Stanley Clawar Et Al (1991). Children Held Hostage, Programmed and Brainwashed Children. American Bar Association

CHILDREN HELD HOSTAGE:

DEALING WITH PROGRAMMED AND BRAINWASHED CHILDREN

Stanley S. Clawar & Brynne V. Rivlin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION_____________________________________________________1

DENIAL-OF-EXISTENCE SYNDROME____________________________________1

THE “WHO ME?” SYNDROME__________________________________________3

MIDDLE-MAN SYNDROME_____________________________________________5

CIRCUMSTANTIAL SYNDROME________________________________________6

THE ALLY SYNDROME________________________________________________7

THE MORALITY SYNDROME___________________________________________8

THREAT OF WITHDRAWAL OF LOVE SYNDROME________________________10

REWRITING-REALITY SYNDROME_____________________________________12

PHYSICAL SURVIVAL SYNDROME_____________________________________14

ABDUCTORS_______________________________________________________15

RESTRICTIONS ON PERMISSION TO LOVE OR BE LOVED_________________16

Clawar, S. & Rivlin, B. (1991). Children held hostage 1

INTRODUCTION

After an intensive review of 700 cases of family counseling/therapy, mediation, and forensic evaluation, it becomes apparent that many parents talk with their children about the former spouse (or other parent) for purposes of insight or understanding, or to support the child's positive perception of the experience with the other parent. Parents also have positive interactions or discussions concerning the former spouse in order to share or obtain information concerning arrangements for medical issues, social activities, or some other similar purpose,

However, there are often negative dimensions to these communications. The covert and overt communication between parent and child surrounding the former spouse may come from the need to ventilate or feel superior, or to justify, set in motion, or perpetuate a game plan (such as the overall strategy developed in obtaining custody or interfering with the custodial arrangements of the other parent. The typology developed below explains both obvious and subtle techniques for undermining the other parent in the eyes of the child. Often, these techniques are employed to undermine a joint or primary custody agreement, hinder the relationship of the child with the other parent due to jealousy, or draw the child closer to the communicating parent due to loneliness or a desire to obtain an ally. These techniques may also be employed to control or distort information the child provides to a lawyer, judge, conciliator, relatives, friends, or others, as in abuse cases.

DENIAL-OF-EXISTENCE SYNDROME

[p. 15]

One of the basic techniques parents use to assault the character of the other parent is to deny or not acknowledge the social existence of the other parent. The manner of denial can vary greatly. One common technique is simply never to talk about the other parent. By excluding any discussion of the other parent or ignoring the topic when raised by the child, the brainwashing par. cut can send a subtle message to the child that the other parent is not significant. He or she does not exist in our conversation, and therefore he or she does not, in fact, exist.

[p. 16]

Another approach used in the denial-of-existence syndrome is to employ body language that communicates to the child that the other parent is unworthy or insignificant. For example, the parent does not go up to the doorstep of the other parent when dropping the child off, avoids eye contact, uses hand gestures that indicate negativity, looks away when the other parent is present a, when the child raises the other parent in conversation, or abruptly terminates a conversation about the other parent. It is interesting to note that young children who have bee, exposed to the regular use of negative body language will themselves often mirror this physical pattern in counseling or evaluation sessions.

A very common approach used to deny the existence of the other parent is to destroy or desecrate photographs of that parent. During the past two years, we have studied fifty cases of parents who have confiscated a, destroyed previously existing family photograph albums. In forty-eight out of these fifty cases, the assaulting parent was the mother. For some reason, the


mothers were more likely to use this technique than fathers (see chapter 7). (It may be that mothers believe the family and all that is associated with it, including family albums, is their domain.) The mothers often attempted to restructure the family photographs so that the fathers were not present in any of the pictures. In five of the mom extreme cases, the mothers left the pictures in the album but severed the heads of the father. When the children would review the album, they would see no image or the headless image of the father.

It was also common to find children who were not allowed to have the photograph of the other parent in their room; some of these children developed secret techniques for hiding and viewing the pictures of the other parent, In a few cases, the children hid the photographs in their closet and looked at the pictures before going to sleep. In other cases, they would keep the photograph on their person and view it with discretion. In a few cases, the children's hiding places were discovered, and the photograph was destroyed, or it "accidentally" disappeared. These children related that they later obtained a photo that they could keep at a friend's home, or created a mental image of the absent parent by "concentrating as hard as [they] can so [they] can see his face before [they] go to sleep.”

One of the most extreme cases involved a father who constructed a dart board using a blowup photograph of the mother and attempted to involve the children in the "game!" In such a case, the father not only attempts to destroy the existence of the other parent but also solicits the children to have the same hateful feelings toward the mother as be does.

Another form of denying the existence of the other parent is by not relaying messages that are sent to the children. This may involve "forgetting" a phone call; losing letters, or postcards, or holiday greetings; or simply lying and telling the child, "Your mother hasn't called.” The intent behind this is often to make the child feet unwanted so the child will develop hostile and [p. 17] distant feelings toward the other parent. In discussing such practices with one parent, we were informed, "If he [the father] wants to communicate so badly with his children, then why did he leave?" Obviously, this mother was confusing the child's need for contact and information from the father with her own desires to be punitive.

