What Father?1 Parental Alienation and Its Effect on Children by Chaim Steinberger Part One

Father? What Father?1 Parental Alienation and Its Effect on Children By Chaim Steinberger Part One

Preface occurs regularly, sixty percent (60%) of the time, and 5 There is no doubt that every child needs “frequent sporadically another twenty percent. and regular” contact with both parents to develop in a psychologically healthy manner.2 A custodial parent is, therefore, obligated by law to ensure the continued rela- “[A] twelve-year study commissioned by tionship between the child and the non-custodial par- the Family Law Section of the American ent.3 The Appellate Division, Second Department, Bar Association of over 1,000 divorces explained why frequent contact is needed between them: found that ‘parental alienation,’ the programming of a child against the Only [with frequent contact] may a other parent, occurs regularly, sixty non-custodial parent provide his child with the guidance and counsel young- percent (60%) of the time, and sters require in their formative years. sporadically another twenty percent.” Only then may he be an available source of comfort and solace in times of his child’s need. Only then may he New York courts have in the past “zealously pro- share in the joy of watching his off- tected” the non-custodial parent’s visitation rights 6 spring grow to maturity and adult- against interference by the custodial parent. Custodial hood. . . . Indeed, so jealously do the parents seeking to exclude the other parent have, there- courts guard the relationship between a fore, taken to socially and psychologically turning the non-custodial parent and his child that child away from the other parent so that the child, and any interference with it by the custodial not the custodial parent, refuses the visitation. This type parent has been said to be “an act so of “alienation” has been characterized by the Second inconsistent with the best interests of Department as a “subtle and insidious” form of visita- the children as to, per se, raise a strong tion interference that may cause even “greater and probability that the [offending party] is more permanent damage to the emotional psyche of a 7 unfit to act as custodial parent.” child” than the garden variety visitation interference. . . . The decision to bear children, This article will summarize the leading literature in [moreover], entails serious obligations the field of alienation. Part One will review the different and among them is the duty to protect techniques employed by alienating parents to marginal- the child’s relationship with both par- ize and exclude the other parent from their children’s ents even in the event of a divorce. lives. It will set out the most common symptoms of Hence, a custodial parent may be prop- alienation so that the reader will be more attuned to erly called upon to make certain sacri- recognize and deal with potential alienation, and coun- fices to ensure the right of the child to sel clients who are effected by it. Finally, it will describe the benefits of visitation with the non- the profound and enduring devastating psychological, custodial parent. The search, therefore, emotional and social consequences alienation has on its is for a reasonable accommodation of primary victims—the children. the rights and needs of all concerned, Part Two of the article will appear in a subsequent with appropriate consideration given to issue and describe the effective treatments for alien- the good faith of the parties in respect- ation, and how New York courts have traditionally and ing each other’s parental rights.4 recently dealt with the issue. Because alienation has Nevertheless, a twelve-year study commissioned by such profound inter-generational consequences, judges the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association and lawyers must be ever-vigilant to detect and deal of over 1,000 divorces found that “parental alienation,” with alienation, no matter the guise by which it is con- the programming of a child against the other parent, cealed.

10 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 Parental Alienation parent and an older child or adolescent. Parental alienation is the turning of a child against Later, [Dr. Richard] Gardner (1987, a parent by the other parent.8 It is a form of social and 1998) coined the label “parental alien- psychological brainwashing and is accomplished by ation syndrome” (PAS) to describe a one parent, the “alienating” parent, indoctrinating the diagnosable disorder in a child in the child against the other, “target,” parent.9 Over time, it context of a custody dispute, and it is destroys the bonds of love between the parent and this entity which has generated both child.10 When successful, it is so effective that the chil- enthusiastic endorsement and strong 16 dren themselves become unwitting accomplices and negative response. turn against the target parent.11 The children then fur- The touchstone of Parental Alienation Syndrome is ther vilify the target parent on their own, even without where a child’s anger or animosity is disproportionate the further urging of the alienating parent.12 When a with the reasons given by the child for that anger or child becomes an unwitting ally to the alienating par- animosity. Dr. Gardner’s formulation of PAS includes ent, the child is said by some to have become a victim several components: of Parental Alienation Syndrome (“PAS”).13 Psycholo- gist Dr. Ira Turkat of the University of Florida College The first is a child who exhibits exces- of Medicine, summarizes it this way: sive hatred of a target parent (an animosity that often extends to the par- In a nutshell, PAS occurs when one parent’s extended family), makes weak, ent campaigns successfully to manipu- frivolous and absurd complaints, justi- late his or her children to despise the fies the stance by quoting “borrowed other parent despite the absence of scenarios,” and lacks any ambivalence legitimate reasons for the children to or guilt towards the hated parent. The harbor such animosity. The effort to second component is a vindictive par- poison the relationship between the off- ent who is involved in consciously or spring and the targeted parent may be unconsciously brainwashing the child extensive and at times, relentless.14 into this indoctrinated stance; and In J.F. v. L.F., 181 Misc. 2d 722, 694 N.Y.S.2d 592 third, are false allegations of abuse that (Family Court, Westchester Co. 1999), Judge Edlitz char- are generated by the alienating parent 17 acterized Parental Alienation Syndrome this way: and child. Parental Alienation Syndrome occurs Dr. Johnston herself, however, suggested a slightly when one parent uses his/her influence different focus when analyzing children who are with his/her child to undermine the estranged from the non-custodial parent. relationship between the child and the other parent. It typically arises when Dr. Johnston’s Formulation the parents are engaged in divorce pro- Dr. Janet R. Johnston was part of a task force con- ceedings or a custody dispute. (See, Peo- vened to study the problem of children who were alien- ple v. Loomis, 172 Misc. 2d 265, 267.) . . . ated from one of their divorcing parents.18 She present- [It is described] as a disturbance in ed her article at the International Conference on which children are not merely system- Supervised Visitation.19 atically and consciously “brainwashed” but are also subconsciously and uncon- Dr. Johnston disagreed to some extent with Dr. sciously “programmed” by one parent Gardner. She believed that the focal point of the inquiry against the other.15 should be the child and not the alienating parent.20 Her formulation, therefore, is simpler: “An alienated child is Dr. Janet Johnston described the historical recogni- defined as one who expresses, freely and persistently, tion of this phenomenon: unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as The phenomenon of a child’s strident anger, hatred, rejection and/or fear) toward a parent rejection of one parent, generally that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s accompanied by strong resistance or actual experience with that parent.”21 refusal to visit or have anything to do Although there may be a “kernel of with that parent, was first recognized truth” to the child’s complaints and by Wallerstein and Kelly (1976, 1980) in allegations about the rejected parent, their seminal study on children of the child’s grossly negative views and divorce. They described it as an feelings are significantly distorted and “unholy alliance” between an angry

