Parental alienation and the unregulated experts shattering children’s lives(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Parental alienation and the unregulated experts shattering children’s lives
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/12/parental-alienation-and-the-unregulated-experts-shattering-childrens-lives
157 comments
(which I suppose is the rational thing to do)
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said but this. I understand why you said it. But for any mother, it is never rational to attack your children's father in front of your children. By doing that, you are attacking 50% of your own children. The more successful you are at getting them to hate their father, the more successful you'll be at getting them to hate half of themselves. The damage done to children from this is incalculable to the point that any parent that engages in it is a bad parent regardless of any other redeeming qualities they may have.
I'm sorry for what you went through and hope things have gotten better for you.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said but this. I understand why you said it. But for any mother, it is never rational to attack your children's father in front of your children. By doing that, you are attacking 50% of your own children. The more successful you are at getting them to hate their father, the more successful you'll be at getting them to hate half of themselves. The damage done to children from this is incalculable to the point that any parent that engages in it is a bad parent regardless of any other redeeming qualities they may have.
I'm sorry for what you went through and hope things have gotten better for you.
Thanks for your kind words. Things have gotten slightly better but only because of my personality of persistence. I’ve met with many fathers who didn’t have the same capacity for persistence as me and their situation is much worse.
I agree, it feels kinda gross to say it’s the rational thing to do but in my experience incentives always win and it seems like it’s difficult for some mothers to see their childrens father on the same level as them as a parent. It’s toxic but I think it’s much more common than people realize. And this is even when the parents are still together, once a separation is initiated, I think it’s natural for this feeling to grow.
I can see my childrens mom rationalize what she did very easily. She had to keep her babies safe etc… when your in the process of breaking up a family long term thinking is much harder, survival is the goal and I think for many moms the thought of losing access to their children part of the time is unbearable.
Of course that thought (and reality) is unbearable for me too but I don’t have the family court on my side because I’m a man, if I did, I’d probably make the decision to keep their their mom in their life but it would be a very difficult decision to say goodbye to my children half the time. It’s emotional torture which makes rationalizations very very enticing.
So yeah, I think long term you’re right, but in practice it’s really hard to be purely rational in the moment.
I agree, it feels kinda gross to say it’s the rational thing to do but in my experience incentives always win and it seems like it’s difficult for some mothers to see their childrens father on the same level as them as a parent. It’s toxic but I think it’s much more common than people realize. And this is even when the parents are still together, once a separation is initiated, I think it’s natural for this feeling to grow.
I can see my childrens mom rationalize what she did very easily. She had to keep her babies safe etc… when your in the process of breaking up a family long term thinking is much harder, survival is the goal and I think for many moms the thought of losing access to their children part of the time is unbearable.
Of course that thought (and reality) is unbearable for me too but I don’t have the family court on my side because I’m a man, if I did, I’d probably make the decision to keep their their mom in their life but it would be a very difficult decision to say goodbye to my children half the time. It’s emotional torture which makes rationalizations very very enticing.
So yeah, I think long term you’re right, but in practice it’s really hard to be purely rational in the moment.
It sounds like you’re supposed to sympathize with the mother in this article but you need to be careful, especially when a court system—- that is generally incredibly biased against the father— makes a ruling in his favor.
I can think of plenty of scenarios in what’s described where the mother is incredibly manipulative and plays the victim card as soon as there are consequences.
I can think of plenty of scenarios in what’s described where the mother is incredibly manipulative and plays the victim card as soon as there are consequences.
Yep, generally someone goes to the media in these situations, whether it be the mother or father, when they feel completely hard done by, when often, they've been told precisely what the issue is, and given time to resolve it, and just doubled down.
And of course, what they present to the media and what the truth is, are both two very different things. I am close friends with Mr A in this "article", which happened after his ex-wife was told by a judge to stop trying to alienate the children from their father.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/10/52651/sisters-stage-on...
All the patients complaints referenced were made by his ex-wife, none were upheld.
And even the way the reporter phrased things was amazing:
> When approached for comment regarding Mr A’s case, the authority’s media spokesman confirmed he could no longer work in New Zealand
It implies certain things, but in reality, he was no longer renewing his practising certificate in NZ (because he lived in Australia), but if he chose to, he could renew it any time he likes.
And of course, what they present to the media and what the truth is, are both two very different things. I am close friends with Mr A in this "article", which happened after his ex-wife was told by a judge to stop trying to alienate the children from their father.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/10/10/52651/sisters-stage-on...
All the patients complaints referenced were made by his ex-wife, none were upheld.
And even the way the reporter phrased things was amazing:
> When approached for comment regarding Mr A’s case, the authority’s media spokesman confirmed he could no longer work in New Zealand
It implies certain things, but in reality, he was no longer renewing his practising certificate in NZ (because he lived in Australia), but if he chose to, he could renew it any time he likes.
I simply do not buy it. This is UK, the most gynocentric society in the world. It is almost unheard of system would take children away from mother with force, and gave them to father.
Based on my experience from court battles, there is something not told.
》expert found her to have psychological issues
》Months later, she was allowed two hours of supervised contact once a fortnight.
Based on my experience from court battles, there is something not told.
》expert found her to have psychological issues
》Months later, she was allowed two hours of supervised contact once a fortnight.
It's inconceivable an article tackling these topics had examples that represented the norm, instead, it will have examples where the victim is what's generally perceived as the weakest side.
It's really hard to get a grasp of the situation with the initial example, we'd need to know how often these situations happen. So these examples elicit many feelings but don't provide a lot of information.
It's really hard to get a grasp of the situation with the initial example, we'd need to know how often these situations happen. So these examples elicit many feelings but don't provide a lot of information.
I'm sworn in as a California court appointed special advocate for children.
https://www.californiacasa.org/state-priorities
The primary goal is to keep children with their parents/parent wherever possible while speaking for the child in the court system to allow their voice to be herd. No matter how awful the family relationship they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else.
I'm also a British citizen and I find this Guardian article disturbing because it doesn't appear the authorities are putting the child's needs first.
https://www.californiacasa.org/state-priorities
The primary goal is to keep children with their parents/parent wherever possible while speaking for the child in the court system to allow their voice to be herd. No matter how awful the family relationship they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else.
I'm also a British citizen and I find this Guardian article disturbing because it doesn't appear the authorities are putting the child's needs first.
> No matter how awful the family relationship they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else.
When one reads stories like the New Yorker article on Mackenzie Fierceton (née Morrison) [1] or various accounts of physical abuse rendered in /r/asianparents, one is very skeptical of your assessment. Is a gilded cage an acceptable tradeoff for mistreatment and contempt? What's the point of keeping children in the company of people that think of them as little more than chattel? That can't be good for a child's self-esteem or development.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fier...
When one reads stories like the New Yorker article on Mackenzie Fierceton (née Morrison) [1] or various accounts of physical abuse rendered in /r/asianparents, one is very skeptical of your assessment. Is a gilded cage an acceptable tradeoff for mistreatment and contempt? What's the point of keeping children in the company of people that think of them as little more than chattel? That can't be good for a child's self-esteem or development.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fier...
The practice in England and Wales is summed up by the following (now rather famous) passage from Mr Justice Hedley in a 2007 case[0]:
> Basically it is the tradition of the United Kingdom, recognised in law, that children are best brought up within natural families. Lord Templeman, in Re: KD (a minor ward) (termination of access) [1988] 1 AC 806, at page 812 said this:
> > "The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature."
> There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but undoubtedly it represents the present state of the law in determining the starting point. It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, whilst others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.
(Emphasis mine). I'm not sure I like it, but I understand why this is where we are.
Of course, we haven't outlawed beating children in England yet, unlike Wales and Scotland, so there are still obvious improvements to be made...
[0]: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2006/2.html
> Basically it is the tradition of the United Kingdom, recognised in law, that children are best brought up within natural families. Lord Templeman, in Re: KD (a minor ward) (termination of access) [1988] 1 AC 806, at page 812 said this:
> > "The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public authorities cannot improve on nature."
> There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but undoubtedly it represents the present state of the law in determining the starting point. It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, whilst others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the State to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.
(Emphasis mine). I'm not sure I like it, but I understand why this is where we are.
Of course, we haven't outlawed beating children in England yet, unlike Wales and Scotland, so there are still obvious improvements to be made...
[0]: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2006/2.html
Yes. The line for state involvement interfering with the raising of children has to be somewhere well beyond "barely adequate".
Many things can be problems we all hope to be better that do not fit into the set of problems the state should be responsible for.
People seem to think and want more and more for the government to take the responsibility to fix things despite plenty of evidence that they really can't do so all that well. Beyond a certain threshold yes, but that threshold is not "if there's still a problem the government isn't doing enough".