Blatantly ignoring the other parent at social functions is another way to signify denial of existence. Events such as games, plays weddings, and religious ceremonies are all forums parents use for snubbing, ignoring, or approaching and walking away. Under these conditions, children report that they are often caught in the loyalty conflict. They would like to approach the parent but understand the message being sent by the brainwashing parent, Children who love and share physical contact in private with the targeted parent will often give no overt signs of affection under these conditions.

A graphic example of a child's fear of withdrawal of love can be seen in this behavior at a school basketball game. The child spotted her father sitting across from her on the other side of the basketball court but did not acknowledge him overtly, pretending not to care when her mother mentioned that he was sitting across the room. When the mother momentarily left the gymnasium during intermission, the girl raced across the room, planting hugs and kisses all over her father. With perfect timing, she sprinted back to her seat before her mother walked through the doorway. In such cases, programming/brainwashing parents will convince themselves, family, friends, and professionals that the child has little interest in having a relationship with the


other parent, claiming as evidence that she will not men approach her father at a game to greet him,

Another powerful method of denying the existence of the other parent is by refusing to acknowledge that the children have had or should have positive experiences with the target parent. The programming/brainwashing parent may try to reinterpret an experience that the child has had in order to demonstrate that it really was not so good. Statements like, "Your father's just trying to buy you," have been observed in a number of cases where the non-custodial father had purchased or rented a spectacular house Statements like, "I'm glad you had a good time, but let's get back to more important things," are also used with great frequency.

Another way of refusing to acknowledge that the children haw had or should have good experiences with the other parent is simply not to respond to the excitement and joy that the children may be expressing. This "ho-hum" approach has the effect of numbing the children from sharing experiences with the programming parent. Interestingly, the programmer may then claim that the children are not benefiting from contact with the other parent because "they are gloomy when they return.” The gloom may be a result of the children giving the brainwashing parent what he or she wants an unhappy child. This accounts for the opposing views divorced parents hold concerning the time the children spend with the other. One parent [p. 18] says, “I think they had a great time.” The other says (sarcastically), “Sure they did.” It is common to find children expressing guilt about enjoying the target parent as a result of this non-support from the programming/brainwashing parent.

THE “WHO ME?” SYNDROME

[p. 18]

A subtle hot powerful technique is to make indirect attacks on the other parent. When questioned about such attacks, the brainwashing parent will say, "Who, me?" The programmer indicates that he or she meant no such thing and that the listener or child was certainly misinterpreting. The list of indirect attacks is infinite but the basic pattern is that the programmer/brainwashing attacks something about the character, life-style, past, present, or future of the target parent. The examples noted below are the most common ones observed in our research to date.

1. Extended Family

The attack focuses on the former in-laws. By attacking the other parent's family, the character/integrity of the target parent is damaged by association. Statements like, "I wish Pop-Pop didn't drink so much.” "You know your father never really had a very happy childhood," "If Grand-mom had been a different kind of woman, I bet your daddy wouldn't be the way he is today," are some examples.


2. Career

Brainwashing parents will attack, by indirection, the realm of career activity and choice. They might make statements such as "Doctors are getting worse and worse reputations with the public today" (in this case, the mother was a doctor); "Librarians am really boring" [the mother was a librarian]; "Psychologists are all crazy" [the father was a psychologist]; "I wonder if most secretaries have sexual relations with the boss" (the mother was a secretary]. Steering the child away from the career interests of the other parent is a form of denying an affinity or association of the child with the target parent. One mother said to her son, "Why on earth would you ever want to major in science and go pre-med? Do we really need another doctor in the family?" Later, this parent told the evaluators that she only had the best interests of the child at heart and did not want the child to have a hectic lifc-style, as is the case with many medical professionals.

3. Living Arrangements and Travel

Another attack by indirection is evident when the living arrangements or travel obligations of the other parent me spoken of in a negative vein. One father said to his children at a family meeting, "It's my opinion that anybody who lives with someone else outside of marriage is really an unwholesome person." In this ease, the mother had left the marriage after being abused for [p.19] years and was living with someone out of wedlock. The mother, on hearmg this opinion from the children, in retaliation, informed them that people who travel all the time have no firm roots, and "that certainly doesn't help family life today," Assaults facilitate counterassaults. Interestingly enough, in this case, the father had taken on additional travel obligations with his company to support the extensive medical needs of his children. This example should sensitize the lawyer, judge, conciliator, clinician, and researcher to a very important finding-any social experience or observation can be interpreted positively or negatively to children. The perceptual and motivational time of reference determines whether a parent will communicate positive or negative messages of the other parent to the child.