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 11 exaggerated reactions. Thus, this [these] physical pattern[s] in counseling or other evalu- unusual development is a pathological ation sessions.”30 response. It is a severe distortion on the child’s part of the previous parent-child Another common technique is the destruction or relationship. These youngsters go far desecration of photographs of the target, or otherwise beyond an alignment in the intensity, not permitting the child to keep such photographs or 31 breadth, and ferocity of their behaviors mementos of the other parent. toward the parent they are rejecting. The alienating parent may exclude the target parent They are responding to complex and by not relaying messages that are sent by the target to frightening dynamics within the the children.32 They might “forget” telephone messages divorce process itself, to an array of left for the children or “lose” the letters or postcards parental behaviors, and as a result of sent them.33 She might also “forget” to relay holiday their own early developmental vulnera- greetings or even lie and tell the children, “Your father bilities which have rendered them sus- hasn’t called.”34 In addition to excluding the target, the ceptible. While the profound alienation alienating parent often intends to make the children feel from a parent more often occurs in high unwanted so that they develop hostile and distant feel- conflict custody disputes, it is believed ings towards the target.35 to be an infrequent occurrence among the larger population of divorcing chil- Another insidious but powerful method of exclud- dren.22 ing the target is for the alienating parent to refuse to acknowledge any positive experiences the children The success of the alienation programme is deter- have with him.36 By not responding “to the excitement mined by the personalities and vulnerabilities of the and joy” the children express about the other parent child and the length and intensity of the indoctrina- and acting indifferently to their excitement, the alienat- tion.23 “[T]he intensity and longevity of the alienating ing parent effectively marginalizes the target. “This ‘ho- processes, when combined with other important parent hum’ approach has the effect of numbing the children and child variables . . . might create exponentially from sharing [their positive] experiences with the pro- unbearable pressures on the child, resulting in alien- gramming parent.”37 ation from a parent.”24 Ironically, when the children later learn to suppress their happiness and joy, the alienating parent then Methods of Alienation claims that the children are “sad” when they return Alienating parents employ many different tech- from being with the target: niques to program their children away from the target parent. Many of them are apparent. Others, though Interestingly, the programmer may then insidious, are just as pernicious. Some methods are claim that the children are not benefit- intentional, deliberate and willful, while others might ting from contact with the other parent even be utilized subconsciously by the alienating par- because “they are gloomy when they ent. return.” The gloom may be a result of the children giving the brainwashing One of the “basic techniques” alienating parents parent what he or she wants—an use is to send the message, either overtly or subtly, that unhappy child. This accounts for the the target parent is insignificant or irrelevant to the opposing views divorced parents hold child.25 This may be done by ignoring the target parent concerning the time the children spend at social functions and elsewhere, or by denying or with the other. One parent says, “I refusing to acknowledge his existence.26 By choosing to think they had a great time.” The other “never talk about the other parent,” a subtle message is says (sarcastically), “Sure they did.” It sent that the other parent is insignificant.27 is [also] common to find children expressing guilt about enjoying the tar- The target parent’s insignificance can also be sig- get parent as a result of this nonsupport naled by using body language to show that he is from the programming/brainwashing unworthy or insignificant.28 The alienating parent parent.38 might avoid eye contact with the target, use a hand gesture that is dismissive or indicates negativity, look away A parent may also subtly, yet powerfully, attack the when he is present, or, when the child raises the other target by attacking his family, career, living arrange- parent in conversation, abruptly terminate the conver- ments, travel, activities, associates or any other circum- sation.29 Children are attuned to these subtle signals stance identified with him.39 Attacking the target indi- and interestingly enough, often adopt them and “mirror rectly in this way also provides the alienating parent with “cover” to deny the attack.40 The child may also be

12 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 forced to take sides in the battle between the parents as the aggressive nature of the other par- issues are raised and discussed with the child that ent. Children know this, even in cases should only be discussed with the other parent.41 Chil- where they say that the aggressive par- dren understand the undercurrents of parents’ state- ent is positive and constructive in other ments. A child, therefore, is likely to understand the ways. statement, “Our summer vacation would really be fun In more extreme cases, the brainwash- if we had more time,” to mean that the target parent is ing parent actually obstructs the flow of preventing the child from having a fun vacation with information to the target parent by not her.42 supplying schools with his or her prop- Another method routinely used by alienating par- er name and address. One of the most ents is to manipulate or rearrange the child’s time common problems in custody-conflict- schedules so that the child “does not have time” to see ed families is that the mother places the the other parent.43 “The manipulation of time becomes stepfather on the educational records as the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator, who uses the father of record. In a review of our it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child’s time in cases, we found that mothers were five order to prevent ‘contaminating’ contact with the lost times more likely to participate in this parent.”44 This elimination of or decrease in contact, behavior than fathers. Fathers did not prevents the target parent from maintaining his bond appear to have the same social need to with the child: present the stepmother as the mother, whereas mothers had a very strong Situations in which contact between the need to present stepfathers as “the” non-custodial parent and the child is father. As part of this pattern, mothers diminished enhance the viability of suc- seem less comfortable in attending cessful programming. If a child does social functions when the birth father is not have much contact with one parent, present. Fathers on the other hand, he or she is not afforded the experi- seem to have a greater sense of comfort ences needed to contradict the pro- in attending social functions when the gramme. . . . [Deprogramming] can best birth mother is present.46 be done through increased experience and physical contact between the target Denigration may be used by making moral judg- and child.45 ments against the target parent’s values, lifestyle, choice of friends, career or financial or relational successes or An alienating parent may also exclude the target failures in life.47 These criticisms are often: parent by failing to inform him of important events in the child’s life: insidious, occurring over a period of time with different degrees of intensity Not informing the other parent of but always powerful. Like the wearing school dates, plays, conferences, cere- away of a stone constantly assaulted by monies, awards, sporting events, and waves, the child’s perception of the tar- the like is a way of signifying to the get parent changes from its original, children that the other parent lacks more positive, view finally conforming importance. . . . to the programming parent’s opinions Children are deeply affected by the and sentiments. presence or absence of parents at edu- In such cases, the effect is almost irre- cational, social and religious functions. versible. These children are no longer After a time, they develop the veneer of able to accept both parents as equally an “I don’t care” attitude. After inter- good. . . . These beliefs become so viewing 200 children between the ages ingrained that the parent who created of four and eighteen years on this issue, them no longer has to promote the it was noted that virtually every child desired perceptions. They have been desired both parents to be present at as given life within the child’s own mind. many of these functions as possible. So much so, that the parent may hon- Children would say, “Even if my dad estly report that he or she is not active- can’t make it, my mother should have ly doing anything by word or deed to told him.” . . . Clearly, children are thwart the target parent’s relationship often aware that one parent does not with the child.48 participate in social functions due to

