On / Off: Split thinking in parental alienation

sliced lemons on black surface
Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

At the bottom of this thread is a link to another fabulous article from Karen Woodall who sheds light upon how splitting occurs in parental alienation and how it affects alienated parents in particular.

‘One of the biggest problems in coping with being rejected by your children is the manner in which you are forced into a mirroring of the good/bad splitting which is going on in your child’s mind.  The good/bad split is the belief that everyone is either good or bad and that the world and all experiences within it can be divided into good and bad or right and wrong.’

And;

‘What people see from the outside is someone whose child no longer wishes to see them, shouting and blaming the other parent for having caused it.  They see an angry, dis-regulated parent labelling the other as being responsible for everything that is going on.  What the child sees is a justification for their rejection of you, an entrenchment of the feeling that they were right to make that ‘choice.’

To illustrate this more fully look at this clip of Dr Steven Miller::

Amongst the many additional problems we face as alienated parents is that split thinking is part of the DNA of Cafcass. It is so deeply ingrained that I question whether retraining can work when we should be talking in terms of de-programming. A good general example is the new framework which is literally packed with binary arguments or false dichotomies.

Typically, Cafcass propose that a subject consists of just two extremes which misses out the infinite number of possibilities between them. Our section 7 reports typically use the same logical fallacy. For instance it is common for Cafcass to claim that one cannot force’ an older child to do something. In this way they are attempting to steer the court and state the alternatives as being

1. Doing nothing or

2. Forcing.

They conveniently omit to mention that there are loads of alternative actions and behaviours between their two stated (cherry picked or pet) extremes.

At a corporate level the section on private law in the new Cafcass operating framework begins with the now very tired proposition that, on the one hand, the vast majority of parents are fair-minded and grown up enough to sort out their own contact arrangements. Whilst, on the other hand there is a group who lose contact with their kids and can’t agree anything!! It States:

‘5.1 Most separating or divorcing parents make their own arrangements for how they are to share care after they split up. Huge efforts are often put into making quite detailed agreements which stand the test of time, despite changing circumstances and even though communication is often difficult and painful. Another group of separating parents separate completely, with one of the parents either disappearing or losing touch with their child or children.’

Life is mostly many shades of grey. It is seldom, if ever, black or white but in the ground between. The reality is that there are so many situations between these extremes. The basic problem is masked and not understood. Therefore, the answer is unlikely to be correct.

Heroes and Villains: Avoiding the Split Narrative in the Experience of Being an Alienated Parent

 

SAME LESSONS NOT BEING LEARNED

text on shelf
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

When one considers the depth and thoroughness of the judgement in the recent case of D (A child: parental alienation) [2018] EWFC B64, comentary does seem to have been somewhat thin on the ground. Nonetheless, barrister June Venters QC, who represented the father in this case, appears to have addressed the silence with a well wrtten article in the Law Gazette.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice-points/parental-alienation/5068556.article?fbclid=IwAR1V65a2uXUdoDxKo_ITriWXtnEhWcp7UmoC15GFroN-MiAcLwCj6al_Pqc#.XAaIawLRoIU.facebook

The article is required reading for anyone anywhere near the court process at the present time. Given the widespread antipathy towards pa in the system it is highly likely that your case may well chime with some of the issues raised in this case. Disappointingly, ‘D’ raises the same old chestnuts. Theses have all appeared in other cases recently: so much so that it sometimes looks like Cafcass and the courts have their fingers in their ears. It does seem that there is a significant body of determined practitioners in our midst who are determined that children should not be safeguarded from the emotional abuse and the harmful effects of parental alienation

  • Failure of social workers (and others) to acquaint themselves with the historical evidence of the case;
  • A lack of significant experience, expertise or training in the field of parental alienation;
  • A failure to be “open minded” when receiving a child’s disclosures;
  • Faiilure to ASCERTAIN a childs’ wishes and feelings;
  • A failure to see the child with each parent;
  • Straying outside field of expertise;.
  • Forming views despite a lack of evidence.

To conclude her article, June Venters called for a culture change amonst those working in the sphere of family law. Clearly, training, understanding and awareness is not up to scratch and the long term affects of pa are poorly understood.

She said, ‘My experience of cases involving parental alienation, highlighted by this case is that there needs to be a culture change among all those who work in the field of family law. There needs to be a greater understanding of what it involves and how it manifests itself. Currently it would seem there is little or no training on the subject and thus it is hardly surprising there is such little understanding. There also needs to be an awareness of how this is likely to adversely impact on a child and their adult life and in particular their own relationships and mental health, if unresolved and untreated.’

What is clear is that practitioners are more keen to conceal years of inactivity and antipathy instead of safeguarding children. It is important to put things right NOW. Even if pa is rarer than we think

Naap Hope4i

Owing to the non-impact out there to the suicide rate connected to Family courts, I thought this short documentary could help some people. This was not pre-planned, we did this off the cuff in one take with a father that wished to stay anonymous but wanted to get his story out to help people in the same position he was. Please watch and share it everywhere. You are not alone.

ON/OFF: Split thinking in parental alienation

photo of sliced lemon
Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

At the bottom of this thread is a link to another fabulous article from Karen Woodall who sheds light upon how splitting occurs in parental alienation and how it affects alienated parents in particular.

‘One of the biggest problems in coping with being rejected by your children is the manner in which you are forced into a mirroring of the good/bad splitting which is going on in your child’s mind.  The good/bad split is the belief that everyone is either good or bad and that the world and all experiences within it can be divided into good and bad or right and wrong.’

And;

‘What people see from the outside is someone whose child no longer wishes to see them, shouting and blaming the other parent for having caused it.  They see an angry, dis-regulated parent labelling the other as being responsible for everything that is going on.  What the child sees is a justification for their rejection of you, an entrenchment of the feeling that they were right to make that ‘choice.’

To illustrate this more fully look at this clip of Dr Steven Miller::

Amongst the many additional problems we face as alienated parents is that split thinking is part of the DNA of Cafcass. It is so deeply ingrained that I question whether retraining can work when we should be talking in terms of de-programming. A good general example is the new framework which is literally packed with binary arguments or false dichotomies. 

Typically, Cafcass propose that a subject consists of just two extremes which misses out the infinite number of possibilities between them. Our section 7 reports typically use the same logical fallacy. For instance it is common for Cafcass to claim that one cannot force’ an older child to do something. In this way they are attempting to steer the court and state the alternatives as being

1. Doing nothing or

2. Forcing.

They conveniently omit to mention that there are loads of alternative actions and behaviours between their two stated (cherry picked or pet) extremes. 

At a corporate level the section on private law in the new Cafcass operating framework begins with the now very tired proposition that, on the one hand, the vast majority of parents are fair-minded and grown up enough to sort out their own contact arrangements. Whilst, on the other hand there is a group who lose contact with their kids and can’t agree anything!! It States: 

‘5.1 Most separating or divorcing parents make their own arrangements for how they are to share care after they split up. Huge efforts are often put into making quite detailed agreements which stand the test of time, despite changing circumstances and even though communication is often difficult and painful. Another group of separating parents separate completely, with one of the parents either disappearing or losing touch with their child or children.’

Life is mostly many shades of grey. It is seldom, if ever, black or white but in the ground between. The reality is that there are so many situations between these extremes. The basic problem is masked and not understood. Therefore, the answer is unlikely to be correct.

Heroes and Villains: Avoiding the Split Narrative in the Experience of Being an Alienated Parent