4. Activities

Another form of indirect attack is refusal to allow children to participate in activities that relate to the other parent. An apparently innocent statement such as, "Going down to the shore isn't us important as going to camp," is a loaded negative message. In this case, the father had made plans for the children to go to camp and the mother had made plans for the children to have some vacation time at the shore. The mother was never directly mentioned, but the negative message is directed at her. A father said, "Field hockey is a waste of time.” In this case the daughter was interested in developing field hockey skills, and the mother had played field hockey in her younger yews and thought it developed good character.

5. Associates

Another way of indirectly attacking the other parent is by attacking his or her choice of friends, associates, or intimates. Attacking the stepmother or stepfather may not, on the surface, appear as an attack against the other parent, but it often is. It implies that a parent's choice of a new partner is inappropriate, immoral, or damaging to the children. In some families that have been studied, the target parent was never directly attacked. In trying to understand why children


held negative images of the other parent, the evaluation discovered that the stepparent was the focus of aggression. By association, the child came to understand that the target parent was tainted. Examples of such negative statements are "Al [step-father] is really a lazy bum." "Susan [step-mother] sure dresses like she buys her clothes at the thrift shop.” "Did Jane [step-mother] cook for you last time, or was it more of the fast-food junk?" or "I never understood why Paul [stepfather] drives that beat-up old junker."

Related to this approach is the negative comment on the other parent's choice in companions-for example, "I always thought your mother could do better than that." This comment also serves as a backhanded compliment to the father who obviously feels superior to the mother's second mate. if particular techniques of the indirect approach are made evident to program [p. 20] ming or brainwashing parents, they will often say, "Who, me?" or "I didn't mean that.” or "That's ridiculous; I'm just being honest with my child.” or "People mad so much into things these days.” or "I guess if the shoe fits, but I really didn't mean any harm!” The "Who, me?" approach may be recognized by the results the communications have on the child, because the overt content of the messages may be difficult to decipher. An evaluator must determine content, patterns, and frequency of messages also.

MIDDLE-MAN SYNDROME

[p. 20]

By speaking to the child about issues that should be first discussed with the other parent, the programmer/brainwasher can compromise and/or damage the child's relationship with or image of the target parent. For instance, discussing time-schedule arrangements by asking questions such as, "Do you think you would like to have more time with Mom?" often places the child in the middle. The pressure on the child is to make a choice in front of an inquiring parent, Adding insult to injury, a father may say, "You seem much happier this week than last." In this case, "last week" referred to time the child had with the mother. This places the child in a no-win position; it forces her to observe that her father thinks she is happier with him. This will also have the effect of closing down communications, because the child comes to sense that the programming parent does not want to hear, possibly ever, that the child could be as happy or happier with the target parent.

This technique can back-fire on the parent though. In one case, the brainwasher would begin the conversation by saying to the children, "Let's talk about school" In the discussion, the mother attempted to reinforce her view that the father's selection of schooling was inappropriate. The children understood the father's bias regarding school though be never pressured them in this case. The brother and sister in this example were ages six and nine, and the older child revealed the following story during one interview: I know that when Mom says, "Let's talk about schooling," she really means, "Don't like the school because Dad thinks it's great!” I guess she also means I shouldn't like Dad, but I do, and I wish she would stop this kind of talk. She thinks she's clever, but she’s really not-parents are really all screwed up, If they only knew what we really thought.

Raising issues with children that should be addressed to the other parent can be done with great delicacy, apparent honesty, and innocence. One father said to his children, during a


discussion in a restaurant; "Summer vacation would be fun if we had more time.” A translation of this apparently innocent statement was that the children had too much time with the other parent during the summer. The target parent was thrust into the category of obstructionist; the children were placed in the middle. The overt statement, without camouflage, would read something like this; "Your time with your [p. 21] mother is cutting into our time. She’s an obstructionist. If we could cut her out, we could have more fun. Your mother is the source of on, vacation unhappiness. I wish we could change this situation so that you could be happy.” We presented this reworked dialogue to the parent who issued the apparently innocent statement. After much discourse and deliberation, the parent admitted that that was the real intent/result. This illustrates the importance of learning new communication skills in separated/divorced and custody conflicted families. What might be said within the confines of a traditional family unit has new ramifications in modified family social structures.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL SYNDROME

[p. 21]

By manipulating, changing, rearranging, and commenting on time, the programming parent tries to gain dominance in the eyes of the children. “Your mother's always late for delivery and pickup, I wonder if she would be late for her own funeral.” The other parent told her children, "He's always early for pickup, but late for delivery." These parents are attacking character by discussing punctuality.

Not informing the other parent of school dates, plays, commences, ceremonies, awards, sporting events and the like is a way of signifying to the children that the other parent lacks importance. Also, if the parent does not show up for an event, the programming parent can say, "Well, it's just like it’s always been-everything comes before the kids."