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 13 Even without deliberately intending to interfere or confrontative (but not abusive) behaviors by the with the other parent’s relationship, a parent whose rejected parent are repackaged as confirmation of vio- view of the other is “colored,” might naturally “selec- lence toward the child.”57 tively perceive and distort” the child’s relationship with An alienating parent might become “emotionally the non-custodial parent.49 Because the parent’s view of abandoning, rejecting, or even vengeful” to a child who the child’s interaction with the other parent is distorted, expresses his or “her own individual needs” (who the parent may unintentionally distort the child’s view: “individuates”) or who expresses a desire “to move [I]t is common for the couple’s toward the other parent.”58 expressed disappointments with each other to be mirrored in their concerns When 5-year-old Sally expressed a wish for how the other parent will treat the to call her father on the phone and tell child. For example, if a woman has him how she learned to jump rope that experienced her ex-spouse as emotion- day, her mother withdrew into sullen ally neglectful, she expects him to be anger. Inexplicably to Sally, her mother neglectful of her child. If the child then was “too tired” to read her [the] usual 59 comes back upset or depressed after bedtime story that evening. spending time with his dad, the mother After a while, however, the child figures out that attributes the difficulty solely to the contact with the target parent produces this reaction father’s lack of care. At the same time, with the custodial parent.60 Doctors Johnston and Rose- other, more positive aspects of the by point out that in such cases, because “the punishing father-child relationship are ignored or message is typically unspoken [it] is . . . impossible to denied (i.e., the fact that this father and be spoken about, which makes it even more pernicious” child have a lot of fun together and that and difficult to detect.61 the child feels a painful loss each time they part). In responding sympatheti- Sometimes, when a child shares stories cally to her child on his return home, of happy times with the other parent, the mother incorrectly interprets and the discussions will be met with anger then amplifies the child’s sadness and and negativity or apathy. Although ini- anxiety. As a result, the child’s emerg- tially the reaction is confusing, a child ing reality testing about his own feel- soon absorbs the message: “I don’t like ings and ideas are ever so slightly and it when I hear that you love your moth- insidiously distorted. Furthermore, the er, or enjoy your time with her. I don’t mother’s own anxiety and distress like you for loving her.” about her child’s sadness are intensified After the rule within the message is because she is not able to communicate learned, it becomes too risky [for the and clarify with her ex-husband about child] to share any more positive or why the child might be upset. She is happy scenarios. Herein lies the begin- left feeling helpless about protecting ning of the programmer’s power. The 50 her child. child knows that he or she is not likely An alienating parent may also attempt to character- to lose the nonprogramming parent’s ize normal differences with the target parent as “good love, because no matter what, it has vs. bad” or “right vs. wrong.”51 Doing so places the been proved to be unconditional. How- children in the middle of the battle and requires them to ever, the child has observed and has choose sides in their parents’ conflict.52 been the recipient of the conditional love of the programmer and must A parent might also constantly evoke and remind move to cement that love through the child of a relatively insignificant early traumatic abject compliance—even to his or her incident.53 Though the incident may have occurred, it own detriment.62 would otherwise likely have been forgotten or not have a strong impact on the child.54 By constantly evoking “Sometimes the mere presence of the child, or the and emphasizing the incident, the parent imbues it with child’s physical resemblance to the ex-spouse, produces greater significance and uses it to a tactical advantage a toxic, phobic reaction in the [alienating] parent.”63 to create “a family legend that can contribute to child Similarly, if the child acts like the target parent, the cus- alienation [and] estrangement.”55 “In these cases, there todial parent may feel “resentment, even rage, toward is a mix of realistic and unrealistic fear, anger and the child, who at that moment is undifferentiated from avoidance that needs to be distinguished.”56 “Some- the hated or feared ex-partner.”64 times, earlier disciplinary interactions involving angry

14 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 Children learn early on to avoid negative conse- alienate the targeted parent by “pas- quences.65 They also avoid situations which might be sively” discouraging the child from somewhat similar, even if only in their minds, to those participating in visitation. Under these that gave rise to the negative consequences.66 Thus, “[a] circumstances, the child is likely to youngster who associates his father’s arrival to pick learn quickly to avoid open expressions him up for visits with another parental fight [may of interest in visiting the “hated” par- become] immobilized when his father calls him on the ent.69 phone.”67 Children at different ages may have different moti- Similarly, a child who constantly hears disparaging vations for refusing visitation with the non-custodial remarks about a parent, may lose confidence in and parent.70 “For example, a four-year old might resist visi- love for that parent and feel intolerably confused: tation because of difficulty separating from a primary caretaker, [w]hereas a seven-year old who refuses to Extremely negative views of the reject- visit his other parent may fear retaliation and abandon- ed parent may be freely, angrily and ment by the aligned parent, [and] a preadolescent repeatedly expressed to the child by the might be choosing a stance that looks like alienation as [parent with whom the child is a way of coping with an unbearable loyalty conflict in a “aligned”:] “She never wanted you,” “I chronically conflicted divorce.”71 was your real parent,” “You call me if your dad touches you anywhere,” “I’m “Anxious, fearful, and passive children lack the sure he’ll be late as usual.” The effect of resiliency to withstand the intense pressures of the cus- the continued drumbeat of negative tody battle and the aligned parents’ alienating behav- evaluation of the parent is to erode the iors. It might be psychologically easier for them to child’s confidence in and love for the choose a side to avoid crippling anxiety. Children with rejected parent and to create intolerable poor reality testing are more likely to be vulnerable.”72 confusion. These evaluations might also “In addition, poor self-esteem makes children especially be expressed indirectly, covertly, or susceptible to promises of enduring love, especially unconsciously and might include innu- when a parent has been rejecting and ambivalent endoes of sexual or child abuse or toward the child.”73 Children who are insightful, clear implications that the parent is danger- thinking, and morally developed can often maintain a ous in other ways. Whether such par- greater balance through the high-conflict divorce.74 ents are aware of the negative impact “Although pressured by alienating processes and par- on the child, these behaviors of the ents, they can analyze their parents’ behaviors and the aligned parent (and his or her support- nature of their parent-child relationships and, despite ers) constitute emotional abuse of the their anger and sadness . . . stay connected to each par- child.68 ent.”75 Alienating parents may also conceal their manipu- Several factors increase the vulnerability of children lations by claiming to permit the child to decide to alienation. “Those children who are very dependent whether the visitation should occur. Of course the alien- on the aligned parent, either emotionally or physically, ating parent has already, consciously or subconsciously, are . . . more likely to respond to alienating processes indicated to the child what the “correct” choice should and behaviors. Some of these youngsters have a history be: of being conditionally loved and erratically rejected by the aligned parent, and the child’s complete rejection of Visitation with a targeted parent is the other parent might offer a long-sought opportunity often sabotaged with subtle PAS pro- to achieve total acceptance and unconditional love.”76 gramming. For example, a child in a PAS environment becomes attuned to “Most often, aligned parents’ behaviors reflect sev- the alienating parent’s desire for the eral organizing beliefs that might not be consciously child to despise the other parent. To spiteful and vindictive but nevertheless are potentially secure acceptance, the child may make very damaging to the child’s relationship with the other statements that suggest an uncertainty parent. As a consequence of their own deep psychologi- about visiting with the targeted parent cal issues, the aligned parent can harbor deep distrust or a lack of desire to do so; the alienator and fear of the ex-spouse and be absolutely convinced may then act in a “neutral” manner by that he or she is at best irrelevant and at worst a perni- instructing the child to believe that it is cious influence on the child. Consequently, a first major the child’s decision whether or not to organizing belief is that their child does not need the visit with the other parent. This “neu- other parent in their lives. Although aligned parents trality maneuver” serves to further might insist that the child is free to visit, the rejected