Many things can be problems we all hope to be better that do not fit into the set of problems the state should be responsible for.
People seem to think and want more and more for the government to take the responsibility to fix things despite plenty of evidence that they really can't do so all that well. Beyond a certain threshold yes, but that threshold is not "if there's still a problem the government isn't doing enough".
There is a lot that government could be doing which would make family breakdown less likely and less traumatic: building enough social housing that local authorities are capable of discharging their homelessness duties, for example, or reopening the children's centres. So I certainly wouldn't want to sign on to the idea that our present state of child protection is fine. But corporate parenting is hard, and we're depressingly bad at it :-(
Destruction of the nuclear family is a “goal” of Marxism. They believe the only allegiance is to the state.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-b...
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-b...
I would be careful when i read about marxism from an american newspaper. YMMV.
Beating children is unreasonable chastisement and is outlawed.
>What's the point of keeping children in the company of people that think of them as little more than chattel? That can't be good for a child's self-esteem or development.
What has to be considered is the alternative, there is not an infinite supply of good places to send children to if their parents are terrible.
The foster system has quite a lot of negative outcomes, to put it generously. Not very many people want to adopt a half grown child with behavior problems from earlier mistreatment, it is not at all an easy thing to do.
A family court has the unenviable position of picking lesser evils when surrounded by manipulations while attracting incompetent zealots.
Everyone wants to be upset about the mistreatment of children, few good competent people able to support a difficult child actually want to take on that responsibility from someone else.
What has to be considered is the alternative, there is not an infinite supply of good places to send children to if their parents are terrible.
The foster system has quite a lot of negative outcomes, to put it generously. Not very many people want to adopt a half grown child with behavior problems from earlier mistreatment, it is not at all an easy thing to do.
A family court has the unenviable position of picking lesser evils when surrounded by manipulations while attracting incompetent zealots.
Everyone wants to be upset about the mistreatment of children, few good competent people able to support a difficult child actually want to take on that responsibility from someone else.
I’ve adopted and dealt with foster kids.
Almost anything is better the removing them. We adopted a teen from foster care. Every single person she knew that ended up in the system is either in jail. On hard drugs. In Abusive relationships. Or have kids already taken away. Or all of the above.
Being bounced around from home to home just destroyed their sense of belonging.
We had a brutal number of years of lost health l destroyed finances and everything else before she finally knew we loved her and wanted her. But I did get to finally walk her down the aisle and she is with a good man now.
Almost anything is better the removing them. We adopted a teen from foster care. Every single person she knew that ended up in the system is either in jail. On hard drugs. In Abusive relationships. Or have kids already taken away. Or all of the above.
Being bounced around from home to home just destroyed their sense of belonging.
We had a brutal number of years of lost health l destroyed finances and everything else before she finally knew we loved her and wanted her. But I did get to finally walk her down the aisle and she is with a good man now.
Thanks for sharing such a nice story.
I've put off starting a family until my mid 30s due to being abandoned by my mother as a child. Luckily, my dad did all he could to shower me with love and raise me well. It took a while for me to truly appreciate him (early 30s) and accept he will always be there.
When my time comes to be a dad, I hope to harness the patience and empathy of great parents like you and my dad.
I've put off starting a family until my mid 30s due to being abandoned by my mother as a child. Luckily, my dad did all he could to shower me with love and raise me well. It took a while for me to truly appreciate him (early 30s) and accept he will always be there.
When my time comes to be a dad, I hope to harness the patience and empathy of great parents like you and my dad.
> they still have a family which is ultimately more grounding and stable than anything else.
is it possible to improve "anything else"? that seems like the main problem
is it possible to improve "anything else"? that seems like the main problem
> it doesn't appear the authorities are putting the child's needs first.
No they don't. At best they're extremely risk averse to the point of taking a child away just to be safe, but it isn't what's in the child's best interests
No they don't. At best they're extremely risk averse to the point of taking a child away just to be safe, but it isn't what's in the child's best interests
> The primary goal is to keep children with their parents/parent wherever possible
It doesn't sound like children that are taken away in these cases end in the foster system, they are just taken to the other parent (who may be abusive).
It doesn't sound like children that are taken away in these cases end in the foster system, they are just taken to the other parent (who may be abusive).
CASA website is a bit misleading. We primarily look after the needs and well being of kids who are living with parent/s but are in danger of going into care (or are in and out of care). So pick up kid from home take for a day out every week (consistency v important) talk, look for injuries, concerns etc.
What about situations where one parent is a psychopath, sociopath, and/or narcissist who "seems" like the more stable one?
Also, if both parents seem to possess severe, codependent drama-attracting personality disorders, wouldn't the risks of foster care end up being lesser than horrible parents?
Finally, family court is rigged in non-rural California against the fathers in numerous ways. Community property division is one way, even if both parents make similar amounts. Statistically, mothers initiate divorce and alienate the kids from their dad by demonizing him. It's the most common pattern in divorce proceedings with children, but not the only pattern as there are infinitely many, no angel and no devil, only pain and travesty in one sort or another that isn't limited to being inflicted or suffered by only one party.
Also, if both parents seem to possess severe, codependent drama-attracting personality disorders, wouldn't the risks of foster care end up being lesser than horrible parents?
Finally, family court is rigged in non-rural California against the fathers in numerous ways. Community property division is one way, even if both parents make similar amounts. Statistically, mothers initiate divorce and alienate the kids from their dad by demonizing him. It's the most common pattern in divorce proceedings with children, but not the only pattern as there are infinitely many, no angel and no devil, only pain and travesty in one sort or another that isn't limited to being inflicted or suffered by only one party.
This article looks really uncritically at people who had their children taken away for abusing them, but in most of these cases it looks like these same people are trying to take their partner's children away from them. The article keeps calling this form of abuse "rare" but doesn't actually offer any evidence.
The picture of a mother losing custody of their children is always going to be an emotional picture to paint, but if you step back and focus on the well-being of the child, then you need to take this stuff into consideration.
The picture of a mother losing custody of their children is always going to be an emotional picture to paint, but if you step back and focus on the well-being of the child, then you need to take this stuff into consideration.
The article also has an example of the reverse situation, where the kid wanted to live with the father and the mother claimed it was parental alienation.
The point of the article is that courts are (sometimes) ignoring childrens' testimony and instead siding with unqualified experts who have a financial incentive to remove children from their preferred parent.
The point of the article is that courts are (sometimes) ignoring childrens' testimony and instead siding with unqualified experts who have a financial incentive to remove children from their preferred parent.
Children are malleable and relying on their testimony encourages parents to manipulate them. Placing the children with the most manipulative parent isn't in their best interest.
There are so, so many cases of children testifying against a parent while living under the care of another, then recanting years later as adults.
I don't have a good answer here because I think often the experts are unqualified and give bad advice, but it's important to acknowledge the depth of the problem
There are so, so many cases of children testifying against a parent while living under the care of another, then recanting years later as adults.
I don't have a good answer here because I think often the experts are unqualified and give bad advice, but it's important to acknowledge the depth of the problem
They are also usually really bad at lying. When questioned by actual experts they certainly make for more reliable witnesses than their parents.
Provided always that the actual experts are actually experts and do not have an axe to grind. The McMartin day care case shows what can happen.
Yes, I'm not trying to say it's one-sided in that regard but the author is very careful in the picture they paint in the opening.
The issue is sometimes (maybe often) the children's testimony is in fact tainted and should be ignored. Here in the US there's actually a surprising number of high-profile historical cases that involve children being manipulated into false testimony, see for instance the McMartin preschool trial.
The issue is sometimes (maybe often) the children's testimony is in fact tainted and should be ignored. Here in the US there's actually a surprising number of high-profile historical cases that involve children being manipulated into false testimony, see for instance the McMartin preschool trial.
[deleted]
[deleted]
My experience here is that courts have no way to decipher truth from fiction, and make ruling based on who spends more money and who lies better.
Legal processes -- with lawyers -- inflame conflict and turn things adversarial.
We need clear, simple, consistent rules. We also need social workers instead of lawyers.
Legal processes -- with lawyers -- inflame conflict and turn things adversarial.
We need clear, simple, consistent rules. We also need social workers instead of lawyers.
There is such a thing as a consultative attorney, who will inform you of your rights in a divorce. Unfortunately, they are extremely hard to find because lawyers are incentivized to inflame conflict.
Once both sides know their rights, mediation is the preferred solution for both pre and post divorce concerns.
Note that some courts (CA, for example), have mandatory "mediation," which is not really mediation. True mediation is voluntary and confidential.
The costs of mediation for divorce average around 1/10th the cost of an adversarial divorce with attorneys. Of course, the real costs of an adversarial divorce are the massive detrimental effects on the children.