Children are deeply affected by the presence or absence off parents at educational, social, and religious functions. After a time, they develop the veneer of an "I don't care" attitude. After interviewing 200 children between the ages of four and eighteen years on this issue, it was noted that virtually every child desired both parents to be present at as many of these functions as pos-sible. Children would say, “Even if my dad can't make it, my mother should have told him." A sixteen-year-old boy said, "My father always comes to everything, but if he were nicer to my mother, I think she might come more often.”

Clearly, children are often aware that one parent does not participate in social functions due to the aggressive nature of the other parent. Children know this, even in cases where they say that the aggressive parent is a positive and constructive parent in other ways.

In more extreme cases, the brainwashing parent actually obstructs the flow of information to the target parent by not supplying schools with his or her proper name and address. One of the most common problems in custody-conflicted families is that the mother places the stepfather on the educational records as the father of record. In a review of our cases, we found that mothers were five times more likely to participate in this behavior than fathers.


Fathers did not appear to have the same social need to present the stepmother as the mother, whereas mothers had a very strong need to present step-fathers as "the” father. As part of this pattern, mothers seem less comfortable in attending social functions when the birth father is present.

[p. 22] Fathers, on the other hand, seem to have a greater sense of comfort in attending social functions when the birth mother is present.

THE ALLY SYNDROME

[p. 23]

Attempting to get the children to side with one parent against the other occurs both in and outside of marriage, At the time of separation, divorce, or custody conflict, however, the attempt to ally the children is stronger. An example would be asking the children direct questions such as, "Don't you think your mother is wrong to try to get all the money she can from us?" Other such questions are:

"You're a sensitive child - do you think it's fair for a father to have all that money? He just bought himself a new car and a house-look at how we have to live:'

"Sarah, if you were me, if you were a mother, what would you do?"

[p. 24]"How do you thick your father feels about this latest Maneuver?" [asked by the father]

"See what I had to live with for ten years - do you see - can you understand my feelings now?"

"Now that I'm sick, you want to be with your father. This is the thanks I get.”

These and dozens of other questions are asked of children in order to ally their sympathies and support with the parent who is asking the question. Children are often ill-equipped to respond in any other way but with apparent agreement or silence. Such responses often lead the programming parent to assume that the child is on his or her side. Ironically, the technique can often create hostility. During an interview, one twelve-year-old girl: My mother thinks she's slick by asking all these questions, but I knew what's going on. She and my stepfather will be driving along, and all of a sudden they're going to have a discussion, and just accidentally, the discussion comes around to my father. They'll say things like, "Do you think your father really has things planned all the time for you? He says, “Make sure the children are ready on time because I have things planned!” My mother and step-father expect me to agree with them. I just sit and listen to this. It's so obvious.

It can happen that the children will create an ally relationship with their mother or father against the target parent. To the unsophisticated eye, this may appear to be based on a stronger feeling of attachment for the programming parent; however, it may be the result of the constant, regular, and at times, insidious bombardment. These children often side with the brainwashing


parent for a number of reasons. (See chapter 5 for a fuller discussion of the child's reactions to such pressures.)

THE MORALITY SYNDROME

[p. 24]

Programming behaviors often include moral judgments against the target parent concerning his/her values, life-style, choice of friends, successes or failures in life (career, financial, relational), or residential choice. These criticisms are intended to elevate one's own position in comparison with the target parent, who becomes diminished by this good/bad dichotomy,

Criticizing behaviors are often insidious, occurring over a period of time with different degrees of intensity but always powerful. Like the wearing away of a stone constantly assaulted by waves, the child's perception of the target parent changes from its original, more positive, view finally conforming to the programming parent's opinions and sentiments.

In such cases, the effect is almost irreversible. These children are no longer able to accept both parents as equally good. In successful brainwashing, even if the child is de-programmed with valid information or has positive [p. 25] experiences with the other parent, the child may rewrite reality or will rationalize, ascribing ulterior motives to the target parent in the service of maintaining the beliefs of the programmer. These beliefs become so ingrained that the parent who created them no longer has to promote the desired perceptions. They have been given life within the child's own mind. So much so, that the parent may honestly report that he or she is not actively doing anything by word or deed to thwart the target parent's relationship with the child. These self-adopted perceptions me sometimes also so powerful that even children who have had a previous history of close bonding and positive interaction with the target parent may turn against him or her.

Situations in which contact between the non-custodial parent and the child is diminished enhance the viability of successful programming. If a child does not have much contact with one parent, he or she is not afforded the experiences needed to contradict the program. This is not to say that programming behaviors are the singular domain of custodial parents. Either parent may be guilty of such conduct; so may others, such as siblings, grandparents, or extended family. To accept new information (deprogramming), the child must be given the opportunity to receive new, uncontaminated information. This can best be done through increased experience and physical contact between the target and child.

Very often, parents and their attorney argue that the child is afraid of or severely estranged from a parent and will suffer immediate and/or long-term social-psychological damage if "forced" to be in the company of the "problem" parent. Nonetheless, if no confirmed historical evidence exists that this parent has exhibited inappropriate parenting behavior, the argument that minimal contact should be instituted or maintained must be disputed for some of the following reasons:


1. The child needs to have significant time with the target parent in order to receive new input regarding the parent's "negative" attributes.