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 15 parent’s attempts to visit or contact their child frequent- Symptoms of Alienation ly are seen as harassment. Phone calls, messages, A child does not naturally cut off contact from a and/or letters often are not passed on to the child. parent who displays love and affection for the child. Information about school, medical, athletic, or special Thus, when a child avoids contact with a parent, the events are not provided to the rejected parent, in effect reason for it must be understood. completely shutting that parent out of the child’s life. In the most extreme cases, all references to the rejected The greatest indicator of alienation is an adversity parent are removed from the residence, including pic- by a child to a parent that is disproportionate to the rea- tures (which might be torn apart in front of the child to sons given by the child for it.88 Thus, the first question exclude that parent). In such situations, most children to ask when confronted with a possible alienation situa- quickly learn not to speak of the rejected parent. In tion is whether the child’s claimed reasons for not see- response to requests for access by the rejected parent, ing the parent can reasonably justify the break-off of the aligned parent strongly supports their angry child’s contact between them. If the reasons cannot justify the `right to make their own decision’ about whether they lack of contact, there is a significant likelihood that will visit.’”77 alienation has occurred. “[A] brainwasher [who] knows that the target par- Another indicator of alienation is a child who ent is a homebody and that the child enjoys activities, shows affection to the target parent when the other par- [may] go out of the way to plan exciting adventures ent is absent, but acts indifferently or defiantly to the both on their time and during the time when the child target when in the presence of the other parent.89 Such is with the target parent. Rather than protecting the par- an “inconsistent `chameleon’ quality is a diagnostic ent-child relationship and encouraging contact, the hallmark of [alienation].”90 brainwasher makes sure that the child hears a detailed Confusion or ideas that are inconsistent with the accounting of what he or she missed out on. If these child’s observations are also common indicators of scenarios recur, most children come to resent the `sacri- alienation,91 as is a child who has repeatedly received fice’ they are making by spending time with the target negative information about the non-custodial parent.92 parent. . . . The result is a child who no longer desires to A child who portrays a parent as “immoral, cheap, irre- have continuing contact with a parent unless entertain- sponsible or unloving, or uses any other globally nega- ment is promised.”78 tive descriptive terminology” has likely been subjected A brainwashing parent may also induce fear and to alienation.93 Similarly, “collusion or [a] one-sided anxiety in a child by raising questions about any one of alliance” by the child with one parent is a signal of the child’s many “root . . . childhood fears.”79 Children potential alienation.94 are very concerned for their safety and security and fear The child who works simultaneously that they will not be taken care of.80 By implying that with one parent and against the other is the target parent will not care about or protect a child, typically operating in collusion with the alienating parent can create “disequilibrium the brainwasher and will be unable to between the [target] parent and child.”81 maintain a positive relationship with A brainwashing parent may also attempt to “ele- the target parent. These children closely vate” a new spouse to replace the child’s biological par- identify with the brainwasher and ent.82 One such parent, “threw a glass of water in the behave like a spy or conduit of infor- child’s face whenever she refused to call the stepparent mation. They view the broken family in ‘Daddy.’”83 terms of “us” versus “him or her.” The more entrenched the identification, the Doctors Kelly and Johnston point out that “there is less able the child is to accept positive often significant pathology and anger in the parent gestures or sentiments from the target 84 encouraging the alienation of the child.” An average parent. Perceiving the target parent as parent, unencumbered with emotional shortcomings, acting against “us,” any positive fea- would “seek different avenues and more rational means tures that the target parent possesses of protecting their child,” “[e]ven where there [has been are reinterpreted as intended to inflict a] history of child abuse,” rather than alienating the hurt. The most benign deed, such as 85 child from that parent. Other doctors have similarly giving the child a present, is analyzed observed that the typical alienating parent has a per- for scurrilous motives and becomes a 86 sonality disorder. “[T]he alienating parent is one who “buy-off” or prompts a statement such uses denial to cope with emotional pain, lacks a capaci- as, “Big deal—where’s the support ty for intimacy, is overly suspicious and distrustful, has check?”95 a strong sense of entitlement, and has little anxiety or self-insight.”87