Once both sides know their rights, mediation is the preferred solution for both pre and post divorce concerns.
Note that some courts (CA, for example), have mandatory "mediation," which is not really mediation. True mediation is voluntary and confidential.
The costs of mediation for divorce average around 1/10th the cost of an adversarial divorce with attorneys. Of course, the real costs of an adversarial divorce are the massive detrimental effects on the children.
The problem is that it takes both sides to want to do that.
Social workers aren't any better though. Ultimately the whole system is a mess.
Tragic article on many levels. When hatred between parents is involved, the courts must decide who is telling the truth about abuse. In my family growing up my parents, both deceased now for some years, absolutely hated each other. My sisters and I were mini recorders of the abuse and would have gladly reported to any who would have listened. Unfortunately, the divorce didn't occur until after my younger sister was mentally damaged from all the chaos. This occurred during the late 60's and I'm leaving out most of the details, I'm just saying I think it would perhaps be better to ask the children who they would like to live with.
I'm going to take the story presented here with a giant pinch of salt. I imagine that the UK has the biased against the father court system of most western countries. Having seen it up front, bearing character witnesses in two cases I can tell you that it's the exception that the father is granted custody. I've only seen it with situation where the mother is clearly not able to take care of herself or the children due to severe mental health issues.
jinxor(1)
Highly recommend ‘the marriage story’
The industries that grow around the incredibly emotional (and lucrative) topic of divorce are vast.
The industries that grow around the incredibly emotional (and lucrative) topic of divorce are vast.
And when watching it, realize that this movie that is meant to depict a “difficult divorce”, is basically average, and much much worse happens frequently.
I really empathise with the mother in this situation, it really does sound awful.
I’m currently going through something similar, but on the opposite side of the fence. The courts have generally found in my favor because I’ve kept meticulous evidence of my wife’s abuse and how she involved the children. If it weren’t for this system, my life would be destroyed.
What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
The experience has made me truly believe something is fundamentally broken in our society with how we raise children. It takes a village, yet the western world runs on a two parent system that inherently creates conflict when it comes to career opportunity and so much more. It can’t be a coincidence that the divorce rate is so high.
I’m currently going through something similar, but on the opposite side of the fence. The courts have generally found in my favor because I’ve kept meticulous evidence of my wife’s abuse and how she involved the children. If it weren’t for this system, my life would be destroyed.
What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
The experience has made me truly believe something is fundamentally broken in our society with how we raise children. It takes a village, yet the western world runs on a two parent system that inherently creates conflict when it comes to career opportunity and so much more. It can’t be a coincidence that the divorce rate is so high.
> What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
There was a man who had to take his dead wife's urn into school because they repeatedly insisted on talking to "the child's mother".
My kid's medical records are literally attached to my wife's medical records - I have to login with her username and password to view after visit summaries etc.
In effect, child related institutions like schools and family doctors systematically treat fathers as second class parents.
And then family courts look at things like involvement with schools and doctors to decide who gets custody - as if those institutions weren't biased against fathers in the first place!
We should have laws to (1) prevent discrimination against fathers by all these institutions (2) order courts to take into account that discrimination when determining custody to avoid perpetuating the existing bias.
(And if you agree these should be laws - please call your legislators and tell them! Nothing will change if people don't tell their elected representatives how they feel about these issues.)
There was a man who had to take his dead wife's urn into school because they repeatedly insisted on talking to "the child's mother".
My kid's medical records are literally attached to my wife's medical records - I have to login with her username and password to view after visit summaries etc.
In effect, child related institutions like schools and family doctors systematically treat fathers as second class parents.
And then family courts look at things like involvement with schools and doctors to decide who gets custody - as if those institutions weren't biased against fathers in the first place!
We should have laws to (1) prevent discrimination against fathers by all these institutions (2) order courts to take into account that discrimination when determining custody to avoid perpetuating the existing bias.
(And if you agree these should be laws - please call your legislators and tell them! Nothing will change if people don't tell their elected representatives how they feel about these issues.)
"My kid's medical records are literally attached to my wife's medical records - I have to login with her username and password to view after visit summaries etc"
Some of these decisions are in the hands of software teams. Ask out loud in a team meeting about supporting other family structures: single parents, orphans, same-sex couples, grandparent-as-guardians, etc. "The MVP works for most of our users" isn't good enough.
It's likely that the generalized solution is overall simpler too even if you won't get to use an easy label like "mother" on the form.
Some of these decisions are in the hands of software teams. Ask out loud in a team meeting about supporting other family structures: single parents, orphans, same-sex couples, grandparent-as-guardians, etc. "The MVP works for most of our users" isn't good enough.
It's likely that the generalized solution is overall simpler too even if you won't get to use an easy label like "mother" on the form.
>I’m currently going through something similar, but on the opposite side of the fence. The courts have generally found in my favor because I’ve kept meticulous evidence of my wife’s abuse and how she involved the children. If it weren’t for this system, my life would be destroyed.
>What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
A lot could be done to fix the root problem by educating young people on the nature of abusive relationships, and what the signs and red flags they should look out for are, so we don't end up with so many people in such situations. Imagine if the government treated it like an anti-smoking campaign, showing scenes of people tolerating and excusing a bit of bad behaviour from a new partner, then cutting to a few years in future when they're a nervous wreck and their partner is doing all kinds of horrible things to them.
Arguably it's one of the most important things in life, knowing how to avoid abusive relationships, but there's absolutely zero education on it. In some cases the entertainment media even (inadvertently?) tries to normalise such abusive behaviours.
>What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
A lot could be done to fix the root problem by educating young people on the nature of abusive relationships, and what the signs and red flags they should look out for are, so we don't end up with so many people in such situations. Imagine if the government treated it like an anti-smoking campaign, showing scenes of people tolerating and excusing a bit of bad behaviour from a new partner, then cutting to a few years in future when they're a nervous wreck and their partner is doing all kinds of horrible things to them.
Arguably it's one of the most important things in life, knowing how to avoid abusive relationships, but there's absolutely zero education on it. In some cases the entertainment media even (inadvertently?) tries to normalise such abusive behaviours.
> Imagine if the government treated it like an anti-smoking campaign
Smoking is binary: you know if you are smoking or not, and other's do too. An 'abusive relationship' is not binary, and is laden with evaluative meaning, subjective, contextual, differing from culture to culture.
Perhaps most importantly such terms are subject to concept creep due to prevalence changes in society. This is not something people put much consideration in to, but the trade-off in educating people (a good thing) is the slow pathologising of every aspect of healthy human relationships. Which, incidentally, is what this article is about.
Smoking is binary: you know if you are smoking or not, and other's do too. An 'abusive relationship' is not binary, and is laden with evaluative meaning, subjective, contextual, differing from culture to culture.
Perhaps most importantly such terms are subject to concept creep due to prevalence changes in society. This is not something people put much consideration in to, but the trade-off in educating people (a good thing) is the slow pathologising of every aspect of healthy human relationships. Which, incidentally, is what this article is about.
There's definitely room for improvement in a lot of human relationships.
There's almost no boundaries to what can be part of healthy relationships as long as ther is information consent.
But mixing up the two is not, um, healthy for society.
There's almost no boundaries to what can be part of healthy relationships as long as ther is information consent.
But mixing up the two is not, um, healthy for society.
It takes a village, yet the western world runs on a two parent system that inherently creates conflict...
This isn't the only drawback of capitalism as we practice it. While it might not have featured much modern comfort, the traditional village also wasn't relentlessly commercial, relentlessly measured. There was some space for humans to live as they would, without accounting for every square inch of real estate and minute of life. (i.e., a child who wanted to stay somewhere else in the village than her parent's hut for a few weeks simply would have done that) Over time, these slack areas have been eliminated. Everything must be legible to the bean counters. What isn't, is made a crime against shareholders or taxpayers or security or democracy or property values or whatever. Of course, slack areas are the only source of resilience humans have. We just don't allow ourselves to think of that. "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
Some will dismiss this as theorizing about conspiracies. The whole "conspiracy theory" meme is a distraction. Quasi-rational actors don't require coordination to respond identically to identical incentives. In general, that's how society has functioned, for millennia. The capitalist "innovation" is to tie more and more individual incentives to the preferences of capital. Capital cannot tolerate a village.