2. The relationship will most likely never develop in a healthy manner if left alone without intervention.

3. The child may never be "ready" to reconstruct the lost relationship, thereby missing out on that parent's contribution of positive assets to his or her life.

4. Children acquire their identity from both parents, Viewing one parent as negative or bad may contribute to the child's development of a poor self-image.

5. If the parent-child relationship has been damaged, it is common to find that others connected to the parent have also, by association, been negatively characterized. Thus, grandparents, aunts, and uncles may be estranged and need time with the children to repair the damage

6. A biological parent may have been replaced with a surrogate. This is a common occurrence in re-marriages where a parent desires to create a [p. 26] "new family" and further distance the biological parent. It is a positive feature in a child's life to have a good relationship with the stepparent, but not at the expense of the biological parent. The child needs to have the opportunity to reestablish the parent-child relationship.

7. The target parent suffers a great emotional loss in not being permitted to have a relationship with the child. This pain is often manifested by anger toward the programming parent. It takes enormous control and understanding not to mirror similar attitudes toward the programmer, which could then harmfully influence the child.

8. Many children who grow up estranged from or programmed against a parent develop their own angry feelings toward the programmer, The "backlash effect" may occur if and when they come to understand the historical influence, power, and distortions of that parent.

9. In the event that the child as an adult parent experiences marital problems, the lesson has been learned that a biological mother or father is not necessarily an important figure in a child's life.

10. The longer there is little or no contact between a parent and child, the more difficult the impact will be to overcome.


THREAT OF WITHDRAWAL OF LOVE SYNDROME

[p. 26]

This is a coercive, powerful, and almost universally successful technique utilized by parents who program. Here, the children come to fear rejection or loss of love from a parent if they express love or a desire to be with the other parent. It becomes implicitly or explicitly understood that to be loved and accepted, the child must become a cohort and also turn against the other parent.

Programming is suspect if an uncharacteristic change takes place in the parent-child relationship, such as a new, stated desire to alter the physical custodial arrangement by "choosing" to reside with the other parent. Additional behaviors of the child that may indicate programming are an unwillingness or reluctance to go with the other parent, or a request or decision to reduce custodial time. The child in this mode may have no substantive reasons as to why he or she desires such a change. Although the child cannot offer a rationale, the programmer will often readily produce a prolific listing of the "child's" problems in the other home environment.

While the child is at the target parent's home, telephone conversations might become lengthier between the programmer and child. The conversations may be primarily question-and-answer in style, revolving around preparation of meals, sleep schedule, bathing, activities, whether the child is having a good time or would like to "come home," or whether the parent is being missed. Whispering may take place during the telephone call and indicates that the child is uncomfortable with the topic of conversation; does not want anyone in the home to listen; or knows that the telephone calls are not [p. 27] approved of The child who has been singled out as the programmer's favorite may also whisper in an attempt to create jealousy among the siblings by not allowing brothers and sisters to overhear the conversation.

Being subjected to such phone calls places most children in an uncomfortable bind that creates a loyalty conflict. On the one hand, the child understands that the parent on the phone hopes to confirm that the child is not enjoying herself, is not being cared for appropriately, or desperately longs for the telephoning parent. The child is then forced into the awkward position of protecting both parents. The child is also aware that if she verbally agrees to pacify the parent on the phone, the conversation may be overheard, which would make her feel guilty. What the telephoning parent receives will be simple yes or no answers. Until returning home for further interrogation, the child is safe with this type of response to the parent's questioning.

Parents who telephone their children in order to make negative discoveries regarding what is transpiring, often report that the child is non-communicative and uncomfortable whenever they call. This behavior, they believe, indicates a terribly rigid, punitive, fear-inducing, boring, or restrictive environment, with the only safe remedy being to remove the child from the parent who creates such a negative reaction to a simple telephone call. Some parents who are not consciously programming their children may also experience this form of telephone communication when they speak with their children. Commonly, they mis-perceive the communication problems as being caused by the other parent. Their own communication style


should be analyzed and evaluated in terms of how they elicit these responses by interrogating and then by misusing the information.

Another possible indicator of programming/brainwashing may be observed in children whose behavior undergoes subtle to drastic transitions from cooperative to disrespectful, intransigent, irascible, or unruly conduct. Such children may have been overtly admonished not to obey the other parent. Many children have reported, "Dad says I don't have to do what Mom says."

Children who have been given permission to be disobedient are placed in the position of acting out the other parent's aggression. In effect, they are aware of receiving positive reinforcement from the programmer, even if such praise remains unspoken. The more negative reports they return with, the more love, understanding, and sympathy they receive, the result being that the parent now has a cohort who "understands" their plight in the (past) marital relationship. They are told, "Now you know what I went through." Both can commiserate on how awful it is to be with the other parent. Permission to disobey also enables a child to act out his or her own hostility and anger over a divorce in an unhealthy manner.