16 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 Other symptoms which might indicate alienation Children are more at risk to be pulled include an unnatural rigidity within a child or a maturi- into the high-conflict divorce as major ty level “that noticeably veers away from the familiar players and Greek chorus. . . . The for that particular child.”96 Similarly, a child who “sits intensity of the conflict, its continued in lofty moral judgment of a parent has usually been burdensome presence for one or more programmed to believe that [the target] parent is lead- years, the polarization of extended fam- ing an immoral life.”97 A child who responds to ily and larger community, and the fail- parental discipline by threatening, “If you— ure of parents to address their chil- scream/punish/hit/give me a curfew/make me sit dren’s needs combine to create here and do homework/make me do housework/ intolerable anguish, tension and anger cook/take away my car—I’ll tell Mom [or the judge]” for children. One psychological resolu- has most likely been similarly programmed.98 Confus- tion for the child is to diminish the feeling the child as to a birth parent’s importance vis à vis a ing of being torn apart by rejecting the stepparent or significant other, can signal a “pro- “bad” parent and ceasing all contact.109 gramme” and an attempt to “elevate” a new family to “In situations where parents are litigating custody, replace the old.99 children who are aware of the battle are almost always Target parents are often criticized no matter what caught up in the escalation, and feel powerless to hin- they do.100 “Even though the brainwasher may be der it. One day they tell Mom what she wants to hear; doing the same thing with the child as the target parent, the next day they do the same with Dad. Most children . . . the target parent’s behavior . . . is [often portrayed do not want to make . . . custody decisions, intuitively as] fraught with foreboding problems for the child’s understanding that to do so could carry the burden of future.”101 dreadful rejection of one parent or the other.”110 Though parents frequently “report that a child is “The loss [to a child of the relationship with a par- afraid to go off with the other parent . . . some fears ent] cannot be undone. Childhood cannot be recap- have no connection to reality and are irrational fears tured. Gone forever is that sense of history, intimacy, that evolve from programming and brainwashing or lost input of values and morals, self-awareness through from the emotional atmosphere created by a fearful par- knowing one’s beginnings, love, contact with extended ent.”102 family, and much more. Virtually no child possesses the ability to protect him- or herself against such an undig- Effects of Alienation nified and total loss.”111 The estrangement of a child from one of its parents Children deprived of a parent may, as a result, suf- may be cataclysmic to the child’s long-term develop- fer loss, guilt, confusion, fear, powerlessness, identity ment and well being. It is likely to have catastrophic crisis, anger, withdrawal, anxiety, a retreat into a fanta- consequences for that child throughout the child’s life sy world, hopelessness, inadequacy, fears, phobias, and, as will be shown, is likely to effect future genera- depression, suicidal ideation, sleeping and eating disor- tions as well. ders, academic problems, withdrawal from one or both A Child’s General Need for Both Parents and the parents, drug abuse, peer group problems, obsessive- Anguish of War compulsive behavior, motor tension (tics, fidgeting or restlessness), psychosomatic disorders, damaged sexual Every child needs both parents to develop identity and other problems.112 Some children will “act properly.103 That is because throughout our lives we in” rather than act out and, internalizing their emotions, subconsciously base all of our expectations and model “develop psychogenic constipation, headaches or stom- all of our relationships on the relationships we had with achaches or suffer from emotional withdrawal, experi- both of our parents.104 The elimination of a parent from ence academic or social problems at school, or become a child’s life, therefore, has life-long consequences for severely depressed.”113 the child.105 “For those children who remain with the alienating parent and lose contact with the targeted par- Anxiety ent, the losses are enormous.”106 By inculcating a message that children are not per- Even when there is no alienation, psychologists mitted to love both parents, alienating parents make have noted that long, intense divorce battles cause children feel anxious each time “they wish to express severe psychological problems for children.107 “[M]ari- love to the target parent. They might feel anxiety over tal and divorce conflict that focuses on the child, and the smallest gesture, such as making a Father’s Day high intensity and overtly hostile marital conflict, are card in school but not being able to present it to the 114 well established predictors of psychological adjustment [other] parent.” problems in children.”108

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 17 Hiding Affection to figure out how to solve problems A child who senses that a parent disapproves of the and interpret social reality. Unfortu- other, might show affection to the target parent only nately, their inner resources are likely to when alone with him or her.115 When the other parent is be meager, because these children present the child may act indifferently or even in a hos- defend against the double-binding tile manner to the target parent.116 Thrust into this inconsistency of their most significant “who[m] do I betray?” situation “creates the passage- relationships by avoiding complexity, way for the possibility of actual delusional thinking” by ambiguity, and spontaneity. . . . The the child.117 bind is that, as children turn inward, they must rely on an increasingly Leaving a child in this pathological impoverished and distorted under- environment is most damaging and, standing of the nature of reality. Para- under these circumstances, a child may doxically, their path to safety leads many times become anxious, isolated them further and further away from and depressed. In time, if proper inter- new self-realizing possibilities.127 vention is not forthcoming, the child develops a deep and profound sense of Self-Blame self-hatred and shame for condemning Children typically feel responsible for their parents’ the other parent. These children tend to disputes and divorce.128 Yet they feel powerless to do become despondent, withdrawn, and anything about it.129 These contradictory feelings of develop psychopathic manipulative super-importance but inadequacy and powerlessness characteristics which may be carried can be psychologically devastating to children: into adulthood.118 “If I were dead, they wouldn’t need to Making Sense of the World fight anymore” is a tragically self-blam- One of the core concerns for children, generally, is ing, depressive fantasy that is not to learn to determine what is true and what is false.119 uncommon. Feelings of great power “Ordinarily, children use their parents as [a] social ref- and importance are juxtaposed, there- erence for what is safe and trustworthy.”120 Children fore, with paradoxical feelings of being whose parents are battling however, “have the pro- overwhelmingly inadequate in the face found dilemma of making sense out of vastly contradic- of the parents’ intractable anger. Hence tory views communicated through the hostility, fear the child’s sense of agency, competence, and distrust of their opposing parents (Who is safe? or power is undermined. It follows that Who is dangerous? Whom can you trust?).”121 This these children often have trouble direct- leaves them confused and anxious and prevents their ly asserting their own needs and wish- normal development.122 es. Instead, they are likely to maintain an underlying oppositional and alienat- Moreover, by necessity these children must stay ed stance masked by a compliant eager- attuned to the “emotional states and needs of their cus- ness to please others. This facade can todial parent.”123 Imparting such great importance to a be maintained only until the children parent’s emotional needs reduces the children’s sense of become overwhelmed by their own self-importance in relation to others.124 neediness, at which time they regress or explode into irritable-distressed or Lack of External Resources demanding-aggressive behavior.130 Children may “withdraw into themselves as they are forced to close off from the target parent.”125 They Identification with the Rejected Parent may also retreat into their own secret fantasy world in a All children contain characteristics of each of their desperate effort to maintain the much-needed contact parents. A child who rejects a parent, therefore, neces- with the rejected parent.126 As a result, youngsters who sarily has to reject and loathe that part of him- or her- have survived their parents’ intense battles: self that is similar to the rejected parent.131 Such a child is necessarily “vulnerable to self-loathing, self-rejection, are likely to be hypervigilant and dis- and confusion regarding sex-role identification.”132 The trusting of others, and do not expect more the child resembles the rejected parent, the more the world to be a cooperative or protec- the self-loathing is intensified.133 tive place. Unlike typically developing children, who tend to turn to others, Additionally, a child who sees one parent rejected especially adults for their needs, these by the other, likely fears being rejected him- or herself— children turn inward, unto themselves, for possessing the same characteristics as the rejected