This isn't the only drawback of capitalism as we practice it. While it might not have featured much modern comfort, the traditional village also wasn't relentlessly commercial, relentlessly measured. There was some space for humans to live as they would, without accounting for every square inch of real estate and minute of life. (i.e., a child who wanted to stay somewhere else in the village than her parent's hut for a few weeks simply would have done that) Over time, these slack areas have been eliminated. Everything must be legible to the bean counters. What isn't, is made a crime against shareholders or taxpayers or security or democracy or property values or whatever. Of course, slack areas are the only source of resilience humans have. We just don't allow ourselves to think of that. "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
Some will dismiss this as theorizing about conspiracies. The whole "conspiracy theory" meme is a distraction. Quasi-rational actors don't require coordination to respond identically to identical incentives. In general, that's how society has functioned, for millennia. The capitalist "innovation" is to tie more and more individual incentives to the preferences of capital. Capital cannot tolerate a village.
Please don't idealize the mythical village. Too many people do, because they are distant enough (in time and space) that they view premodern life as some sort of Golden Age paradise.
My grandmother (1926-2016) grew up in a remote eastern Slovak village well before it acquired electricity and other perks of modern life. You cannot get much more traditional than that.
Wealth and poverty still played a role, it does everywhere. The village wasn't "relentlessly measured", but it was relentlessly judgmental and hierarchical. You couldn't do shit if the most powerful people mistreated you. And you carried an unshakeable burden of your ancestry with you. If your mother was considered a "witch" (seriously) or a "slut", your place on the village pecking order was somewhere down below.
Plenty of people escaped traditional villages to get rid of this burden. Urban anonymity has some positives. Capitalism can be cruel, but at least it is not utterly rigid. Often, you can make money somehow - perhaps not millions, but enough not to be a pauper. But in a traditional, closed village, you could never shake off the stigma of a "slut's daughter" etc. If you didn't want be disdained forever, you had to move out, end of story.
My grandmother (1926-2016) grew up in a remote eastern Slovak village well before it acquired electricity and other perks of modern life. You cannot get much more traditional than that.
Wealth and poverty still played a role, it does everywhere. The village wasn't "relentlessly measured", but it was relentlessly judgmental and hierarchical. You couldn't do shit if the most powerful people mistreated you. And you carried an unshakeable burden of your ancestry with you. If your mother was considered a "witch" (seriously) or a "slut", your place on the village pecking order was somewhere down below.
Plenty of people escaped traditional villages to get rid of this burden. Urban anonymity has some positives. Capitalism can be cruel, but at least it is not utterly rigid. Often, you can make money somehow - perhaps not millions, but enough not to be a pauper. But in a traditional, closed village, you could never shake off the stigma of a "slut's daughter" etc. If you didn't want be disdained forever, you had to move out, end of story.
[deleted]
>In particular, there has been growing anxiety about the potential conflict of interest presented where an expert could be financially incentivised to make a finding of PA in a system that allows them to recommend their own therapy or that of colleagues.
> An expert report can cost as much as £10,000, but the costs of therapeutic interventions can run into tens of thousands of pounds.
> The options for a parent who believes they have been wrongly accused of alienation are limited and costly. “There is no way of getting your children back unless you admit you have alienated them,” said Waxman. “Not wanting to do the therapy is seen as resisting.”
This honestly seems like a Kafka-esque nightmare driven by greed.
Parent: "My ex hit me."
Psychologist: "Lol, that's parental alienation, you need to give me monies, it's 'for the children'."
Parent: "No, I was actually hurt by this person."
Psychologist: "You're clearly in denial, courts, take the kids away until this person pays up."
> An expert report can cost as much as £10,000, but the costs of therapeutic interventions can run into tens of thousands of pounds.
> The options for a parent who believes they have been wrongly accused of alienation are limited and costly. “There is no way of getting your children back unless you admit you have alienated them,” said Waxman. “Not wanting to do the therapy is seen as resisting.”
This honestly seems like a Kafka-esque nightmare driven by greed.
Parent: "My ex hit me."
Psychologist: "Lol, that's parental alienation, you need to give me monies, it's 'for the children'."
Parent: "No, I was actually hurt by this person."
Psychologist: "You're clearly in denial, courts, take the kids away until this person pays up."
After 2 years of therapy I'm convinced that psychologist are the sarcedotal class of our time. Like astrology in Imperial China, psychology serves as the science for ad hoc justification.
> After 2 years of therapy I'm convinced that psychologist are the sarcedotal class of our time. Like astrology in Imperial China [...]
I know a few people who benefited from therapy; some very much.
If you think your therapist is the equivalent of an astrologist, you should try another one; it's not unusual.
I know a few people who benefited from therapy; some very much.
If you think your therapist is the equivalent of an astrologist, you should try another one; it's not unusual.
> you should try another one;
If you try enough astrologers, fortune tellers or priests, you'll probably find one with the necessary life experience and empathy to earnestly benefit you. Their stated methods differ, but I think all these people are basically in the same line of work and, insofar as any of them are capable of helping others, they're all doing basically the same thing. They ask questions and have people talk about their problems, evaluate what they hear, and offer advice based on what you've said and their professional and personal experience.
And all of them should be thrown out of court rooms. Expert testimony from fortune tellers and psychologists is trash as far as I'm concerned. Rolling for a new psychologist to help yourself get better is fine and dandy, but in an adversarial courtroom environment this whole thing breaks down. When your ex-spouse brings a psychologist to court to testify against you, you don't get to "try another" until you get good results. All you can really do is hire one of your own to throw shit back in the other direction. It's farcical.
If you try enough astrologers, fortune tellers or priests, you'll probably find one with the necessary life experience and empathy to earnestly benefit you. Their stated methods differ, but I think all these people are basically in the same line of work and, insofar as any of them are capable of helping others, they're all doing basically the same thing. They ask questions and have people talk about their problems, evaluate what they hear, and offer advice based on what you've said and their professional and personal experience.
And all of them should be thrown out of court rooms. Expert testimony from fortune tellers and psychologists is trash as far as I'm concerned. Rolling for a new psychologist to help yourself get better is fine and dandy, but in an adversarial courtroom environment this whole thing breaks down. When your ex-spouse brings a psychologist to court to testify against you, you don't get to "try another" until you get good results. All you can really do is hire one of your own to throw shit back in the other direction. It's farcical.
> If you try enough astrologers, fortune tellers or priests, you'll probably find one with the necessary life experience and empathy to earnestly benefit you.
You cannot be serious with this comparison. Changing therapists once or twice because different types of therapy work on different people and because you need to be comfortable around yoir therapist is in no way comparable to people dialing the TV astrologer every morning until the nonsense they literally make up on the spot happens to be what they meeded to hear by pure chance.
Psychology might not be as rigorous of a science as physics or whatever, but it still follows the scientific method and therapy is primarily evidence-based. Would you also be so quick to compare a doctor trying multiple different antibiotics on a patient dying from an infection to repeatedly throwing a dart into a pharmacy and trying whatever it hits?
You cannot be serious with this comparison. Changing therapists once or twice because different types of therapy work on different people and because you need to be comfortable around yoir therapist is in no way comparable to people dialing the TV astrologer every morning until the nonsense they literally make up on the spot happens to be what they meeded to hear by pure chance.
Psychology might not be as rigorous of a science as physics or whatever, but it still follows the scientific method and therapy is primarily evidence-based. Would you also be so quick to compare a doctor trying multiple different antibiotics on a patient dying from an infection to repeatedly throwing a dart into a pharmacy and trying whatever it hits?
I am 100% serious. I don't pretend to have data on how many priests or psychologists the average person has to try before they find one that works for them, but from my personal experience I believe it's somewhere in the same ballpark. People in this thread are talking about going to three or four psychologists before finding one that worked for them. Well my brother went to half a dozen psychologists, none of them helped him. He went to three or four priests and one of them has helped him a lot.
(Also a newspaper or TV astrologer who talks at people using mass media is not doing the same sort of thing at all. I'm talking about astrologers who do one-on-one consultations, as priests and psychologists offer. And just to be clear, I have no religion and I don't believe in astrology.)
(Also a newspaper or TV astrologer who talks at people using mass media is not doing the same sort of thing at all. I'm talking about astrologers who do one-on-one consultations, as priests and psychologists offer. And just to be clear, I have no religion and I don't believe in astrology.)
One of the most important concepts is that therapy is not car repairs, for a few reasons, primarily active participation and trust.
If one complains over the internet that therapy works like astrology, instead of actually talking to their therapist about this topic, then therapy is for them a waste of money, as it's clear that they have no participation and trust. Changing therapist - like I suggested - misses entirely the point, now I see.
Complaining that patient X went to therapy and didn't work and therefore therapy doesn't work is like complaining that a computer science degree is useless because developer X doesn't find a good job.
People is complex and treatment is complex as well. It's perfectly possible that even an unqualified person (e.g. the so-called "coaches") can improve a case, that qualified people didn't, for legitimate reasons. I actually do know at least one unqualified person who practices therapy, and I think they're able to help some cases, but that doesn't detract from qualified therapists.
