Down the Parental Alienation Rabbit Hole

The Term "Parental Alienation" Is Not the Problem

Jan 23, 2024

The “Parental Alienation Rabbit Hole” is perhaps the most convoluted, controversial and divisive of all the Custody Crisis Rabbit Holes. It is one of the many quagmires women get caught in when trying to figure out why they lost custody or could not protect their children in Family Court.

This article is one in a series in which the central theme is that women are being misguided and divided by various false narratives. The goal is to help women emerge from the rabbit holes and unite under a shared set of facts so we have the power necessary to demand a new system in which judges do not have the power to take or endanger our children.

First, a dictionary definition:

Alienation is when one person causes another person to be indifferent to, hostile to, or estranged from someone.
Parental alienation, by extension, is when a parent causes a child to be indifferent to, hostile to, or estranged from the other parent.

There is no real debate about whether parents can and do occasionally alienate children from the other parent. The controversy surrounds its use in Family Court.

By definition, alienation exists on a spectrum from mild to severe—from simply uncaring to complete disaffection. An example of alienation is a cult leader who alienates a member of the cult from a family member. It is a similar dynamic in parental alienation when one parent alienates a child from the other.

What Parental Alienation is NOT:

When a parent keeps, or is trying to keep, a child away from the other parent for the child’s safety and well-being, it is not parental alienation, as that parent is acting to protect, not alienate, the child.

When a child is alienated from a parent of his/her own accord, whether due to abuse or other reasons, it is not parental alienation, as the other parent did not cause the alienation.

LONG HISTORY OF PATERNAL ALIENATION

Men have had the power to take and alienate children from mothers (as well as barter, use for labor, abuse, rape etc.) since patriarchy took hold thousands of years ago. Men have always recognized the power of the super-strong maternal bond, and patriarchal alliances gave them the power to use that bond as leverage to control and punish errant wives. For mothers, just the threat of loss of or harm to their children was enough to keep them in line.

On the other hand, women have never had the power to take or alienate children, nor would they have motive to do that to a good father. Women and children both benefit greatly from a kind, loving, contributing father in the family.

The problem for men as a class began when their power was truncated by women gaining the ability to divorce and a right to custody. Men then had to go through a legal process before being able to take, alienate or abuse their children.

This meant the Old Boy Network [OBN] needed to create legally acceptable pretexts for judges to use to maintain fathers’ age-old entitlement. After all, children-as-leverage was the most powerful arrow left in their quiver.

A psychiatric theory would be quite helpful indeed…

ENTER GARDNER: OLD BOY STOOGE

Enter Richard Gardner, pedophile apologist, the perfect Old Boy stooge to help cover up, and hence enable, sexual abuse by fathers. In short order, he conjured up the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome” [PAS], using the publicly understood and widely accepted concept of alienation, but adding “Syndrome” to make it sound scientific. The “S” has mostly been dropped.

Although his definition of parental alienation mirrors the dictionary definition of alienation, Gardner attached his own theory to the term. His theory defined PAS as a childhood disorder manifesting as a campaign of denigration against a parent resulting from the other parent’s indoctrinations.

The problem is that he expounds on this definition by theorizing that mothers coach or influence children to believe they have been abused in order to alienate them from the father.

Although he uses gender-neutral language in the definition, he elaborates on it in a decidedly gendered way, asserting:

In the vast majority of families it is the mother who is likely to be the primary programmer and the father the victim of the children’s campaign of denigration.

[Notice he uses the well-worn tactic of reversing perpetrator/victim roles, portraying mothers as perpetrators and fathers as victims.]

So, importantly: it is his theory he attached to the term Parental Alienation that is the problem, and Family Court using this bogus theory, not the term or concept of parental alienation itself. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, women need this term to help the public understand the more pervasive problem: judges are allowing fathers to alienate children from mothers.

A TWOFER

PAS was a twofer: it not only enabled judges to falsely accuse mothers of alienating children from fathers to facilitate switching custody, that switch enabled fathers to truly alienate children from mothers.

However, PAS was such an obviously bogus theory that judges and their lackeys eventually ditched it. They began using simply parental alienation, alienation, or iterations of alienation, such as: influencing, coaching, brainwashing, aligning, enmeshment, interfering with the father’s relationship, etc.

Scores of parasitic mental health professionals, including Gardner himself, began testifying in custody cases, using PAS/PA to defend fathers accused of abuse, switching blame to mothers. But that was all theater, just a huge charade. It didn’t really matter what the experts said because judges knew mothers weren’t reporting abuse to alienate children from fathers.

Judges, who are part of the Power Elite/OBN, have always known PAS/PA was just a pretext to keep men empowered in the family. This is made perfectly clear by the mountains of evidence of abuse by fathers they ignore and conceal in the process of switching custody to them.

Judges often order children into “reunification therapy” to supposedly cure them of the mother’s alienation, but in reality they use it for the opposite: to coerce children to recant abuse and accept living with the father, which often results in real alienation from the mother.

WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG

From the beginning, feminists were hip to the whole PAS/PA farce. They immediately recognized it for what it was: backlash against women’s newfound ability to file in a court of law to keep custody and protect children. They identified and fought it as a power issue: men’s power to take and abuse vs. women’s lack of power to keep and protect. There were local and national demonstrations, with feminists leading the charge.

