Jasmine (not her real name) left her husband after he had subjected her to intimate partner violence (IPV), including coercive control, for 12 years. She had no access to money other than through him. He did not permit her to work outside the home and did not let her drive the family car. She had always been the primary caregiver to their two young children; in fact, their father had shown little interest in them. He often yelled at Jasmine to “keep those damn kids quiet” when he was at home, and seldom attended their school or extra-curricular activities, saying this was not a man’s job.
Jasmine left after her husband physically assaulted her in front of the children and she sustained injuries that required her to go to the hospital for medical care. When she was released, she took the children and went to the women’s shelter in her community.
In the family law case, Jasmine sought an order giving her primary care of the children and sole responsibility for making decisions about them. She wanted her husband’s time with the children to be supervised until she was sure they would be safe and comfortable with him and because she had concerns that he might take them and flee to another province, as he had threatened to do many times while they were together. Jasmine had considerable evidence to support her claims of IPV and to show that she had been the children’s primary parent.
Her husband denied that he had engaged in any abusive behaviour. Instead, he claimed, she had been verbally abusive, constantly belittling him and complaining that he didn’t earn enough money for her to have the things she wanted. His court documents said that he had wanted to be more involved with the children but Jasmine prevented this and constantly bad-mouthed and belittled him to them. He said that her allegations of IPV and the fact that she took the children when she fled to the shelter were proof that she was engaging in parental alienation.
What’s parental alienation?
Parental alienation (PA) has long been a challenging issue for many women leaving abusive partners. In recent years, the use of PA claims has risen significantly.
A common claim by an abusive partner is that the mother is intentionally alienating the children from him when, in fact, she is engaging in protective parenting because of her concerns for the children’s safety. For example, he may paint her opposition to allowing him to have extensive, overnight or unsupervised parenting time – because of his threats to harm or not return the children — as a campaign to prevent him from having a relationship with his children.
At the same time, some abusive men themselves engage in PA as part of their abuse of their partner. In these cases, the father attempts to turn the children against the mother, tells the court that she is inadequate, incapable or abusive to the children and interferes with her time with the kids or the decisions she makes on their behalf.
In other words, abusive men use PA in two different ways in their ongoing campaign against their children’s mother: by falsely alleging the mother is alienating the children from him and/or by attempting to alienate the children from her.
These cases often have poor outcomes for mothers and children; in some significant part because judges and lawyers do not have adequate education and training on IPV, including coercive control and parental alienation.
Should it be banned?
In Canada, there has recently been a call by a number of women’s equality and violence against women organizations for the federal government to amend the Divorce Act to ban PA in family court cases. This call has received considerable media attention.
I respect the analysis and intent of this campaign, but I do not agree with it.
There are many reasons to be concerned about PA, some of which are illustrated by Jasmine’s story:
- Once parental alienation is raised in a family law case by an abuser, the issue of IPV is ignored: instead the court focuses entirely on the mother’s alleged alienation of the children from their father
- Parenting time and decision-making responsibility may be reversed from the mother to the father which, where there is a history of IPV, is not in the best interests of the children
- The court might even order the family to participate in family reunification therapy (itself an issue of concern) or impose a blackout period during which the mother can have no contact at all with the children; neither of which is generally in the best interests of the children
Simply banning the use of the term “parental alienation” won’t solve the problem. It’s an overly simplistic response to a complicated issue:
- Abusers sometimes engage in PA as part of their pattern of IPV; in these cases a ban would prohibit the mother from raising it in her case
- Banning the term without other steps being taken won’t stop the claims from being made; they will just be made using a different term
- Until family law lawyers and family court judges receive adequate IPV education, banning this term will not improve outcomes for IPV survivors and their children
What is needed is a nuanced approach that includes judicial education as well as a stepped approach when a party in a family court proceeding wants to raise the issue of PA. American law professor Joan Meier, a PA expert, proposes a sensible framework for courts when confronted with an alienation claim:
- First, determine whether there is family violence
- If there is, alienation claims by the abuser are not to be considered
- If it is not, the allegations themselves may not be treated as evidence of alienation
- Alienation claims are to be independently evaluated only under limited circumstances
- Only conscious intent and specific behaviours may constitute alienating conduct
- Remedies for confirmed alienation are limited to healing the child’s relationship with the alienated parent, not undermining the child’s relationship with the preferred parent
Coupled with high-quality IPV education for judges and others in the family court system, this approach – not a ban – should work well to ensure that courts respond appropriately to PA allegations and lead to better outcomes for IPV survivors and their children.