On the other hand, there is a structure to human mind, and people who systematically studied it for years have tools that unqualified people generally don't have. One may not subscribe, say, to Freudian theories, but the relation with the parents is extremely relevant to one's development, and without knowledge and tools, the practicioner will likely stumble.
If one complains over the internet that therapy works like astrology, instead of actually talking to their therapist about this topic, then therapy is for them a waste of money, as it's clear that they have no participation and trust. Changing therapist - like I suggested - misses entirely the point, now I see.
Complaining that patient X went to therapy and didn't work and therefore therapy doesn't work is like complaining that a computer science degree is useless because developer X doesn't find a good job.
People is complex and treatment is complex as well. It's perfectly possible that even an unqualified person (e.g. the so-called "coaches") can improve a case, that qualified people didn't, for legitimate reasons. I actually do know at least one unqualified person who practices therapy, and I think they're able to help some cases, but that doesn't detract from qualified therapists.
On the other hand, there is a structure to human mind, and people who systematically studied it for years have tools that unqualified people generally don't have. One may not subscribe, say, to Freudian theories, but the relation with the parents is extremely relevant to one's development, and without knowledge and tools, the practicioner will likely stumble.
sac·er·do·tal
/ˌsasərˈdōdl,ˌsakərˈdōdl/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
relating to priests or the priesthood; priestly.
THEOLOGY
relating to or denoting a doctrine which ascribes sacrificial functions and spiritual or supernatural powers to ordained priests.
Yes, I can read the dictionary, thank you. Nevertheless, I will respond to your implied objection instead of whatever you wrote.
1. Check the definition of an analogy (this is the case where the dictionary is actually useful), maybe it will make clear why what I wrote was not meant as a perfect depiction of reality;
2. Psychology has not really a good track as a science: between replication crisis, statistical illiteracy of the researchers, ideologically motivated reasoning and outright fraud it is not clear to me that believing in Psychology is any different that believing in Theology: they are both self-consistent systems that fail to make prediction on the physical world and, while intellectually interesting and provocative, I would not like that anyone makes decisions about society and my life using concepts from these disciplines.
P.S.: Actually, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reflect much more about the similarity between these two seemingly different disciplines.
1. Check the definition of an analogy (this is the case where the dictionary is actually useful), maybe it will make clear why what I wrote was not meant as a perfect depiction of reality;
2. Psychology has not really a good track as a science: between replication crisis, statistical illiteracy of the researchers, ideologically motivated reasoning and outright fraud it is not clear to me that believing in Psychology is any different that believing in Theology: they are both self-consistent systems that fail to make prediction on the physical world and, while intellectually interesting and provocative, I would not like that anyone makes decisions about society and my life using concepts from these disciplines.
P.S.: Actually, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reflect much more about the similarity between these two seemingly different disciplines.
I believe flybrand had to look up the word and then just wanted to save time for other folks (like me) who might also have needed to do so :)
I interpreted the capitalization of 'THEOLOGY' as an alarmed objection to the comparison.
The “learn to pronounce” made it seem pretty clear this was just copypasta, without any effort put into editing. The caps presumably just came from the dictionary’s styling. In this case indicating a more specific meaning in a particular field (theology).
Like glaugh, I appreciated the definition of a new-to-me word appearing inline :)
Like glaugh, I appreciated the definition of a new-to-me word appearing inline :)
Yes, I was just trying to pass on something helpful based on my own ignorance.
Understandable. Actually if you Google the word theology is in all caps in the definition so the intention of the comment is unclear.
Yes, that was exactly it. I didn’t know the word and figured others might not.
[deleted]
> implied objection
It is a cut-copy-paste definition of a rarely used word.
It is a cut-copy-paste definition of a rarely used word.
Interesting, I would say the same about the Diversity, Inclusion and Equity "professionals".
It took me 4 attempts to find a therapist who is actually helpful for me. It’s a hard job.
When you look at the history or psychology it's not great. Look no further than Hemingway
The problem is that it does happen. People do make up DV stories to gain leverage in divorces and children are easy to manipulate. In short, the opposite is equally Kafkaesque and there's little way of reliably determining the truth
I'm a long time reader but I decided to bite at this comment. This isn't going to be a well received comment but here it goes. My partner was going to do the whole parental alimentation at the end of the relationship, multiple DVO and restraining orders but she was a gasped at what I did. I just packed my bags and move in and started a new family with a new partner. You have to accept that once a relationship has broken down, there are no rules or obligations that either of you need to follow. Yes, it sucks for the kids but if it really was for the kids then there would be a incentive to work-out the dichotomy. The problem is now theirs to pick up the pieces like yourself and live the rest of your life, I owe nothing to them and vis versa.
I did recently bump into her new partner during the stroll with my new family which he confided that she was going to do everything in her power to destroy me financially and emotionally but didn't think I would do what I did.
I did recently bump into her new partner during the stroll with my new family which he confided that she was going to do everything in her power to destroy me financially and emotionally but didn't think I would do what I did.
> I just packed my bags and move in and started a new family with a new partner.
Given how biased the current system is I think this is a reasonable default choice. If the ex is throwing crazy accusations and the courts continue to reward liars, this is probably the only way to avoid spending yourself into bankruptcy trying to stay in your kids’ lives.
It’s definitely not good for the kids at all, but it’s also not good for them to have the whole family’s assets spent on attorneys, and to risk the father being accused of so much stuff that he ends up in jail during all the gamesmanship.
When they’re older hopefully you’d be able to reconnect and explain what happened.
Given how biased the current system is I think this is a reasonable default choice. If the ex is throwing crazy accusations and the courts continue to reward liars, this is probably the only way to avoid spending yourself into bankruptcy trying to stay in your kids’ lives.
It’s definitely not good for the kids at all, but it’s also not good for them to have the whole family’s assets spent on attorneys, and to risk the father being accused of so much stuff that he ends up in jail during all the gamesmanship.
When they’re older hopefully you’d be able to reconnect and explain what happened.
> I did recently bump into her new partner during the stroll with my new family which he confided that she was going to do everything in her power to destroy me financially and emotionally
Brave man, to know that and still get involved with her..
Brave man, to know that and still get involved with her..
> parental alimentation
I think this is when you eat your children.
I think this is when you eat your children.
Just making sure i haven't misunderstood- you've effectively choosen to disappear from your kids lives?
> Just making sure i haven't misunderstood- you've effectively choosen to disappear from your kids lives?
Yes, until such time they want to reach out and meet their Dad if they don't then hope they're aren't hungry.
@em-bee
The restraining and the DVO orders effectively abated then expired after two years. During such time the partner found out about the new family and sought to enforce new orders they're (intimation, rape, child abuse) orders, and stalking orders). They didn't even make it to the judge as they where lodged during effectively all the other orders and the technicality that I was in another country at the time.
Yes, until such time they want to reach out and meet their Dad if they don't then hope they're aren't hungry.
@em-bee
The restraining and the DVO orders effectively abated then expired after two years. During such time the partner found out about the new family and sought to enforce new orders they're (intimation, rape, child abuse) orders, and stalking orders). They didn't even make it to the judge as they where lodged during effectively all the other orders and the technicality that I was in another country at the time.
with restraining orders he probably had no choice. at that point the only way to for the kids to see him would be court-ordered visitation rights.
a gasped -> aghast?
My understanding is that shady accusations of abuse (spousal or child) are totally routine in divorce/custody cases. Lawyers won't explicitly recommend making something up out of whole cloth, which would be subornation of perjury, but they often fish really hard for anything that might be construed that way. The implication that "such an accusation would greatly strengthen your position" is hard to miss and often acted upon. Parental alienation seems like just the other side of the same coin.
> Parental alienation seems like just the other side of the same coin.
Except that accusations of parental alienation are still relatively rare, and often frowned upon by the court. False DV claims are routine. The scale of one is much greater than the other. But because one is sometimes used by fathers that one is getting cracked down on in articles, even when it’s maybe 1% of the problem. Where’s the mainstream articles about the epidemic of false DV accusations during divorce?
Except that accusations of parental alienation are still relatively rare, and often frowned upon by the court. False DV claims are routine. The scale of one is much greater than the other. But because one is sometimes used by fathers that one is getting cracked down on in articles, even when it’s maybe 1% of the problem. Where’s the mainstream articles about the epidemic of false DV accusations during divorce?
What about:
Parent: "Your mother hit me. She wants to take you away from me and hurt both of us."
Child: "Mommy is bad?"
Parent: "She doesn't want us to be happy, she doesn't want to do what's right, she just wants to win."
