Words have the power to shape our thoughts.
When severely alienated children refuse to be with a parent, despite the court-ordered parenting time schedule, some people who see themselves as child advocates oppose any attempts to enforce the court orders. They use evocative language to plead their case. They argue: No good can come from “forcing” children to see a parent they claim to hate or fear.
Not, “expecting” children to comply, but “forcing” them. The same could be said for any number of expectations that adults impose on children. We force them to attend school. We force them to sit in the dentist’s chair. We force them to bathe. We force them to get vaccinated when they might choose to avoid the specter of the needle.
Children may push back from time to time with these expectations. But I have never met an adult who resents having been forced as a child to comply. Is it different for alienated children? Looking back on custody decisions that required them to live with a parent against their wishes, do they think the court got it wrong? Do they think the court should have endorsed their demands, or do they appreciate the court “forcing” a reconciliation? This is one of the questions answered by a 2024 study published in the University of New Brunswick Law Journal.
Two distinguished Canadian professors, one in social work, the other in law, examined 67 Ontario cases in which the court made a finding of parental alienation and in nearly half the cases awarded primary care to the parent whom the children had been rejecting.
The researchers were able to locate 6 children and 13 parents involved in those cases who were willing to be interviewed. “All 6 children were from cases where the court found alienation, reversed custody from the favoured parent (mother) to the rejected parent (father), and ordered some type of counselling.” [Note: Canadian spelling is used for exact quotes.]
The children, between the ages of 12 and 18 years when interviewed, were asked to discuss the court’s decisions made an average of five years earlier (range of time since the custody reversal was approximately 3–7 years).
Key takeaway: “Significantly, with hindsight, none of the 6 children who were the subject of a custody reversal order expressed concern that the court had made an unwise decision.”
The children were frustrated with the length of the court process and wished counseling had begun sooner.
These results are compelling. All six children—without exception—shifted from opposing the custody order when it was made, to appreciating in hindsight the wisdom of the court’s intervention. They reported having strong, healthy relationships with the once-rejected parent and noted they were thriving under their care. This stands in sharp contrast to media narratives of children being traumatized by court orders that reunite them with estranged parents. Unfortunately, poorly sourced anecdotes—often promoted by critics of these court interventions—have skewed media coverage and may have influenced legislation discouraging courts from using necessary remedies in parental alienation cases.
Judges should take note of the critical lessons learned from these children, lessons that thoughtful parents inherently understand: children do not always know what is best for them. What they express outwardly does not always reflect their deeper needs or true desires. Children may even want things they cannot or do not ask for. This is why custody decisions must prioritize children’s long-term well-being over their immediate expressions of preference, even when those preferences seem heartfelt. The children in this study initially resisted the court’s ruling but later recognized its value in repairing their relationships with once-rejected parents.
Some advocates who wish to ban any discussion of parental alienation in court emphasize the importance of listening to the voice of children who claim they hate or fear a parent and want to avoid contact.
I think the voice of children—looking back on the decisions made on their behalf—are at least as important as their input at the time the custody case is being deliberated. While larger-scale studies will broaden our understanding of the long-term outcomes of parental alienation interventions, and we should be cautious about relying on a study with so few participants, the findings from this small Canadian sample align with those of my own research. Courts that create opportunities for children to heal relationships with alienated parents often lay the groundwork for long-lasting, positive change.
In closing, I draw on my previous work concerning the role of children’s voices in child custody decisions. (My heavily cited peer-reviewed article on this subject can be found in my forthcoming book, The Psychology of Alienated Children.)
Allowing a child’s programmed statements to dictate the outcome of custody cases sends a dangerous message. These children often grow up mourning the lost years, angry at being exploited to serve a vindictive parent’s agenda and confused about why they were burdened with life-altering decisions made under emotional duress—decisions they lacked the maturity to make.
We must recognize that a child’s voice in these cases may be distorted by the charged emotional atmosphere and not reflect the child’s true feelings. That voice might be influenced by a parent’s toxic emotional manipulation or stem from a desire to please or placate one parent. Or, it may be the voice of a frightened child, manipulated by an emotionally abusive parent who, having lost control of a spouse, now uses the children to fulfill their pathological aims.
In such cases, children might secretly hope the adults entrusted with their well-being will see through the façade and protect them from losing a loving parent. When we have reason to believe children’s expressed wishes do not truly reflect their best interests, we must not let concerns over “children’s rights” prevent us from acting. Just as we would quickly neutralize chemical poisoning in the home, we must intervene to counteract the psychological poisoning of parent–child relationships.
Reference:
#DivorcePoison #ParentalAlienation #FamilyBridges #ReunificationTherapy #custodyreversal