18 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 parent.134 “Sensing that the programmer/brainwasher Rigid View of the World detests the other parent, the child fears that she or he In order to remain aligned with one parent and to 135 may be similarly detestable.” “This scenario is espe- reject the other, the child must believe that one is cially difficult for those children who do not spend “pure” and “good” while the other is “evil” and much time with the target parent whom they may be “bad.”139 Such a rigid view of the world is unrealistic most like. Isolated from the target, these children can and prevents the child from accepting the good and suffer through childhood or adolescence with lonely bad, the pure and evil, within him- or herself.140 Chil- feelings of rejection over nothing within their power to dren must learn to acknowledge, tolerate and integrate 136 control.” “the `bad’ parent with the `good’ into a more realistic The mere witnessing of one parent’s view of each parent (whole object representation) and, antipathy toward the other can ulti- at the same time, form a cohesive, integrated sense of mately lead to self-repudiation by bio- the `good’ and the `bad’ in him- or herself (self-constan- logical association. It is through moth- cy).”141 This “is made extremely difficult” when the ers and fathers that boys and girls form child has been alienated from one of its parents.142 masculine and feminine identities. Chil- When children maintain this kind of dren should feel as though they are rigid separation between good and bad, accepted and valued by both the same- they are bound to strive for an impossi- and opposite-sex parents. Parents can ble perfection in themselves and other only provide this integration of person- people. Each failure represents an intol- ality to their children by actively partic- erable fall from grace. This most funda- ipating in their upbringing. Without mental failure (i.e., to achieve self- and self-acceptance derived from parental object constancy) is reflected in the per- acceptance of the child, personality con- vasive absence of basic trust that test- flicts and social-adjustment disorders ing reveals in these children. It is not 137 often arise, persisting into adulthood. difficult to imagine that these polarized Hopelessness and Inadequacy shifts from perfectly good to perfectly bad make trusting oneself or others, In other ways, too, the alienated child is made to from moment to moment, a virtually feel hopeless and inadequate: impossible task.143 Inability to cope with such emotionally Although the child seems to function well enough overwhelming situations often induce in certain situations, this merely masks the deep psy- feelings of powerlessness, hopelessness, chological, tumultuous issues percolating within them: and inadequacy that can spill over into other areas of life. If a child has the It is important to note that some alien- desire to enjoy a positive relationship ated children—although they present as with a target parent and there is ongo- very angry, distraught, and obsessively ing programming and brainwashing, fixated on the hated parent in the thera- what is the child learning? One lesson pist’s or evaluator’s office—appear to is that those who supposedly are there function adequately in other settings to love and protect the child are not ful- removed from the custody battle. They filling those responsibilities and that might retain their school performance, they are unresponsive to the child’s might continue to excel in musical or needs. athletic activities, and at least superfi- cially seem reasonably well adjusted. A Confusion is compounded when these closer look at their interpersonal rela- children observe peers with separated tionships, however, often reveals diffi- or divorced parents who work coopera- culties. Alienated children’s black-and- tively and in a mutually respectful white, often harshly strident views and manner in their children’s best inter- feelings are usually reflected in deal- ests. [As o]ne nine-year-old enviously ings with their peers as well as those in asked during a home visit on a custody authority. However, it is in the rejected case, “Why can’t my mom and dad just parents’ home that the child’s behavior work things out on the phone like my is severely problematic and disturbed. stepsisters’ parents instead of just They might destroy property; act in yelling at each other and hanging obnoxious, even bizarre ways; and treat up?”138

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 19 these parents in public with obvious continue to fight to see them until they are successful.162 loathing, scorn, and verbal abuse.144 Children expect:

Repression that the target will know how to rescue them from the programmer/brain- To cope with their parents’ ongoing conflict, chil- washer and not give up. Target parents dren may repress their own emotions.145 Such repres- almost always express surprise upon sion inhibits the child’s capacity to perceive, under- hearing that their children want them stand and tolerate his or her own feelings.146 It also to be strong and not submit or back inhibits the child’s ability to empathize with the feel- away from litigation. Some of these ings of others. This further inhibits the child’s social children may seem overtly allied with development and “disrupts the achievement of empa- the programmer but covertly wish the thy [which is] the basis for interpersonal morality.”147 programmer’s power be toppled. These Parental Dependency children are fake conformers who appear to be programmed as a survival To alleviate the feeling of loss caused by the technique. breakup of the marriage, a parent might cling depen- dently to the child.148 The child, sensing the parent’s Too many parents retreat from pursu- emotional need, might in turn cling to that parent and ing increased time or joint or primary avoid visitation with the other parent.149 When the custody due to the mistaken perception child leaves for visitation, the parent may experience a that taking action could damage or per- renewed threat of abandonment by the child.150 This manently effect an already conflicted provokes “intense anxiety and covert hostility toward and confused child. Such parents often the child.”151 “Not surprisingly, these children them- censor themselves, recoil, or back off selves then become ambivalent about separating [from after having been given advice that the the custodial parent]. Alternatively, some children . . . cards are stacked against them in a no- react as if the parent’s very survival depends on their win situation. Some parents find their constant vigilance and caretaking.”152 Neither of these finances depleted and, subsequently, reactions are healthy for the child.153 are forced to give up. Others fear that litigation may cause more harm than Secondary Rejection(s) good. Not having access to a crystal Years later, when an alienated child ultimately real- ball, they do not trust the wisdom of izes that he or she has been the victim of alienation and the legal system due to “horror stories” brainwashing and has lost out on so many years of joy- they may have collected about parents ful experiences that could not be shared with the alien- losing time or custody just seeking ated parent, the child will likely feel anger and alien- modification. And still others are ation towards the programming or brainwashing unwilling to legally pursue their chil- parent.154 As the child pulls away from that parent, it dren due to apprehension of potentially experiences a secondary loss from the alienation155—the serious emotional and economic assault loss of the alienating parent as well.156 to themselves, their remarriage, and/or their new family. The target parent’s But that is not the sole extent of the harm to the reaction to the programmer/brain- alienated children. Alienated children are generally also washer and to the child is clearly a key angry with the target parent for “giving up” and not variable in the success or failure of the fighting harder to maintain a relationship with them.157 programme.163 That is because children attribute greater control and power to their parents.158 Counter Rejection Because children need to feel protected, they must As a defensive mechanism, a parent who is rejected believe that their parents are omnipotent and by his or her children, will often “counter-reject” the 164 powerful.159 Thus, children believe their alienated par- children as well. ent could break through and see them if only the parent When rejected parents feel that they are 160 had tried harder. When the parent becomes complete- being abusively treated by an alienated ly alienated, the child will likely blame him.161 child who is refusing all efforts to Though a child may never actually verbalize these reconnect, they can become highly feelings, in the child’s “inner, secret world” the child affronted and offended by the lack of “fervently hopes” that the target parent will “be strong, respect and ingratitude afforded them. brave, able to intuit their unspoken secret wishes,” and Hurt and humiliated, some rejected