Psychologist: "Please stop sabotaging your child's relationship with her mother."
Parent: "But she did hit me, and she's unreasonable. She won't be happy until she takes everything away from us."
Psychologist: "Yes, that's another example of a thing you shouldn't say to your daughter until she is a lot older, even if it is true. True does not mean helpful."
Parent: "Your mother hit me. She wants to take you away from me and hurt both of us."
Child: "Mommy is bad?"
Parent: "She doesn't want us to be happy, she doesn't want to do what's right, she just wants to win."
Psychologist: "Please stop sabotaging your child's relationship with her mother."
Parent: "But she did hit me, and she's unreasonable. She won't be happy until she takes everything away from us."
Psychologist: "Yes, that's another example of a thing you shouldn't say to your daughter until she is a lot older, even if it is true. True does not mean helpful."
The psychologist producing the report (a custody evaluation) is not the same person or organization providing therapy. I'm not sure, but I got the impression there are ethical rules against it.
> but the costs of therapeutic interventions can run into tens of thousands of pounds.
More like hundreds of thousands. Courts have no limit on what they can order and they often order expensive, private therapeutic schools. In my case, I estimate about $150k per year in therapeutic expenses has been ordered by the family court presiding over my case. Mostly in the form of a few private schools. I'm in support of almost all of it, fwiw.
> Parent: "No, I was actually hurt by this person."
There's nothing wrong with talking about being hurt by your spouse to other adults (though- family courts may order that you can't!). The problem here is talking about it with your children in an inappropriate fashion, such that it damages their parental relationships.
Doubly so when the events never occurred, or when the parent accusing is actually the parent doing the abusing.
> but the costs of therapeutic interventions can run into tens of thousands of pounds.
More like hundreds of thousands. Courts have no limit on what they can order and they often order expensive, private therapeutic schools. In my case, I estimate about $150k per year in therapeutic expenses has been ordered by the family court presiding over my case. Mostly in the form of a few private schools. I'm in support of almost all of it, fwiw.
> Parent: "No, I was actually hurt by this person."
There's nothing wrong with talking about being hurt by your spouse to other adults (though- family courts may order that you can't!). The problem here is talking about it with your children in an inappropriate fashion, such that it damages their parental relationships.
Doubly so when the events never occurred, or when the parent accusing is actually the parent doing the abusing.
> In my case, I estimate about $150k per year in therapeutic expenses has been ordered by the family court presiding over my case.
That sounds pointless. If they want me to pay 1.5x my yearly salary just to see my kids I might as well… I don’t quite know, but something excessive.
That sounds pointless. If they want me to pay 1.5x my yearly salary just to see my kids I might as well… I don’t quite know, but something excessive.
From the article:
> there has been growing anxiety about the potential conflict of interest presented where an expert could be financially incentivised to make a finding of PA in a system that allows them to recommend their own therapy or that of colleagues.
> there has been growing anxiety about the potential conflict of interest presented where an expert could be financially incentivised to make a finding of PA in a system that allows them to recommend their own therapy or that of colleagues.
It's just like the Salem trials "confess you are a witch, else it's proof you are a witch since a witch would deny being such".
[deleted]
From the article: "The concept stems from the theory of 'parental alienation syndrome' coined in the 1980s by US child psychiatrist Richard Gardner. The 'syndrome' went on to be largely rejected."
Psychology is not a science and we need to stop treating it like one. So much harm has been done by people giving credibility to faddish psychological theories. For example: https://psmag.com/social-justice/dangerous-idea-mental-healt...; https://lithub.com/moral-panic-and-the-myth-of-recovered-mem....
It's not just "a few bad apples," either. These things keep happening because the field isn't rigorous, and can't feasibly be made rigorous.
Psychology is not a science and we need to stop treating it like one. So much harm has been done by people giving credibility to faddish psychological theories. For example: https://psmag.com/social-justice/dangerous-idea-mental-healt...; https://lithub.com/moral-panic-and-the-myth-of-recovered-mem....
It's not just "a few bad apples," either. These things keep happening because the field isn't rigorous, and can't feasibly be made rigorous.
There are clinical means for evaluating a parent for manipulation & personality disorders, but they are time consuming and therefore expensive; and the expense does not end with the evaluation, the deposition and testimony that inevitably follows is prohibitively expensive; and you can double the cost if your former spouse retains their expert(s).
To the extent there is a strategy for legitimately addressing this, its patiently documenting over an extended period time. Logging things like significant decline in social life, significant negative change in grades, significant comments from teachers, significant negative changes in behavior. While documenting this you have to be squeaky clean, refraining from disparaging the other parent and engaging in your behaviors that may muddy the waters.
More often than not, one or several of your kids will show signs something isn't right to an extent that a 3rd party (Guardian, the Court, etc) or even your former spouse can't deny it. At that point, for many people, the system gives way to change. For some people justice for the child is never done and the family and society often pays a terrible price in those cases. Can't recommend this book enough if this topic hits close to home for anyone: https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Boy-Crisis-Audiobook
To the extent there is a strategy for legitimately addressing this, its patiently documenting over an extended period time. Logging things like significant decline in social life, significant negative change in grades, significant comments from teachers, significant negative changes in behavior. While documenting this you have to be squeaky clean, refraining from disparaging the other parent and engaging in your behaviors that may muddy the waters.
More often than not, one or several of your kids will show signs something isn't right to an extent that a 3rd party (Guardian, the Court, etc) or even your former spouse can't deny it. At that point, for many people, the system gives way to change. For some people justice for the child is never done and the family and society often pays a terrible price in those cases. Can't recommend this book enough if this topic hits close to home for anyone: https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Boy-Crisis-Audiobook
> There are clinical means for evaluating a parent for manipulation & personality disorders
The fact that its clinical doesn't make it rigorous. Psychological disorders in general are not even defined in a rigorous way, and even the expensive diagnostic methods are qualitative and not rigorous.
The fact that its clinical doesn't make it rigorous. Psychological disorders in general are not even defined in a rigorous way, and even the expensive diagnostic methods are qualitative and not rigorous.
The silly part of this is referring to it as a "syndrome" like it's a disease. It's simply a thing that you can choose to do to a child, and easy to understand without medicalizing it.
[deleted]
carapace(3)
De facto parental alienation, aka custody and access games, has been going on since courts began allowing ex-spouses to up stakes and move the children out of reach of the other parent - as happened to me as a child over half a century ago.
Utterly ignored, especially by the courts, is the child's emotional and developmental need to grow up with both parents.
Equal time with both parents allows children to grow up and learn that parents are imperfect people who are doing their best in the circumstances they have been put in.
My late mother still carries unremitting blame for enabling an alcoholic PTSD afflicted stepfather from hell to blight my life - all while claiming she was doing the right thing.
There's nothing wrong with the family court system that a tac nuke couldn't fix.
Utterly ignored, especially by the courts, is the child's emotional and developmental need to grow up with both parents.
Equal time with both parents allows children to grow up and learn that parents are imperfect people who are doing their best in the circumstances they have been put in.
My late mother still carries unremitting blame for enabling an alcoholic PTSD afflicted stepfather from hell to blight my life - all while claiming she was doing the right thing.
There's nothing wrong with the family court system that a tac nuke couldn't fix.
[deleted]
>Hannah Jones, a chartered forensic psychologist who has been appointed in the family courts as an expert since 2014, said: “True alienation of a parent where that parent is entirely unproblematic is rare enough that it does not need its own concept.”
WTF? Why in the world does the other parent need to be "entirely unproblematic" to recognize the deleterious effect to the child of one parent brainwashing the kids against the other?
In my (pretty vast) experience, parental alienation is very common to varying degrees. Of course that doesn't mean the reactions should be further weaponized.
WTF? Why in the world does the other parent need to be "entirely unproblematic" to recognize the deleterious effect to the child of one parent brainwashing the kids against the other?
In my (pretty vast) experience, parental alienation is very common to varying degrees. Of course that doesn't mean the reactions should be further weaponized.
[deleted]
Divorce is a messy process and the laws around it have become incredibly messed up from trying to handle a ridiculous number of nuanced situations with a single broadsword.
Make pre-nup agreements a requirement to get married. It's really the only fair way to handle the incredible universe of situations.
Make pre-nup agreements a requirement to get married. It's really the only fair way to handle the incredible universe of situations.
A pre-nup can't really address the best interests of children. They are not property to be negotiated.
Pre-nups don't deal solely with property. They also an agreement on how two parties will behave should things go bad.
In addition, by pre-negotiating the financial considerations, the two parties might better be able to negotiate what's truly in the best interests of the children instead of weaponizing them.
In addition, by pre-negotiating the financial considerations, the two parties might better be able to negotiate what's truly in the best interests of the children instead of weaponizing them.
