International Parental Alienation/Family Violence International Parental Alienation/Family Violence Crisis Panel, Fredericton, MMFFV Centre, UNB, Crisis Panel, Fredericton, MMFFV Centre, UNB,

October 9, 2019October 9, 2019

Dr. Linda C NeilsonBA(hons), LL.B. (UNB), Ph.D. (Law, U London, L.S.E.)

Professor Emerita, UNB, Research Associate, Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research (MMFCFVR)

Ending Gender Based Violence: Harnessing Research & Action for Social ChangeMMFCFVR, UNB, Fredericton, October 9, 2019

The Social Context: Women, Children & the Family Law Crisis

Center for Judicial Excellence (US):Part 1 – Family Court Crisis

Please also watch No Way Out But One,

An award winning documentary of a women and children who became fugitives after running from the US in order to escape a family court order placing the children with an abusive parent – as a result of an alienation finding.

So we decided to test Empirically the Validity of Concerns about Parental Alienation in Family Courts

●My own case law study in Canada

●Continuing SSHRC research in Canada - Simon Lapierre, Elizabeth Sheehy & Susan Boyd

●Major, nation-wide study of PA cases in the USA: Joan Meier

●Case Law Scrutiny in the UK: Adrienne Barnet

International Parental Alienation/Family International Parental Alienation/Family Violence Crisis PanelViolence Crisis Panel

The Social Science Problem

Dependable, accepted social science is beneficial:

The effects on women & children of family violence

The effects on children of toxic stress / parental conflict

Trauma responses to domestic & family violence

Verified, accepted child development & resilience principles

BUT social science can be dangerous in legal systems when It is not credible, dependable, well established and broadly accepted.

The Legal System transformation Problem

When Controversial theories legal principle

Judges cite other court rulings without understanding research methods, controversies in research, scientific qualifications and potential harm.

Parental Alienation Claims

Definition

Only applies when “unwarranted” rejection (theoretically)

Occurs when legal matters are involved

Primary cause is a parent wishing to exclude other parent

Removed term ‘syndrome’ from Richard Gardner’s discredited theory

Original concept – almost all alienators are mothers

New theory – either parent can be an alienator – purports to be gender neutral

Tools, Checklists, Presumptions

Assumption: Children seldom reject a parent unless the other parent is responsible

Assumption: Children who reject a parent suffer long term harm

Assumption: Checklists of child and adult behavior can prove parental alienation

Prescribed remedies

Ignore child views and preferences

Use police power to enforce rejected parent entitlement

Remove children from preferred ‘alienating’ (primary) parent and force them to live with rejected parent

Assertions

Alienated children incur long-term harm

Canadian Empirical Analysis of Concerns of Critics

http://www.fredacentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Parental-Alienation-Linda-Neilson.pdf

Findings

Method

357 cases

Same family multiple cases counted as one

Claims v Fathers31.1%

Including 9.3 % Claim by Victim

Of DV

Claims v Mothers68.9 % 41.5 % Domestic Violence

or Child Abuse

76.8 %Alleged Perpetrator

Claimant23.2 %

DV Victim Claimant

Best Interests and Child Rights?

50 % of cases no alienation finding

In cases that accept PA:

Absence of thorough statutory BI analysis in:

2/3 (66.7 %) PA claim cases

48 % cases PA plus DV or child abuse claim

Failure to consider Child ViewsFailure to consider Child Views

More than 1/2 were 13 + but views given weight in More than 1/2 were 13 + but views given weight in only 20.8 %; only 20.8 %; Child views discounted in 79 % of cases

Punitive, Draconian Orders when PA accepted

High, repeated use of police force v childrenHigh, repeated use of police force v children

Children forcibly removed from preferred, primary Children forcibly removed from preferred, primary care parentscare parents

Children denied any and all contact with preferred Children denied any and all contact with preferred parents & extended familyparents & extended family

Mandatory expensive “reunification” programs Mandatory expensive “reunification” programs bankrupting familiesbankrupting families