20 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 parents react to the child’s alienation the skills (or bravery) necessary to con- with their own rejection. Their anger front the brainwasher and to assert might also stem from sheer frustration himself or herself. Feelings of guilt for and lack of patience or might arise from having “hurt” the target make it diffi- retaliatory needs to treat the child in cult to approach that parent. The target the same manner in which they have parent may have simultaneously been been treated. The counterrejection is felt programmed to believe that the child is by the child, and reinforced by the rejecting and unloving, so that reaching aligned parent, as confirmation of the out is obstructed. The child and target rejected parent’s lack of interest and parent become polarized, which was love, which often leads to intensified exactly the brainwasher’s goal. So, condemnation of the “bad” parent.165 brainwashers can successfully imple- ment and carry to fruition their goals Guilt even when a child understands what is Guilt is another feature “that indelibly colors a transpiring.167 child’s social-emotional life. Feelings of guilt can Even if the alienated parent has not actually emanate from complying with the programme and act- counter-rejected the child, the child usually assumes ing against the target parent.”166 that the parent has done so.168 “A child who loses con- Although they understand the manipu- tact with a target parent resulting from pressure or lations, most children are not polemi- through compliance usually fears that the target parent cally secure enough to successfully has become angry. Almost every child with whom [Dr. deter a brainwashing parent. Unless the Clawar has] spoken—those who testified in court or parent senses that he or she is losing those who did not have the strength or the skills to the child emotionally or through the overcome the programme—believed that the target par- court’s decision to modify custody, he ent was angry with them beyond reprieve.”169 or she will continue to apply pressure on the child. Children who understand Confusion and comply with the brainwasher’s The fight for the “minds and bodies” of the chil- desires pay the price through develop- dren throw the children into turmoil and confusion.170 ing guilt. They are in conflict because “Loyalty conflicts are common and usually fraught they do not necessarily believe what with confusion.”171 This is especially true when the they are being told. However, they feel child is “fed untrue stories about a target parent that compelled to think, feel, or behave in runs counter to [the child’s own experiences with that ways that go against their own set of parent,—the child’s] observational data.”172 values and will comply nevertheless. Confusion and anxiety are increased when a child Children may have feelings of guilt . . . perceives the target parent to be good and loving, but for not revealing their true (good) feel- constantly receives the message that the target is bad.173 ings toward a parent; for shunning or The child is further confused by wondering why he or rejecting a parent at an event, in public, she is not permitted to love both parents freely.174 Simi- at pickup time, or when alone with that larly, when a child hears that the parent claims to per- parent; . . . or for punishing a parent by mit the child to visit with the other parent, but observes being verbally or physically abusive. the parent’s body language and actions that belie that Often, children come to believe the tar- permission, the child can become “profoundly con- get parent may be angry or hate them fused.”175 due to behavior they know is wrong but they still engage in. The degree of damage ultimately suffered by a child is directly related to “the length of time in which This sense of estrangement propels the assault continues unharnessed,” in its intensity and them deeper into the brainwasher’s severity.176 camp. This scenario is problematic for such children because, nowhere, can Inter-Generational Effect they be true to their hearts. The brain- Equally distressing as the effects alienation has washer’s love and understanding is upon its child-victims is the effect it will likely have questionable, and the target parent may upon future generations.177 Children who are alienated have become distanced. A child caught from a parent have a higher likelihood of becoming in this bind does not ordinarily possess alienators themselves, thereby perpetuating the negative effects onto future generations as well.178

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 21 [C]hildren who were raised by a pro- 12. Id. grammer/brainwasher and who were 13. Id. Parental alienation as a “syndrome” continues to be a highly significantly deprived of a target parent controversial topic. Compare, People v. Fortin, 289 A.D.2d 590 (2d may learn to be proprietary and self- Dep’t 2001) (holding that the defendant in that criminal action did not meet his burden of proving the Syndrome’s general righteous rather than to share the chil- acceptance in the scientific community), with Zafran v. Zafran, dren after their own divorces. Further, 191 Misc. 2d 60 (Sup Ct., Nassau Co. 2002) (permitting “Frye “ they are likely to repeat their parents’ hearing to determine admissibility of the Parental Alienation behaviors and patterns in times of fam- Syndrome theory). This article addresses the phenomena of parental alienation and the harm it inflicts upon children, with- ily crises and are resistant to input and out taking any position on whether parental alienation is, or can change. One possible reason for this become, a “syndrome.” Any references to a “syndrome” or PAS behavior is that, as children, these par- within this article is merely to integrate the verbatim quotations ents repressed their emotional reaction of other authors. to their own parents’ divorce. The past 14. Id., at 133 (footnotes omitted). is visited upon the present when 15. J.F. v. L.F., 181 Misc. 2d 722 (Fam. Ct., Westchester Co. 1999) repressed feelings of anger, loneliness, (citations and quotations omitted). resentment, abandonment, and other 16. Janet Johnston, Rethinking Parental Alienation and Redesigning conflicts are repeated in an attempt to Parent-Child Access Services for Children Who Resist or Refuse Visi- tation (2001) (hereinafter “Rethinking”), available at www.ifp_ achieve a belated mastery. Repetition bayern.de/-cms/BU_Johnston.pdf; Joan B. Kelly & Janet R. compulsions in adulthood often are Johnston, The Alienated Child, A Reformulation of Parental Alien- derivatives of intrapsychic injuries and ation Syndrome, 30 Family Court Review 249 (2001) (hereinafter disappointments experienced in child- “Reformulation”). hood.179 17. Johnston, Rethinking, Id. at 1. 18. Id. at n.1. Conclusion 19. Id. 20. Id. at 1. The severe effects alienation has upon children 21. Johnston, Rethinking, Id. at 3; Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at should compel judges and lawyers to be ever-vigilant in 251. preventing its continuation. Part Two of this article will 22. Johnston, Rethinking, Id. at 4; Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at explore the treatments that have been effective in deal- 254. ing with alienation, and the ways in which the courts in 23. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 255. New York State have dealt with this issue. 24. Id. 25. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 15. Endnotes 26. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 15. 1. Although alienation might be employed by either parent, 27. Id. because it is more likely to be employed by mothers than by fathers, [see Clawar & Rivlin, Id., Ch. VII, (The Female Factor: 28. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 16. Why Women Programme More Than Men)], and because mothers 29. Id. are more likely to obtain custody than fathers (see Brandes, 4 30. Id. Law and the Family New York §§ 1:2 and 1:3), for ease of read- ing, this article will at times refer to the target parent in the mas- 31. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 16. culine gender and the alienating parent in the feminine. 32. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 16–17. 2. Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193 (2d Dep’t, 1981), aff’d, 56 33. Id. N.Y.2d 938 (1982). 34. Id. 3. Id., 82 A.D.2d at 195. 35. Id. 4. Id., 82 A.D.2d at 193–195 (citations omitted). 36. Id. at 17. 5. Stanley S. Clawar & Brynne V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, American Bar 37. Id. at 17–18. Association Section of Family Law (1991), Table 17 at 180. 38. Id. 6. Joel R. Brandes, 4 Law and the Family, New York, Child Custody § 39. Id. at 18–19. 1:27 at 121 (2d ed., 1997). 40. Id. 7. Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 122 (2d Dep’t, 1995). 41. Id. at 20. 8. Ira Turkat, Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Review of Critical Issues, 18 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial 42. Id. Lawyers 131, 132 (2002), available at http://www.aaml.org/ 43. Id. at 21. Journal/18-1/MAT109.pdf. 44. Elizabeth M. Ellis, Divorce Wars, Interventions with Families in 9. Id. Conflict, American Psychological Association 224 (2000) (quoting 10. Id. Cartwright) (emphasis added). 11. Id. 45. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 24–25.

