Parental Denigration: A Form of Conflict that Typically Backfires

Parental denigration is a phenomenon characterized by disparaging comments made by one parent about the other parent in front of their children. It is an emerging area of research with implications that could either follow a parental alienation perspective or a conflict perspective. In two prior studies of 648 and 994 young adults, denigration was found to be (1) measured reliably and perhaps validly; (2) reciprocally occurring; (3) related to children feeling more distant from both parents, particularly the more frequent denigrator; and (4) associated with various measures of maladjustment. These results held in married and divorced families, for mothers and fathers, in group and individual analyses, across own and sibling reports, and across studies. In a new study, parents also showed agreement in reported denigration, with divorced (particularly litigating) parents appearing motivated to underreport their own denigration behaviors and overreport their co‐parent's denigration behaviors. Across all three studies, results consistently aligned with a conflict perspective and indicated that denigrating one's co‐parent appears to boomerang and hurt the parent's own relationship with the children rather than distance children from the co‐parent.     

Response to “Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique,” by Milchman,Geffner, and Meier

The author wrote an article, “Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation,” for this Special Issue of Family Court Review, which is devoted to various aspects of parental alienation (PA). This short article is a response to the article by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier, which discussed my article and other contributions to the Special Issue. All of these articles represent an attempt by the Editors of the Special Issue to promote “dialogue” among writers who have different perspectives regarding parental alienation. In my view, this is a misguided endeavor, since the publication of cascading criminations, recriminations, and re‐recriminations simply creates confusion and consternation for the readers of Family Court Review. This new article offers an alternative approach for creating constructive dialogue among PA‐promoters and PA‐detractors, that is, convene a face‐to‐face discussion of these individuals and encourage them to write an article together in which they jointly explain their various perspectives regarding PA.     

Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors

Despite recent innovations in alternative reproduction technology and the increased use of artificial insemination procedures, courts and legislatures have been unable to develop a clear and consistent test to establish the parental rights and obligations of sperm donors. As a result, there are mixed outcomes in cases where intended parents seek child support from an unsuspecting donor or when donors petition the court for visitation with their biological children. This Note seeks to resolve the ambiguity in determining sperm donors’ parental status by proposing a model state statute that makes nonpaternity the default rule. Under the statute, sperm donors would not be subject to any of the parental rights or obligations of a traditional biological father. However, the presumption of nonpaternity could be overcome if the parties agree, in writing, prior to the insemination. Further, the model statute provides an exception to the default rule if the donor has played an active role in the child's life. Adopting this model statute will not only facilitate a market for sperm donation but also make donor rights and obligations clear from the onset.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Today, infants born using artificial reproduction technology (ART) represent more than one percent of children born in the United States annually.
• When a donor is anonymous, the law is clear: the donor is not a legal parent. However, the law regarding known donors is less straightforward. Depending on the state and the particular circumstances, the parental status of a known donor is questionable.
• The ambiguity in the law creates confusion and disagreement among the parties in a donor agreement. By comparing factually similar cases, in which courts interpreted donor statutes with identical language, in completely opposite ways, it is easy to see the unpredictability in ART cases.
• The proposed model statute provides unambiguous legislation that sets out a clear standard to be used in determining the parental status of known donors. If adopted by state legislatures, courts across the country would finally have a consistent rule to apply, leading to less confusion and contradictory rulings.
• The key issue is honoring intentional parentage and the proactive choice to use ART to have a child on one's own terms.

     

Associations between Parent and Child Reports Of Interparental Conflict/Violence And Child Difficulties in A Family Mediation Setting*

We examined the association between parents’ (N = 52 mothers and 52 fathers) and children's (N = 27) reports of interparental conflict and child difficulties in a family mediation setting. Parents’ reports of conflict were moderately associated with children's reports of exposure to parental conflict, but only fathers’ reports of conflict were associated with children's reports of negative responses to parent conflict. While mothers and fathers agreed on their child's difficulties, only mothers’, not fathers’, report of child difficulties were moderately related to child reports of child difficulties. Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of conflict generally were not strongly associated with reports of child difficulties. In contrast to parent reports, children's reports of exposure to parents’ conflict were moderately and significantly related to self‐reported child difficulties and moderately related to parents’ reports of child academic difficulties. The magnitude of the association between the child's report of interparental conflict and self‐report of difficulties was stronger than the association between parent report of conflict and parent report of child difficulties, suggesting that parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parent conflict/violence or the problems their child is experiencing.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Family law stakeholders prioritize the creation of parenting arrangements that are in the best interest of the child; however, it is unclear how to gather information about the child and the child's perspective in order to inform such arrangements.
• The study results suggest that parents may not agree with each other or with the child about important family issues, such as parent conflict and child difficulties. For example, parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parental conflict/violence when in the midst of custody negotiations.
• More research is needed to determine the best method for gathering information about the child during custody proceedings. In the meantime, it is important to gather information from multiple sources and to consider the agreement and differences across such sources of information.