Gendered Discourse

Judicial Discourse in cases accepting PAJudicial Discourse in cases accepting PA

PA (primarily father) claims characterized as PA (primarily father) claims characterized as

children’s rights to two parentschildren’s rights to two parents

CConcerns child safety & negative parenting (primarily oncerns child safety & negative parenting (primarily mothers)mothers)

ANDAND

Children’s wish Children’s wish to reside with primary care parents, to reside with primary care parents, characterized ascharacterized as

““unusual” parent-child closenessunusual” parent-child closeness

mother’s over protection mother’s over protection

evidence of parental manipulationevidence of parental manipulation

Negative Impact on Evidence

Judges ‘diagnosing’ PA

Relying on assertions & checklists from other cases

PA “experts” are telling courts to ignore evidence of (eg S.G.B. v. S.J.L., 2010 ONSC 3717; C.J.J. v. A.J., 2016 BCSC 676; A.L. v. L.W., 2017 BCSC 964; Bradford v Bradford, 2017 BCSC 661 ):

Views and preferences of children

Negative parenting of rejected parents

Positive parenting, primary parents

Bigger Picture: Changing Priorities, Family Law

Child Best Interests Maximizing/repairing broken parent-child relationships(Source of Image: Televista, September 26, 2016)

142 Domestic Violence Claim cases: Analysis by Domestic Violence Experts?

Only 4 cases (2.8%) did courts request analysis by a DV expert

Contrast with 62/142 (43.7%) cross claim cases, specifically ordered a parental alienation evaluation

DV Expert Parental Aliena-tion AnalysisNot specified

Cross Claim DV & PA, 142 Cases?

40 /109 (36.7 %) of cases, PA claimed by alleged perpetrator, the court made a PA finding against the DV or child abuse claimant

39 cases children removed from targeted parent, placed with alleged abuser parent

24 cases children denied contact or all but limited supervised contact with preferred, protective parent

Other features - Cross Claim Cases

Evidence of DV or child abuse - dismissed as PA tactic

Judicial scepticism DV evidence (S.P. v. P.B.D., 2007 CanLII 31787 ONSC; J.C.W. v. J.K.R.W. 2014 BCSC 488 ; P.D. W. v. H.A. H., 2017 NBQB 110 )

Negative judicial assumptions not supported by research:

False assumptions about disclosure patterns

Disbelief sex abuse claims

Assumptions based on demeanor, no trauma analysis

Dismissing evidence because no criminal conviction

Creates Double Bind

Protective Parents (mostly mothers)

Express concerns DV, child abuse, child safety evidence of attempted PA

risk

Fail to present concerns no protection

risk

Children

Ask to live with mothers or reduce time with other parent evidence of PA

Risk dismissal of views & forced removal

Net Effect? Silence. Do not Claim FV(Image sources: Woman: Mark Meynell/Quarentia; Boy: Lacosa center, abuse victims)

Review Slides: When Domestic Violence & Parental Alienation Collide in Family Law,Canadian

Experience

Supplementary Conference Materials

International Parental Alienation/Family Violence Crisis Panel, Fredericton, MMFFV International Parental Alienation/Family Violence Crisis Panel, Fredericton, MMFFV Centre, UNB, October 9, 2019Centre, UNB, October 9, 2019

Read On Line Report: http://www.fredacentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Parental-Alienation-Linda-Neilson.pdf

For additional information

Canada Legislation to watch

Bill C-78, Divorce Act

Will incorporate alienation principles into statute law:

Blame the primary care parent when the child does not have a positive relationship with other spouse.

● Legal wording:

16(3)(c) each spouses willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse.

Note absence of child BI or FV qualification.

Collective International Efforts

Wrote an International Collective Memo of Concern to the World Health Organization protesting a reference to parental alienation in draft ICD-11 diagnostic manual:

For particulars see Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women and Children (Western):

http://www.learningtoendabuse.ca/collective-memo-of-concern-to-WHO-about-parental-alienation.html

That Collective Memo has been endorsed by 352 family violence, family law, child experts & institutions & 764 individuals from 37 countries around the world:Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbajan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, European domestic violence and women’s Networks, France, Germany, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ukraine, United States

Bottom Line: We are looking at a Major International family law crisis.

Research Informed Policy & Action

Informed Practice & Social Change

We Need to work together