But that was short-lived. Leaders were retaliated against in a backlash by the OBN and their public-facing abettors: the FRA’s [fathers’ rights activists]. Lawyers who spoke out and fought for mothers were ostracized, disbarred, and even jailed. They got the message loud and clear: Don’t mess with men’s power and entitlement in the family. They retreated.

In their place, Protective Parent Organizations [PPO’s] and Domestic Violence Organizations [DVO’s] sprouted up and adopted the safer, apolitical, gender-neutral position, identifying the core issue as abuse rather than power. Women were losing custody, they said, not due to systemic male entitlement and gender discrimination, but due to untrained judges, lack of research, and lack of appropriate laws. The OBN was fine with this, as it didn’t make a dent in judges’ ability to keep fathers empowered and entitled.

THE “ANTI-PA” OR “INVALID” BRANCH

These PPO’s/DVO’s, a main source of information for mothers, began the “anti-PA” or “invalid” branch of the PA rabbit hole. They identified the problem as PAS/PA not being scientific or “pseudo-science”. The idea being that if it does not have scientific validity, judges would not or could not use it to deprive parents of custody. But this is flawed reasoning.

It is true that Parental Alienation is not a scientific term but that is not the problem. Judges can use any parental behaviors that are bad for children in deciding custody. The prevailing doctrine is the “best interests of the child”. And it is undeniably not in a child’s best interest to be alienated from a parent as per the dictionary, and commonly used, definition.

The problem is not that alienation is unscientific. It is that judges are lying about mothers alienating their children. Whether PA is deemed unscientific has not and will not ever make any significant difference or stop judges from switching custody from loving mothers to abusive fathers.

Mothers in this branch have been persuaded to not utter the term parental alienation, or even alienation, as that would give it validity. But that has proven counterproductive and divisive.

THE “PRO-PA” OR “VALID” BRANCH

The other main branch in the PA rabbit hole is the “pro-PA” or “valid” branch. Mothers in this rabbit hole have been alienated from their children, many completely, so they want it to be considered valid and scientific.

This divide between mothers opened up an incredible opportunity for the OBN and their public-facing operatives, the Fathers’ Rights Activists [FRA’s], whose best weapon has always been “divide and conquer” to deter women from uniting and organizing as a class.

FRA’s proceeded to create and infiltrate parental alienation groups that welcomed these alienated mothers, who were being rejected by the “invalid” camp. But these groups are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Their platform is false and harmful to women. They say mothers frequently falsely accuse fathers of abuse, causing to them to be alienated. They also convince mothers that mandatory equal parenting laws will help them get custody back, which is not true; these laws are actually very harmful to women and children.

A prominent PA group serves as an example. “Erasing Fathers” is an FRA group in Argentina that spread around the world under the gender-neutral guise of “Erasing Family”. Lots of mothers have been drawn in by the catchy term “erasing” because erased is exactly how they feel. But, like the others, it is an FRA group in guise of a gender-neutral group.

TIME TO COME TOGETHER

In order for mothers in this rabbit hole to emerge and come together, it’s necessary to make some concessions.

MOTHERS IN BRANCH 1 (anti-PA/not valid)

It’s important to acknowledge that, although PA is not a scientific construct, some parents do alienate and it is harmful. Deeming PA unscientific will not help mothers keep custody or protect their children. It is a diversion and waste of time to continue on this path.

Instead of focusing on PA being deemed “pseudoscience” and getting it banned, it would be better to focus on the fact that judges are falsely accusing mothers of alienating in order to switch custody to fathers—and mothers (and children) are victims of this systemic discrimination.

And embrace women in Branch 2 who are suffering from having been alienated.

MOTHERS IN BRANCH 2: (pro-PA/valid)

It’s important for mothers in this branch to acknowledge that, although parental alienation has not been deemed scientific, it doesn’t need to be. Almost everyone understands parents can alienate children, that is harmful to the alienated parent, and is not in the child’s best interest.

Instead of focusing on trying to get PA deemed scientific or valid, it would be better to focus on the fact that judges are routinely permitting fathers to alienate children from mothers—and mothers are victims of this systemic discrimination.

And embrace mothers in Branch 1 who are suffering from having been falsely accused of alienating their children.

IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE

The term alienation can and should be used to mothers’ benefit. When raising awareness about the Custody Crisis, it’s important to use common language that the general public and the media readily understands. The public readily understands what alienation is, and there is no other word that describes this phenomenon in the English language.

MOTHERS IN BRANCH 1 have been encouraged to use alternative terms, such as DV by proxy or separation abuse, but these do not capture what alienation is nor how it is being misused in Family Court. Everyone understands what “alienation” is, so it is better to use that term in raising awareness about the crisis.

So instead of insisting that PA is unscientific, it’s better to say you are a victim of a Family Court judge, a mother falsely accused of parental alienation, and that is the epidemic. Keep it gendered.

MOTHERS IN BRANCH 2 have been encouraged to use terms like “targeted parent”, “favored parent” or “rejected parent” but these are gender-neutral, a bit confusing, not as readily understood by the public—and they are being used by FRA’s.

So instead of insisting PA is real and you are the targeted parent, it is better to say you are an alienated mother, a victim of a Family Court judge who enabled the father to alienate your children from you. Keep it gendered.

Instead of being diverted and divided by whether parental alienation is scientific or not, mothers can all come together and point out to family, friends, co-workers, and on social media that the real problem is not whether it is valid. It is that judges are falsely accusing mothers of alienating children, while allowing fathers to alienate.