22 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 46. Id. at 21–22 (emphasis in original). 94. Id. at 72. 47. Id. at 24. 95. Id. at 72–73. 48. Id. at 24–25. 96. Id. at 75–76. 49. Janet Johnston & Vivienne Roseby, In the Name of the Child, A 97. Id. at 76. Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of 98. Id. at 92. Conflicted and Violent Divorce, at 47 (The Free Press, 1997). 99. Id. at 84. 50. Johnston & Roseby, Id. at 48. 100. Id. at 76. 51. Michael R. Walsh & J. Michael Bone, Parental Alienation Syn- drome: An Age-old Custody Problem, 71 Fla. Bar J. 93 (1997). 101. Id. 52. Id. 102. Id. at 78. 53. Johnston, Rethinking, Id. at 5. 103. Id. at 74 & 104. 54. Id. 104. Id. at 104 (citing John Bowlby, Separation, Anxiety and Anger); Johnston & Roseby, Name of the Child, Id. at 68–69. 55. Id. 105. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. 56. Id. 106. Ellis, Id. at 226. 57. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 258. 107. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. n.1 at 264 (citing eight differ- 58. Johnston & Roseby, Name of the Child, Id. at 50. ent studies on the subject). 59. Johnston & Roseby, Id. at 50. 108. Id. 60. Id. 109. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 256. 61. Id. 110. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 107. 62. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 75 & 26. 111. Id. at 105. 63. Johnston & Roseby, Name of the Child, Id. at 50. 112. Id. at 129, 105–28. 64. Id. 113. Id. at 94. 65. Id. at 60. 114. Id. at 113. 66. Id. 115. Walsh & Bone, Id. 67. Id. 116. Id. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. 68. at 257 (emphasis added). 117. Id. Turkat, Id. 69. at 138. 118. Id. Johnston, Rethinking, Id. 70. at 10. 119. Johnston & Roseby, Name of the Child, Id. at 54. Johnston, Rethinking 71. , at 10–11. 120. Id. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. 72. at 261. 121. Id. at 54–55. Id. 73. 122. Id. Id. 74. 123. Johnston & Roseby, Id. at 55–56. Id. 75. 124. Id. at 56. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. 76. at 262; at 125. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 112. 74–75. 126. Id. at 113–14. 77. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 257. 127. Johnston & Roseby, Name of the Child, Id. at 55. 78. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 74. 128. Id. at 56. 79. Id. at 80. 129. Id. 80. Id. 130. Id. 81. Id. 131. Id. at 56–57. 82. Id. at 84. 132. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 111. 83. Id. 133. Id. 84. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 258. 134. Id. 85. Id. 135. Id. 86. Ellis, Id. at 220. 136. Id. 87. Id. 137. Id. 88. Johnston, Rethinking, Id. at 1; Turkat, Id. at 134. 138. Id. at 114. 89. Walsh & Bone, Id. 139. Johnston & Roseby, Id. at 56–57. 90. Id. 140. Id. 91. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 70. 141. Id. 92. Id. at 71. 142. Id. 93. Id. at 72.

NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1 23 143. Id. at 57. 164. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 259. 144. Kelly & Johnston, Reformulation, Id. at 263. 165. Id. 145. Johnston & Roseby, Name of the Child, Id. at 67. 166. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 106. 146. Id. 167. Id. at 84–85. 147. Id. 168. Id. at 106. 148. Id. at 51. 169. Id. 149. Id. 170. Id. at 107. 150. Id. 171. Id. 151. Id. at 52. 172. Id. 152. Id. 173. Id. 153. Id. 174. Id. at 112–13. 154. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 105. 175. Johnston & Roseby, Id. at 51. 155. Id. 176. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 104; nn. 21, 22, 106 & 107, Id. 156. Id. at 105–06. 177. Clawar & Rivlin, Id. at 114–15. 157. Id. at 112. 178. Id. at 115. 158. Id. 179. Id. at 115 (citing Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neuro- sis (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1945) at 540 and 405). 159. Id. 160. Id. Chaim Steinberger is an attorney in private practice 161. Id. in New York. Located in Brooklyn, he can be reached at 162. Id. (718) 998-6265, [email protected] or through 163. Id. his website at www.theBrooklynDivorceLawyer.com.

Available on the Web Family Law Review www.nysba.org/family

Back issues of the Family Law Review (2000-present) are available on the New York State Bar Association Web site.

Back issues are available at no charge to Section members. You must be logged in as a member to access back issues. For questions, log-in help or to obtain your user name and password, e-mail [email protected] or call (518) 463-3200.

Family Law Review Index For your convenience there is also a searchable index in pdf format. To search, click “Find” (binoculars icon) on the Adobe tool bar, and type in search word or phrase. Click “Find Again” (binoculars with arrow icon) to continue search.

24 NYSBA Family Law Review | Spring 2006 | Vol. 38 | No. 1