In what jurisdiction? I find this hard to believe.
It makes no sense to permit parents to agree in advance as to who should have parental responsibility. Things change, particularly when divorce occurs, and the best interests of the child is what matters - not what's agreed to beforehand.
It makes no sense to permit parents to agree in advance as to who should have parental responsibility. Things change, particularly when divorce occurs, and the best interests of the child is what matters - not what's agreed to beforehand.
I think the idea is that it sets an initial post-divorce set of conditions. From there, both parties could agree to do something different that was more in the interests of the children and/or the adults, but by having a written set of indicative initial conditions, you hope to reduce the cost, stress, and animosity of the subsequent divorce. (Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be way, way better than nothing [meaning the default jurisdictional law/customs]? Absolutely.)
> Pre-nups don't deal solely with property.
Contracts inherently deal only with property interests of the contracting parties; they can (within certain bounds) address custody because our legal system treats that as a property interest that is subject to some domain-specific limitations and oversight, because the general premise is that it is not a natural property right, but a legal contrivance for the interests of the child because parents will normally be the best motivated to serve those interests. (Though there is definitely a not-uncommom view that children are naturally property, as well.)
Contracts inherently deal only with property interests of the contracting parties; they can (within certain bounds) address custody because our legal system treats that as a property interest that is subject to some domain-specific limitations and oversight, because the general premise is that it is not a natural property right, but a legal contrivance for the interests of the child because parents will normally be the best motivated to serve those interests. (Though there is definitely a not-uncommom view that children are naturally property, as well.)
I think you missed the point: there are more than two parties here. The children's interests, in fact, are primary to any decision a court is going to make. And they weren't party to any prenup and certainly aren't bound by it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A pre-nup could handle the best interest of the children far better than a court.
Best interest of the children are to minimize parental conflict. No matter the outcome, a legal process inflames conflict.
Arab countries have this right. There is a strong presumption that kids go with mother up to some age, and father beyond. The rules are clear and simple, barring exceptional circumstances. Some of the Scandinavian countries do to. Barring exceptional circumstances, there is a presumption of 50/50 custody and child support is capped.
There is nothing to fight over, and fighting dies down. The US high stakes system, where child support is astronomical and where everything is up for fighting over, is the biggest loser here.
Best interest of the children are to minimize parental conflict. No matter the outcome, a legal process inflames conflict.
Arab countries have this right. There is a strong presumption that kids go with mother up to some age, and father beyond. The rules are clear and simple, barring exceptional circumstances. Some of the Scandinavian countries do to. Barring exceptional circumstances, there is a presumption of 50/50 custody and child support is capped.
There is nothing to fight over, and fighting dies down. The US high stakes system, where child support is astronomical and where everything is up for fighting over, is the biggest loser here.
Ink my state, the interests of the kids trumps the prenup.
What would you put in a pre-nup for a situation like this? And if the agreement solves all issues, why wouldn't you just put it into regular marriage/family law so everyone can enjoy the benefits without hiring a lawyer when tying the knot?
a pre-nup solves issues by deterministicly reverting to a sane state as agreed to by the individuals involved when they loved each other.
A 'general pre-nup' is a contradiction, practically. The point is to have extreme customization, at least as suggested by GP comment.
That's why the solution suggested to cumbersome divorce law would be to enforce pre nup agreements.
A 'general pre-nup' is a contradiction, practically. The point is to have extreme customization, at least as suggested by GP comment.
That's why the solution suggested to cumbersome divorce law would be to enforce pre nup agreements.
How would you revert “we had children”? Or “my partner turns out to be a pedophile and we agreed to 50/50 custody”? Things change in ways pre-nups cannot account for. They’re fairly often litigated as a result.
I agree, I was just clarifying the parent comment.
So... To answer GP's question you're saying a prenup would solve this by specifically laying out what would happen to the children in different scenarios? (Father is domestic abuser, mother is alcoholic, etc?) And you'd have to enumerate the bazillion different scenarios that might happen?
I believe that's what was intended by the comment, yes. I'm only correcting a misinterpretation.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I bet a pre-nup could include many "decision trees" and mitigation strategies. I don't have a pre-nup, so I don't know.
I don't have a strong opinion, but I bet a pre-nup could include many "decision trees" and mitigation strategies. I don't have a pre-nup, so I don't know.
There is no way to do what you state, though. Things change in ways folks cannot predict.
For example: My grandmother married a nice, kind man. A year later, he had a stroke. He increasingly became more and more abusive, compounded by the fact that he was home all the time and needed care. My grandmother finally kicked him out when he expanded the abuse to my aunt, 3 years younger than I and a teenager at the time. She was accused of abandonment.
And seriously, this isn't something they could have predicted and really is a good reason for the laws. There is no reverting back to a more optimistic time at these points. Even if they had a prenup, the only fair thing to do is to look over it and make sure it is still fair to the couple and their children, if any.
For example: My grandmother married a nice, kind man. A year later, he had a stroke. He increasingly became more and more abusive, compounded by the fact that he was home all the time and needed care. My grandmother finally kicked him out when he expanded the abuse to my aunt, 3 years younger than I and a teenager at the time. She was accused of abandonment.
And seriously, this isn't something they could have predicted and really is a good reason for the laws. There is no reverting back to a more optimistic time at these points. Even if they had a prenup, the only fair thing to do is to look over it and make sure it is still fair to the couple and their children, if any.
> a pre-nup solves issues by deterministicly reverting to a sane state as agreed to by the individuals involved when they loved each other.
No, it doesn't because:
(1) interpretation of legal documents, like interpretation of law, is not deterministic,
(2) pre-nuptial agreements, and other contracts, are subject to the law, rather than superceding it,
(3) marriage isn't ways about love,
(Of course, if you want to substitute a purely contractual arrangement—still subject to the law—for the default treatment provided by marriage, that's always an option, anyhow, and you can still have whatever celebration you want if entering the contract, and can skip legal marriage altogether.)
No, it doesn't because:
(1) interpretation of legal documents, like interpretation of law, is not deterministic,
(2) pre-nuptial agreements, and other contracts, are subject to the law, rather than superceding it,
(3) marriage isn't ways about love,
(Of course, if you want to substitute a purely contractual arrangement—still subject to the law—for the default treatment provided by marriage, that's always an option, anyhow, and you can still have whatever celebration you want if entering the contract, and can skip legal marriage altogether.)
> deterministicly reverting to a sane state as agreed to by the individuals involved when they loved each other.
People aren't computers. We often don't "deterministicly revert to a sane state." Your approach is far too limited. The laws should be more understandable and expedient, and the overriding well-being of the child should be taken into account. The child's wishes should be taken into account as well to inform the decision but not decide it. CASA in the US do this well in the majority of cases
People aren't computers. We often don't "deterministicly revert to a sane state." Your approach is far too limited. The laws should be more understandable and expedient, and the overriding well-being of the child should be taken into account. The child's wishes should be taken into account as well to inform the decision but not decide it. CASA in the US do this well in the majority of cases
You should have seen the raised eyebrows of my psychologist when I told her I do not have a pre-nup.
Yet she might be biased. Most people she meets needed it.
Yet she might be biased. Most people she meets needed it.
In the UK, pre-nups are not always enforceable - especially if the terms are not favourable to any children involved.
There are also many other scenarios in which a pre-nup or its terms can be invalidated during divorce proceedings.
It's going to be difficult to come up with an agreement that covers all scenarios and is enforceable.
There are also many other scenarios in which a pre-nup or its terms can be invalidated during divorce proceedings.
It's going to be difficult to come up with an agreement that covers all scenarios and is enforceable.
Pre-nuptial agreements are often challenged during divorce and sometimes not upheld.
Is the pre-nup then that single broadsword?
While a prenup can address some child related elements (paying for school, the religion they’re raised, etc.) I don’t think they can be used for things like custody, visitation, child support, etc.
[deleted]
This sounds about as naive as the old libertarian argument against gay marriage, that we should instead "get the government out of the marriage business altogether".
The idea that a prenuptial agreement could effectively address the concerns of children not yet born is absurd. I have been married for around 20 years now, and today have two children in elementary school (i.e. prime age to screw them up with a divorce). When I try to imagine the prospect of my silly mid-20's self and spouse, writing an agreement about children around 9/11 that would make any sense today, I laugh out loud.
Even a prenup dealing solely with money and property would have little purpose years into a typical marriage of young people. Prenuptial agreements generally cover money and property that the couple had coming into a marriage. Not "common property" that is accumulated together after the marriage. My mid-20's spouse and I had no property and subzero net worth on our wedding day, it's all post-marriage common property anyway.