Target parents who may be on the receiving end of such behavior observe the change but are unable to comprehend why it occurs. They search for logical reasons and become distraught, believing that their child has become [p. 28] another casualty of separation or divorce. Plagued with self-blame, they ponder whether they really are "bad" parents and what they may be doing wrong. In the process of self-analysis, many adopt the latent-genes theory: "It's something lying dormant in the genes from the other side of the family," finally rearing its ugly head.

Once children become entrenched in this behavior, it becomes difficult to extricate them, especially if the parent who is being acted out against chooses to counter or control the child's behavior by using punitive measures. At this juncture, the vicious circle of poor behavior and then punishment becomes a set pattern of interrelating between the parent and child. To the child, punishment reinforces the program that this is a "bad" parent. He or she does not easily accept responsibility for his or her contributory behavior.

The programmer hears that problems exist between the child and the target parent, and the child is rewarded as he or she symbolically presents the gift of misbehavior to the parent who has given permission to act out and who does not desire the child to have a positive relationship with the target parent. These children understand that nothing positive can be uttered concerning pleasurable activities with extended family, friends, a stepparent or step-sibling, trips, parties, or even a new pet. Positive commentary is usually met with disdain ("I really don't want to hear about it"); ambivalence ("Is that so?"); feigned lack of interest ("I'm not interested in anything that goes on there"); a competitive reaction ("Don't you think we do more fun things?"); jealousy ("Your dad never did for me what he's doing with his new wife"); or withdrawal from the child, if the reports are too positive or excitement is detected. Occasionally a parent will misinterpret the other parent's motives to the child. Providing enjoyable experiences is described as not genuine or long lasting, or as manipulative attempts to "buy" the child.

An implicit threat of withdrawal of love is ponderously disturbing for children from two years of age and older who may recall positive interaction between the parents at happier times


during or after the marriage, separation, or divorce. In recalling the positive regard their parents had for each other, children assume that love is fragile and that they could also experience similar loss and abandonment. The parent who threatens to withdraw love and affection will be more powerful and influential than the parent whose love is expressed in a constant manner and is unconditional. Children may gravitate toward the more tenuous relationship, secure in the knowledge that the other parent will continue to love them no matter what happens.

REWRITING-REALITY SYNDROME

[p. 34]

This technique is also referred to as rewriting history or as rescripting. Through rewriting reality, the brainwasher attempts to convince a child to doubt his or her ability to perceive reality. A child may observe a scenario unfold from beginning to end, but as the brainwashing parent repetitively goes over the scenario and resists the child's interpretation, the original and "true" reality is ultimately filtered out and the rewritten script is adopted. The basic reward is parental acceptance and love. The paradigm is as follows:

Procedure for Rewriting

1. The child's observation of reality

2. Introduction of repetitive brainwashing

3. Confusion

4. Self-doubt

5. Need for acceptance from the brainwasher

6. Compliance by child

7. Reward for compliance

8. Reduction or termination of brainwashing program

The longitudinal ramifications for a child who is exposed to this technique are rather serious. If begun with young children, the result can be long-term dependence upon the programmer for confirmation of the child's perceptions in other areas of life. Self-doubt and compliance may radiate into realms totally unrelated to the original incident. These children feel most secure returning to the parent or other figures from whom they desire love and acceptance before making any decision. They are uncomfortable with their own abilities to perceive and decide.

The Case of the Fallen Father


Judy and Arthur M. had adhered to a strict custody agreement since their divorce, which they followed to the minute to reduce conflict. They afforded each other no leniency in meeting prescribed limits on time spent with their son, Jason, who was eight years old. Jason was well aware of the restrictive scheduling and parental conflicts. Therefore, when he and his father spotted each other at a mall while he was in the company of Judy and the stepfather, Jason was afraid to make a move toward Arthur. It was; not his father's time, Arthur decided to approach Jason, despite the custody agreement. He brushed by his former spouse and her husband, kneeling down to give his anxious son a hug. When the father stood up, he took a step backward, tripped over the stepfather's extended foot, and found himself sprawled on [p. 35] the floor. The stepfather, who was a large, ominous-looking man, remarked, "I guess you tripped. You should be more careful where you walk." Arthur was not really injured and decided to forget the incident to protect Jason from a potential conflict. He chose not to talk about having been, deliberately tripped.

Later, thinking that he had observed something suspicions, Jason confronted his mother and asked whether the stepfather had indeed tripped his father, because his foot had been "in a funny position”: Jody discounted his observation by telling Jason that his father had always been clumsy and that he should have been looking where he was walking. Further, lie would never have fallen if he had not come ever in the first place. Jason had been anxious about the serendipitous meeting and further upset when his father tripped. Jason went to his father and questioned him about how he had fallen. Still protective, Arthur kept to his story of accidentally nipping. Un-be-known to him, he reinforced the mother's rewriting of history.

