Bow

Examining Parental Alienation in Child Custody Cases: A Survey

of Mental Health and Legal Professionals

James N. Bow, Jonathan W. Gould, and James (Jay) R. Flens

Introduction

In response to the ongoing debate about parental alienation in child custody cases, an Internet survey was conducted to examine the views of mental health and legal professionals. This study examined the following areas: 1) Respondents’ training and understanding of the concept of alienation, 2) Respondents’ understanding of how to assess alienation dynamics, and 3) Respondents’ understanding of the types of recommended intervention techniques most helpful in assisting families in which alienation dynamics are operating.

A comprehensive online survey was developed using SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey consisted of 37 questions and took approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Sample & Demographics

A total of 1,172 mental health and legal professionals received the e-mail and survey link. Five individuals indicated that they did not practice in the child custody/family area, and 61 declined to participate. Of the remaining group of 1,106 potential participants, 512 professionals responded to the survey that resulted in an adjusted return rate of 46%.

A review of the data indicated that 58 respondents completed only about one-fifth of the survey, and stopped responding when the concept of parental alienation was introduced. This group of respondents was therefore eliminated from the analysis. It is important to note that the primary professional areas of practice identified by these 58 respondents did not deviate significantly from that of the remaining final sample of 454.

Of the sample analyzed (N=454), the mean age of respondents was 54.54 (S.D. 8.04), with a range of 30 to 78. Females comprised 57.5% of respondents. Almost all respondents were Caucasian (93%), with 2% African-American, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other. The following distribution was found for the primary profession of respondents: 50% child custody evaluators, 18% attorneys, 11% mediators, 6% parent coordinators, 5% court-ordered therapists, 3% judges, 2% advocates, 2% consultant, 1% researchers, and 2% other. A comparison of gender and primary professional practice indicated significant differences, χ²(9, N=454)=30.32, p<.001, with females dominating all areas of professional practice except for evaluators. The mean number of years of experience was 21.95 (S.D. 9.0), with 16.58 years (S.D. 8.43) in the child custody area. The vast majority of respondents (76%) worked in a private practice setting. The next most common setting was the court or affiliated settings (15%), followed by private agencies (4%), public agencies (2%), universities (2%), and other (1%). The majority of respondents worked in the city (59%), followed by a suburban (35%) location. Few respondents (6%) worked in a rural setting. Almost all of the respondents (N=448) resided in the United States, hailing from 43 states (35% West, 24% East, 21% Midwest, and 20% South). Six respondents were from Canada, Israel, and unspecified.

Results

The final sample of 454 respondents viewed themselves as moderately to extremely knowledgeable about parental alienation. Almost all respondents reported having attended numerous conferences (median=7, mode=5) and having read many books/articles (median=15, mode=10) on the topic. The vast majority of respondents viewed the concept of parental alienation as highly controversial and lacking empirical research. Nevertheless, they acknowledged its existence within the child custody field, and almost all viewed it as a multidimensional construct. However, the respondents did not view parental alienation as a “syndrome” as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner. Moreover, they overwhelmingly did not view “parental alienation syndrome” as meeting the Frye Standard of general acceptance, and almost all respondents felt that it failed to meet the Daubert criteria.

On average, respondents reported that one-quarter of their cases involved parental alienation issues, with approximately half of these cases falling in the mild category. Respondents reported parental alienation occurred most frequently with ten-year-old children, with a bell shaped age distribution. Respondents found parental alienation to be slightly more common for girls than for boys, and also reported the mother as more likely to be the alienating parent (65%).

Respondents reported that spousal abuse or child abuse was not usually suspected in cases involving parental alienation, with only one-third and one-fourth of cases falling into these categories, respectively. It is also important to note that in the assessment process, respondents accorded some of the highest mean ratings to the following factors: child abuse, domestic violence, and abandonment/neglect. Moreover, the mean ratings of child custody evaluators, attorneys/judges, and court-ordered facilitators were comparable.

Regarding the assessment process, hypothesis testing was considered highly or extremely important. Among the factors identified by Dr. Richard Gardner as critical in the assessment process, distinct differences were noted in the value ratings of major professional groups (child custody evaluators, court-ordered facilitators, and attorneys/lawyers). In general, evaluators endorsed the highest mean ratings, followed by court-ordered facilitators and attorneys/judges, with numerous significant differences between evaluators and attorneys/judges. However, it is important to note that all mean ratings fell within the moderate range. This is noteworthy because it demonstrates that while respondents placed some value on these factors, they did not overestimate their influence.

Child custody evaluators and court-ordered facilitators, in contrast to legal professionals, rated different assessment factors as significantly more important in the assessment of parental alienation. These factors included child-related factors (age, rebellion, vulnerability, role reversal), family issues (adversarial nature of divorce, remarriage issues, dynamics between siblings), and attachment/alignment issues.

The ratings provided by child custody evaluators in this study concerning the usefulness of assessment procedures closely paralleled findings of previous child custody research. An interview with each parent, interview with the child, parent-child observations, review of records, and collateral contacts were rated as most useful, all earning moderately high ratings.

Custody evaluators were also requested to rate the frequency with which they made particular recommendations. Individual therapy for the child and parents received the highest rating, followed by parent education; all of these mean ratings were above 5. The upper tier also included the use of a parenting coordinator/special master and logbook/e-mail communication. Less popular recommendations included boarding/residential placement, sanctions, and a change in custody. Interventions such as conjoint therapy with both parents and mediation were included in this lower tier as well.