     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

Innovative Programs in Israel for Prevention & Responding to Parental Alienation: Education,Early Identification and Timely,Effective Intervention

There is substantial research and documentation showing that behavior of a parent which alienates a child against the other parent (PA) and other family members may cause serious, and sometimes permanent, damage to the child. Building on the work that defines maladaptive parental gatekeeping (MG) and PA, and on identifying typologies of behavior, and their effects on the alienated child, the need for prevention of children in these cases is well established. This paper describes programs and responses in Israel, some already in place and others under development, almost all of which require multidisciplinary collaboration between professionals. The programs include: primary prevention; early identification, so as to allow prompt secondary intervention by advice and treatment of parents and child; and immediate tertiary intervention when alienation has led to contact failure or is about to do so. Prevention and early intervention can reduce the need for the massive investment of resources needed for attempts to restore contact, and also for treatment of those affected by PA.     

PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN FAMILY COURTS: BALANCING AUTONOMY AND STATE INTERVENTION

This work considers how court‐connected parent education programs can assist parents to access dispute resolution processes that best suit their families’ needs, in a manner involving appropriately curtailed levels of state interference with parental autonomy. After reviewing traditionally accepted limits on state interference with family functioning, the increased concern for children's emotional well‐being, and data relating to one parent education program, the author concludes that providing mandatory “basic level” informational programs to all separating parents seeking access to the family law regime is a warranted level of state intervention. “Skills‐building” programs aimed at achieving demonstrably changed parental practices should be available on a voluntary attendance basis.     

Court Considerations in the Termination of Parental Rights: A Comprehensive Analysis of Israeli Court Decisions

Court decisions to terminate parental rights (TPR) have a major impact on parents and children, but the decision‐making process is unclear. Analysis of 261 Israeli TPR court cases indicated the dominance of considerations relating to normative parental functioning, the parents' ability to change, the impact of separating a child from his family, the parents' social normativity and educational ability. The legal considerations relate to the importance of the biological family, the necessity of adoption and the importance of a fair legal process. Insufficient consideration is accorded to cultural differences in parenting practices and the voice of the child.     

A history of the use of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system: contradictions,collisions and their consequences

ABSTRACT

This paper presents insights into the history and current deployment of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system. It begins in 1989, when an article on parental alienation syndrome was first published in an Australian law journal. It then traces aspects of the socio-legal and social science research, gender politics, law reform and jurisprudence of the following 30 years, paying attention to moments of significant change. The impacts of major amendments that emphasise the desirability of post-separation shared parenting outcomes in 1996 and 2006 are specifically considered. More recently, in 2012, reforms intended to improve the family law system’s response to domestic and family violence were introduced. The history reveals an irreconcilable tension between the ‘benefit’ of ‘meaningful’ post-separation parent-child relationships and the protection of children from harm. When mothers’ allegations of violence in the family are disbelieved, minimised or dismissed, they are transformed from victims of abuse into perpetrators of abuse – alienators of children from their fathers. Their actions and attitudes collide with the shared parenting philosophy. This is arguably an inescapable consequence of a family law system that struggles to deal effectively with family violence in the context of a strong shared parenting regime.     

Economic development and parental status homogamy: A study of 19th century France

This study investigates the claim that industrialization led to a decrease of parental status homogamy. Contrary to previous research industrialization is not indicated by historical time, nor measured as a macro-development, but instead brides and bridegrooms who are more involved in the industrial labour market are compared with those who are less involved. The theory of preferences, third parties and meeting opportunities is used to derive the hypotheses that young persons (1) with an industrial occupation, (2) who are intergenerationally mobile, and (3) with formal training marry more often outside their parental status group. Hypotheses are tested using the Tra-dataset on France for the period 1803–1899. Brides and bridegrooms working in an industrial occupation and intergenerationally mobile bridegrooms are indeed found to marry less homogamously with respect to parental status.     

‘It’s Not OK’, but ‘It’ never happened: parental alienation accusations undermine children’s safety in the New Zealand Family Court

ABSTRACT

While the public campaign slogan in New Zealand when referring to family violence, is ‘It’s Not OK’, many women in New Zealand report that the Family Court prefers the catchphrase ‘It never happened’. When women and children escaping violence and abuse reach out to the New Zealand Family Court for protection believing the justice system will help them, they often enter an alternative reality where they are not believed and are subsequently made less safe. This is particularly so for those women whose well-founded fears for their children’s safety get reinterpreted as evidence of a deliberate attempt to alienate the children from their fathers. The Backbone Collective, an independent organisation, surveyed New Zealand women about their experiences in the Family Court, finding that many women reported being accused of parental alienation. This paper investigates the sources of these allegations of parental alienation and how they impact mothers and their children. We argue that the use of parental alienation in the New Zealand Family Court is undermining the international rights of children.     