The idea that a prenuptial agreement could effectively address the concerns of children not yet born is absurd. I have been married for around 20 years now, and today have two children in elementary school (i.e. prime age to screw them up with a divorce). When I try to imagine the prospect of my silly mid-20's self and spouse, writing an agreement about children around 9/11 that would make any sense today, I laugh out loud.
Even a prenup dealing solely with money and property would have little purpose years into a typical marriage of young people. Prenuptial agreements generally cover money and property that the couple had coming into a marriage. Not "common property" that is accumulated together after the marriage. My mid-20's spouse and I had no property and subzero net worth on our wedding day, it's all post-marriage common property anyway.
The pre-nup getting outdated is a valid point.
What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so?
I suppose that could cause problems of its own, but it would 'fix' the outdate pre-nup problem (which would in turn fix the general divorce law trying to address very specific cases problem).
What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so?
I suppose that could cause problems of its own, but it would 'fix' the outdate pre-nup problem (which would in turn fix the general divorce law trying to address very specific cases problem).
> What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so?
I’m wondering if you’ve ever been married.
People generally don’t live their marriage with the intent of divorce, so planning in the way you suggest seems obtuse.
I can’t ever imagine my wife, who does not have a career and depends on my income, annually renegotiating a prenuptial agreement.
I’m wondering if you’ve ever been married.
People generally don’t live their marriage with the intent of divorce, so planning in the way you suggest seems obtuse.
I can’t ever imagine my wife, who does not have a career and depends on my income, annually renegotiating a prenuptial agreement.
> I’m wondering if you’ve ever been married.
I haven't, apologies for being naive.
> People generally don’t live their marriage with the intent of divorce, so planning in the way you suggest seems obtuse.
Having witnessed firsthand how absolutely traumatic my parent's divorce was, I'm currently approaching the idea of long-term relationships, possibly with children, as one where "hope for the best, expect the worse" is the optimal policy.
Obviously, if I marry someone, I'd like to stay with them my whole life. Nevertheless, I think it important to ensure that if things do go south, which, statistically speaking, they do quite a lot, collateral damage is limited. By which I mean, there is nothing for the lawyers to fight over.
I haven't, apologies for being naive.
> People generally don’t live their marriage with the intent of divorce, so planning in the way you suggest seems obtuse.
Having witnessed firsthand how absolutely traumatic my parent's divorce was, I'm currently approaching the idea of long-term relationships, possibly with children, as one where "hope for the best, expect the worse" is the optimal policy.
Obviously, if I marry someone, I'd like to stay with them my whole life. Nevertheless, I think it important to ensure that if things do go south, which, statistically speaking, they do quite a lot, collateral damage is limited. By which I mean, there is nothing for the lawyers to fight over.
i'd rephrase that: hope for/expect the best, prepare for the worst.
> What if we made it mandatory to renegotiate the pre-nup every year or so?
So, you want to fix a problem by requiring that people rewrite the law of marriage from scratch in order to get married and then also force them to redo the exercise annually to remain married?
Wouldn't people just opt out of official “marriage” for a regular contractual agreement to avoid the legal maintenance burden?
So, you want to fix a problem by requiring that people rewrite the law of marriage from scratch in order to get married and then also force them to redo the exercise annually to remain married?
Wouldn't people just opt out of official “marriage” for a regular contractual agreement to avoid the legal maintenance burden?
Mandatory annual government paperwork would be an additional incentive to not get married.
Thing is I expect usually when people get married there are no children yet. On top of that, say a decade of marriage, children and changes in the way couples share their respective roles (say one works fulltime and the other parttime) and their is not much to bargain about up front.
About half of all kids are born out of wedlock these days in many developed countries. Doesn't change you'd need a measure which covers both, but that "usually" hasn't been as usual for a long while.
My parent is talking about prenup. That’s only in case of marriage. For those so inclined to get married I do expect marriage before children. With falling marriage rates I expect that effect to be stronger.
Falling marriage rates don't necessarily indicate those inclined to marry will do so before children. That take is mostly based on individual morals, not logic. We've spent quite a few decades tearing down the taboo of sex before marriage and children out of wedlock without stigmatizing marriage itself.
Even in the context of a prenup I'd think twice before making that statement. It seems logical someone inclined to write a prenup would think twice about having kids out of wedlock, until you consider marriage itself has a different set of rules in many countries which cohabitation with a partner and a child don't bring (and vice versa, you'd have the same problems cohabitating with a child as being married with a child). Many, many people have been spooked by divorce horror stories these past few decades.
Even in the context of a prenup I'd think twice before making that statement. It seems logical someone inclined to write a prenup would think twice about having kids out of wedlock, until you consider marriage itself has a different set of rules in many countries which cohabitation with a partner and a child don't bring (and vice versa, you'd have the same problems cohabitating with a child as being married with a child). Many, many people have been spooked by divorce horror stories these past few decades.
No it’s pure logic. One can only write a prenup when going to get married. P(prenup | not marrying) = 0. So if GP is talking about prenup it can only be about marriages. It’s unrelated to falling marriage rates.
Then some data [1]. It’s in there. Most marriages occur before the first child.
All I was arguing is that a prenup is an illogical moment in time to think about children in the context of divorce. I’ll go out and state that there is no way I could phantom what being a dad means before I was one for a few years. A prenup in my case would thus be empty of emotional baggage with regard to yet to be had children at that moment.
A “children and separation” plan might be a good exercise for any couple after one year with a first baby. But with these plans it is with everything else: those likely to think and talk about it, aren’t the most likely to get into a (messy) divorce.
[1] https://www.livescience.com/52215-divorce-risk-premarital-ch...
Then some data [1]. It’s in there. Most marriages occur before the first child.
All I was arguing is that a prenup is an illogical moment in time to think about children in the context of divorce. I’ll go out and state that there is no way I could phantom what being a dad means before I was one for a few years. A prenup in my case would thus be empty of emotional baggage with regard to yet to be had children at that moment.
A “children and separation” plan might be a good exercise for any couple after one year with a first baby. But with these plans it is with everything else: those likely to think and talk about it, aren’t the most likely to get into a (messy) divorce.
[1] https://www.livescience.com/52215-divorce-risk-premarital-ch...
You expect incorrectly. A great percentage of children are now born out of wedlock. Your expectations are not real.
Clearly GP knows this, and additionally expects that children born outside marriage will tend to stay outside marriage. That additional expectation may not be correct, but you haven't really addressed it.
Thanks for reading. It’s not even that subtle a distinction. If marriage gets less normal, those who do get married feel stronger about it. It’s value theory 101.
[deleted]
> “There is no way of getting your children back unless you admit you have alienated them,” said Waxman. “Not wanting to do the therapy is seen as resisting.”
You will be assimilated.
You will be assimilated.
[deleted]
Courts are the wrong way to address this. The legal system is both overly punitive and toothless in family law.
It cannot punish other than removing access to children. Anything else punishes the children as much as the parent.
In my opinion the missing solution is a community-based arbitration process that requires the participation of those who know more about the history/reality. Too often people are afraid of taking a side.
It cannot punish other than removing access to children. Anything else punishes the children as much as the parent.
In my opinion the missing solution is a community-based arbitration process that requires the participation of those who know more about the history/reality. Too often people are afraid of taking a side.
> It cannot punish other than removing access to children. Anything else punishes the children as much as the parent.
I can think of other possibilities, but I'm sure they wouldn't be popular (in the west anyway.) For instance, moderate caning.
Community-based arbitration falls apart when you account for the modern lifestyle of knowing so little about your neighbors, you don't even recognize their faces let alone know their names.
I can think of other possibilities, but I'm sure they wouldn't be popular (in the west anyway.) For instance, moderate caning.
Community-based arbitration falls apart when you account for the modern lifestyle of knowing so little about your neighbors, you don't even recognize their faces let alone know their names.
This is one of my spicier opinions but I think we need caning. Jail and fines do too much _damage,_ including (if the offender has dependents) collateral damage.
[deleted]
robonerd(1)
Child raising is too delicate and nuanced to be relegated to process level decisions. It’s too late for my situation but family court with children involved is something I hope gets revamped sooner rather than later.
Many of the family court laws are a relic from a time when the roles of men and women were very different from the standard of today and unfortunately many women use this to their advantage (which I suppose is the rational thing to do).
Now, whenever I see a woman claiming to be a victim in a family matter I look way more closely than I would have in the past and I hope society as a whole starts to do this too.
Of course, I’m not saying only women use victimhood to their advantage but I am saying that there is a very clear incentive to claim to be a victim in todays society and in family court especially. As long as a woman is ok with lying, it’s almost foolish for her to NOT claim to be the victim. The incentive needs to be removed.