Parents are often reluctant to tell their children the truth, even when it could prevent damage, Many parents believe that it is more detrimental "to do the same thing" (talk to the child about the other parent) as a programming parent does. Such target parents must come to understand that protecting ones image and self-respect is just that-protection; and it is important for a child to have the truth in order to overcome the programming or brainwashing. Believing that a child will eventually come to an independent conclusion about what really happened is analogous to believing that the Tooth Fairy leaves money under a pillow. It simply doesn't work that way, just like the tooth that disappears, so may the parent-child relationship.

Parents who try zealously to protect their children from gaining any knowledge of litigation ever custody, nonsupport, and other issues often discover that their self-control has backfired.

The programmer/brainwasher enjoys free reign in promulgating propaganda as long as the target parent is either unaware or chooses to remain quiet. Ultimately, it is far better for children to understand different perspectives than to believe a self-serving image put forth by a programmer against a target parent. Such target parents should be encouraged to protect their relationship with the child rather than to adhere to the belief that the truth will triumph because children eventually see the truth. Frequently the relationship under fire never re-equilibrates due to irreparable damage and deep-seated, distorted beliefs. Target parents should not remain silent but must look at the results of nonintervention, thus dispelling the myths about the harmful effects of false protectiveness.


If a target parent comes to understand that programming or brainwashing is occurring, it is initially always in the child's best interest to hinder and impede the process. With no input from a target parent, the child cannot be successful in overcoming the pernicious power of a parent who is given free [p. 36] reign because the target parent mistakenly believes that he or she is protecting the child through silence. There are ways to do this in order to minimize the "cross-fire effect" for the child (see chapter 6).

PHYSICAL SURVIVAL SYNDROME

[p. 36]

Although each of these syndromes, administered individually or in combination, works its inexorable effects on children, the use or threat of physical punishment is one of the most potentially cataclysmic for children. When a brainwashing parent or other agent resorts to threatening and/or physically punishing a child, it is usually the result of frustration ever the child's noncompliance in adopting the programme. Ordinarily, very young children will be more compliant under the threat or use of physical punishment, For most children under the age of ten years old, the effects of such treatment may be social-emotional withdrawal, aggression, childhood depression (which may become longitudinal), poor self-esteem, confusion, and anger.

A number of these children haw been given the ultimate threat - "You tell anybody and you're dead." They are justifiably fearful and reluctant to test out the threat by exposing a parent or other agent even to a trusted parent or significant other. In order to survive, they comply, hoping the threats and/or beatings may cease. In some families, a child need only witness a sibling receiving this type of treatment to learn what his or her own behavior should safely be The child is keenly aware that he or she is not exempt and may also become a target. To keep on the good side of the parent, some children may even adopt the role of the brainwasher's henchman, using threats or actual physical punishment to carry out the brainwashing on younger siblings (identification with the aggressor).

If a professional has been alerted to the use of threats or physical punishment by speaking with the child, siblings, or the target parent-or, this agent intuitively senses such abuse-it is mandatory that the professional first establish trust with the child. Confidentiality cannot be promised in cases where the child admits to this technique of brainwashing. It should be communicated to the child that he or she will receive immediate protection from the parent or perpetrator (if this is, in fact, possible). The child must be convinced that such behavior is seriously wrong and reprehensible and that it should be curtailed. The child must be convinced that ongoing survival lies in outside intervention and not in continued compliance.


ABDUCTORS

[p. 57]

An archetype or profile of the parent who becomes an abductor does not now exist, although our clinical experience and research suggest that such parents do possess a number of commonly shared beliefs, values, and behaviors. Depending upon their available resources, abductors will flee with the child out of the target parent's residential area, out of state, or out of the country.

Effecting plans takes ingenuity, a sense of strategy, creativity, financial resources, and connections to the chosen new location. Resources may be found in supportive family members, friends, and potential or firm career commitments. If the new location is to be a foreign country, the parent has often investigated international policy between the two countries regarding child abduction in custody matters. Those who abduct their children frequently harbor anger and resentment toward the other parent. Acting out their anger through permanently removing a child from the target parent's life is the ultimate act of aggression.

Many would-be abductors have been thwarted in their efforts to gain custody through the legal system. They have sought custody or have attempted to show change of circumstances to overturn an existing custody agreement. When this "failure" occurs, such parents take matters into their own hands. Some will overtly state, "No judge is going to tell me what I can or can't do with my own kid."

A parent who abducts a child has difficulty in accepting the very existence of the former spouse. Any contact, even over small issues, opens past wounds. This parent adopts the ideology that a child will ultimately adjust and be better off without that other parent. In addition to anger and denial of a parent's existence being motivating factors in child abduction, control is another consideration. Any input from the target parent is believed to be negative because that parent is judged negatively. The need to have unilateral control is based on certain fears regarding the other parent-child relationship.

Such parents become apprehensive when there is any diminishment of focus on themselves as the "only" parent. They fear loss through the child's closer bonding with the target. They may have historically been a primary parent and do not want to be newly defined as less of a [p.58] parent because they are now forced to share. "He's a father-come-lately" is the often heard baleful cry.