Interdisciplinary Practice in Family Court: A Judicial Perspective

This commentary emphasizes the windows of judicial opportunity to proactively manage family law cases, to empower families, and to encourage interdisciplinary conferencing and settlement.     

Parenting in Families of Low Socioeconomic Status: A Review with Implications for Child Welfare Practice

Families involved in the child welfare system overwhelmingly draw from low socioeconomic (SES) populations. Impoverished children are placed in foster care at disproportionate rates. Addressing this dynamic requires understanding the adaptations low‐income families make when parenting under adversity so that accurate assessments of their needs occur. This article focuses on two aspects of child welfare practice: the evaluation of parenting capacity and service delivery. It examines, in particular, how well current practices and guidelines, as outlined in the literature, fit with more general research on families and parenting in low‐SES environments and offers suggestions for improving practice.     

Maintaining the Legal Status of People with Intellectual Disabilities as Parents: The ADA and the CRPD

People with intellectual disabilities face proceedings to terminate their parental rights with disturbing regularity, with protecting the interests of offspring the primary justification. Although protecting children from harm is surely critical, these termination proceedings involve problematic assumptions about how fitness to parent is understood, how parenting is legally constructed, and what nondiscrimination requires for parents with intellectual disabilities. Using Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a model, it suggests two alternatives to the all‐or‐nothing termination processes in place today that might better realize the enjoyment of legal capacity as parents on an equal basis with others for people with intellectual disabilities: limited terminations analogous to limited guardianships and supported parenting along the lines of supported decision making proposed in the CRPD.     

Children Resisting Contact with a Parent Due to Abuse,Alienation, or Other Causes: Can a Proactive Role for Lawyers Contribute to Better Outcomes?

Lawyers have a significant role to play in cases where children are resisting contact with a parent, or the family appears to be going down that path, in the context of parental alienation, family violence or other factors. These cases pose great challenges for lawyers dealing with parents, as their clients are often anxiety‐ridden, angry, scared, and may have difficulty focussing on the long‐term interests of their children or themselves. A lawyer may be one of the first professionals encountered by the parents; lawyers for parents are advocates, but they are also in a position to provide wise counsel, to help triage the situation, provide practical advice, and early, helpful solutions. This article sets out practical suggestions for lawyers acting for parents. What can and should lawyers do to ensure they are part of the solution, not part of the problem? Lawyers need to be able to identify the potential problems and provide practical help to the family – whether they are acting for the “preferred” parent, the “rejected” parent, or the involved children.     

Legal Capacity at a Crossroad: Mental Disability and Family Law

In this introductory essay to the Special Issue, I argue that both family law and disability rights law scholars should examine a key point of intersection across areas: legal capacity or the law's recognition of the rights and responsibilities of an individual. For example, parental termination proceedings center on parental fitness and functional capabilities. I contextualize the articles in the Special Issue by Leslie Francis and Robyn Powell on the role of reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities in parental termination proceedings. In addition, I call upon legal scholars, family law courts, and practitioners to reimagine governing legal standards in family law according to principles of universal design to shift the baseline capabilities associated with parenting and parental fitness.     

The Chat Room Moderator: Creating a Duty for Parents to Control Their Cyberbully

The advent of new technologies allowing people to communicate via the Internet has opened many windows to social interaction. At the same time, it has shifted the focus of child harassment from the playground to the computer. Instead of face‐to‐face bullying, children are now being bullied on the Internet, in a phenomenon known as “cyberbullying.” Cyberbullying is widespread, affecting generally twenty‐five percent of the child population in the United States. It is also more dangerous, as a child can be bullied at any time in the supposed comfort of his/her own home. To combat this behavior, many states have passed measures to ban or criminalize cyberbullying in school‐related settings. Nevertheless, children and adolescents continue to cyberbully their peers. Furthermore, most of these statutes do not address cyberbullying that occurs outside school or from a child's own home. Thus, this Note proposes that cyberbullying can be better combated by placing responsibility on parents to reasonably control their children in cases of cyberbullying. Based on the recently enacted ‘Cyber‐safety Act” from the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia and Restatement of Torts § 316, this Note proposes (1) placing tort responsibility on parents who know that their child is a cyberbully and do nothing about it and (2) allowing parents to avoid liability when their child truly cannot be controlled.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Cyberbullying is a major problem that must be addressed beyond the schoolyard.
• The law may provide recourse for the parents of a cyberbullying victim and can hold the parents of a cyberbully responsible.
• The Nova Scotia Cyber‐safety Act is a good model for holding parents liable for their child's acts because it balances the desire to end cyberbullying and the understanding that some minors are uncontrollable.