists can help determine if your client has an adequate understanding of the legal proceeding and ability to work with you. The focus of the evaluation is on current functioning and mental status. Psychologists can administer psychological instruments such as the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool Criminal Adjudication. This instrument helps the psychologist determine if the client understands the charges and trial process as well as her appreciation of relevance of information for her defense. This instrument also helps uncover the client’s ability to reason during decision making tasks and her logical problem solving abilities.

A subset of this type of evaluation is competency to plead guilty. The psychologist helps determine if the client understands the criminal process, is able to work with the attorney, why she wants to plead guilty, and her understanding of the implication of relinquishing certain rights.

Competency Of Juveniles

The community often disagrees on the topic of whether juveniles should be tried as adults. Psychological research suggests one’s cognitive abilities are still developing in most “normal” children prior to age 14, that is, a child without mental disorders or cognitive disabilities. Therefore a child’s ability to understand information that is provided to defendants regarding the trial process, and to reason with the information that they acquire or bring to the situation, is not fully developed. It is suggested that most children under 12 be evaluated. As should children with a history of mental illness or mental retardation, borderline intellectual functioning, and learning disabilities. If you observe that your young client has deficits in memory, attention, or interpretation of reality you may consider an evaluation as well.

A psychologist should look at psychosocial factors such as self-control, self concept, relationships with adults in authority, and the child’s capacity for perspective taking in decision making.

The Insanity Defense

Psychologists can help determine your client’s mental condition at the time of the offense and if they should be held responsible for the crime committed. North Carolina insanity laws are based on the McNaughton standard, which asks if the client is suffering from a mental disease (mental illness) or defect (mental retardation). If so, did it impact their ability to know and understand the nature and quality of their act? Was the client able to understand and appreciate what they were doing was wrong? This standard emphasizes the quality of one’s thought process and their perception of reality. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Some psychologists use the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale which looks at brain disorders, mental disorders, behavioral control, the ability to control one’s thoughts, and reliability of the person’s report.

Malingering

Psychological instruments can be administered such as the MMPI-2; however, as stated earlier, it is a self-report measure. More sophisticated measures of malingering are instruments such as the Structured Interview of Reports Symptoms (SIRS). The SIRS assesses a variety of areas such as defensiveness, uncommon symptoms, changes in behavior during the assessment, and common symptoms. One can determine if someone is trying to fake memory problems by using an instrument such as the Test of Memory Malingering.

Death Penalty Cases

North Carolina has instituted laws against executing individuals with mental retardation. There is also a push to create legislature regarding execution of individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. Therefore, a psychologist may help determine if a client is competent to be executed. An assessment of mental retardation would include cognitive testing such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) and might include neuropsychological testing regarding brain injury. In these cases, there needs to be evidence that mental retardation was present prior to age 18 so record review and speaking with collateral contacts is vitally important.