Some parents feel "forced" into abducting a child when they experience continual denial-of-access problems. One mother abducted her son when the father made good on the threat that "You won't see him at all if you don't return to the marriage:” The father had been making it increasingly difficult for her to see her son despite contempt of court proceedings, He believed that he would be able to blackmail his former wife into returning to the marriage by denying her access to her child.

In another case the mother, who was a lawyer, denied the father access to their son. Acting as her own attorney, she repetitively found ways to haul the father into court under frivolous


contempt petitions. The father could not afford to go to court to correct his access problems or find the mother in contempt. He was already suffering financially from the proliferation of contempt bearings. No penalties were levied against the mother. She requested an evaluation by a custody expert whom the father confronted for being "unresponsive to the child's needs:” He made this claim after discovering that his son, in a meeting with the evaluator, had expressed a desire to live with his father. We determined that the evaluator had decided not to include this important piece of information in his report because he felt that the boy "only missed" his father. The father then queried if, indeed, his son had just missed him, why not at least recommend increased time? The evaluator offered no viable answer and would not change his recommendation. After the case went to court, the astonished father found that time with his son was actually reduced. Outraged, the father left the country with his son the following week.

Although undocumented, there have been reports of underground networks that exist and are available to those who abduct their children. These networks enable parents to form new lives and identities for themselves and their children. Birth records are falsified, as are school records and social security numbers. Children are given new names sometimes being encouraged to choose their own new names. The children who become part of this intricate web to keep Daddy or Mommy from discovering their whereabouts are often far along in being successfully programmed and will cooperate with their abductors.

It is important to understand that abduction can take place by using programming brainwashing without physically removing the child. By systematic use of selected programming, a parent can make a child seem lost to the other parent while living nearby. In fact, in one cue, social-psychological kidnapping by the mother was the basis for the father's actual physical kidnapping. When the father was arrested, he stated, "As long as they are near her I'll never have a relationship with my kids. She's poisoning their minds against me. I had to flee with them. We got to knew each other again. I don't regret the time, only the pain and difficulty I put the children through in the [p.59] process.” Kidnapping, therefore, can be defined as the exclusionary, proprietary control of a child's mind (and body) by a parent. It may or may not involve physically removing them from the presence of the other parent. Programming and brainwashing are central to both types of kidnapping.

RESTRICTIONS ON PERMISSION TO LOVE OR BE LOVED

[p.74]

The transitional period between separation and divorce creates many problems for children that leave them emotionally vulnerable. Although the family will not remain intact, it is important for children to feel that they are not being divorced from their parents. Children who are reassured that both parents’ love will remain stable and constant will be more able to develop their own social-emotional reservoir, enabling them to better survive the family breakup.

Our clinical and research findings clearly indicate that children whose parents disappear from their lives or become only peripherally involved do not fare as well as children who are able to maintain or newly develop strong relationships with both parents. Sometimes, parents (foster care worker – referee judge) are unable to permit or facilitate an ongoing relationship


with the other parent. Whether insidiously subtle or histrionically overt, children receive the message that they will not be loved if they continue to love the other parent.

Already having suffered the loss of the intact family, children seek to reduce further loss. To accomplish this goal, some children will succumb to the pressure of a programming parent. This is one aspect of loyalty conflict in which children find themselves entrapped- attempting to please or pacify a parent (or grandparent) who does not genuinely want the child to love the other parent. Many custody battles are [p.75] won and lost on the basis of loyalty conflicts in which a child feels forced to make a custodial choice based upon the fear of losing one parent. The stakes are high, but the programmer becomes the “winner”. The strategy is successful largely due to the child’s differential perception of the two parents regarding constancy of love. (mom loves me everyday – dad loves me never-absent).

The parent who does not place the child in a loyalty conflict, and enables the child to believe that he or she is entitled to love each parent and still be loved, is perceived to offer the most secure form of love. This is called unconditional love. The parent encourages the child, unfettered, to love and be loved. The child understands this and is able to navigate between the two parents, sharing love equally.

On the other hand, the parent who conditionally gives love creates a loyalty conflict and is intolerant of the love that the child has for both parents. Sometimes, when a child shares stories of happy times with the other parent, the discussions will be met with anger and negativity or apathy, Although initially the reaction is confusing, a child soon absorbs the message: “I don’t like it when I hear that you love your mother, or enjoy your time with her. I don’t like you for loving her.”

After the rule within the message is learned, it becomes too risky to share any more positive or happy scenarios. Herein lies the beginning of a programmer’s power. The child knows that he or she is not likely to lose the non-programming parent’s love, because no matter what, it has been proved to be unconditional. However, the child has observed and has been the recipient of the conditional love of the programmer and must move to cement that love through abject compliance-even to his or her own detriment.

Documents

Stanley Clawar Et Al (1991). Children Held Hostage, Programmed and Brainwashed Children. American Bar Association