Parental alienation (PA) cases hardly ever involve only two parents and their children. Professionals from outside the family, like lawyers, therapists, custody evaluators, child-protection workers, police officers, educators, grandparents or other relatives can all influence how PA cases develop. This involvement of outside parties can help mend strained relationships, of course, as it is often meant to, but it can also make things worse when roles are poorly defined or important evidence is misunderstood.
Canadian family lawyer Brian Ludmer addressed these particular challenges in Managing Non-Party Issues in a Parental Alienation Case, a presentation he conceived and delivered at the third annual conference of the Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG) in Philadelphia in September of 2019.
In delivering the session, Brian Ludmer brought his substantial professional experience with this subject to the table. As the founder and principal lawyer of the Toronto-based Ludmer Law, he has represented many clients in complex cases involving parenting disputes, allegations of abuse, and matters of parental alienation. Ludmer also co-authored The High-Conflict Custody Battle: Protect Yourself and Your Kids from a Toxic Divorce, False Accusations, and Parental Alienation, a 2014 text often used as a resource by families involved in family law conflicts. He has also made presentations encompassing his research and experience to other professional organizations all over the world, including the International Conference on Shared Parenting and the Canadian Centre for Men and Families, among several others.
His 2019 PASG presentation explored how non-family parties can affect parental alienation cases and why their actions require very careful coordination.
How Non-Family Parties Can Shape a Family’s Case
Parental alienation can be a difficult concept for outsiders to recognize because people’s outward behaviour does not always reveal the true dynamic at play within a family. In fact, that’s usually the exception rather than the rule. At first glance, a child may strongly reject one parent in a fairly cut-and-dried manner, but that rejection should not automatically be accepted as either justified or manipulated. The origins and context surrounding the rejection of a parent ought always to be carefully investigated.
In his presentation to PASG, Ludmer identified several problems that can arise when outside professionals or extended family lack the specialized knowledge needed to place these delicate cases in proper context. Some of the problems that can occur when this happens include, but are not limited to:
- Confirmation bias
- Poor interviewing techniques
- Incomplete investigations
- Role confusion within the larger framework of the case
- Excessive reliance on a child’s stated wishes without examining how those views were shaped by external factors
A professional may hear sharply different accounts of past events from the parents and the child or children involved. Other relatives or supporters may then reinforce one particular version of events without being in possession of all relevant information. Without reviewing the family’s history, relevant records, prior court findings, and information from independent sources in detail, a non-family party can unintentionally become an advocate for one side.
Delay can create another risk. If a child is separated from a parent for a substantial amount of time, negative beliefs about them may become more entrenched, positive memories of the parent may fade, and rebuilding the relationship can become an increasingly difficult proposition. Because of these factors, Brian Ludmer’s 2019 PASG presentation emphasized the importance of early identification and informed intervention in family law cases involving PA.
The Responsibilities of Lawyers, Therapists, and Other Professionals
Each professional attached to such a case has a different role to play, but in his speech and accompanying slideshow to the PASG Conference, Brian Ludmer identified some recurring concerns across several different fields.
He specified that lawyers must advocate for their clients while still observing the ethical obligations inherent to their profession. As such, counsel should not advance unsupported allegations, encourage breaches of court orders, or pressure other professionals to accept a client’s account without proper oversight and examination. Ludmer was also careful to say that lawyers representing rejected parents also need enough objectivity and multidisciplinary knowledge to coordinate their legal strategy with the child’s therapeutic treatment needs, as well as the evidence in the case.
Children’s counsel, for their part, must understand the boundaries of their assigned role. For instance, communicating a child’s wishes does not necessarily establish that those wishes were developed independently and free of influence from another person involved in the case. Nor should those wishes be the primary force determining the outcome of legal proceedings. Instead, the child’s statements must be considered as one factor alongside the broader body of evidence and the family’s history.
Therapists also require clearly defined roles, goals, and timelines. In cases that include an element of parental alienation, it’s also important to note that traditional individual-style therapy may not be as effective when the underlying problem involves the entire family. In his talk, Brian Ludmer cautioned against allowing ineffective treatment to continue indefinitely or asking a parent to apologize for any conduct they deny or believe has been taken out of context. He also highlighted the dangers of potentially conflicting professional roles in PA cases, such as when one person attempts to act as both therapist and evaluator.
He went on to explain that custody assessors and evaluators should review any relevant documents, interview all appropriate sources, test explanations from different parties that disagree with one another, and factor in the family’s established history before reaching any official conclusions. Importantly, he noted, ordinary parenting imperfections should not automatically be treated as serious matters that explain a child’s complete rejection of a parent.
Child-protection agencies, police services, schools, and activity providers must likewise understand the parameters of their roles and the exact terms of applicable court orders. When these organizations or their representatives take sides or overstep their authority in situations involving children in PA cases, they may unintentionally contribute to non-compliance and worsen conflict within the family.
Building a Coordinated and Evidence-Based Response
In his PASG presentation, Brian Ludmer recommended an approach that begins with recognizing problematic non-party involvement early. Concerns should be raised firmly but respectfully, with an emphasis on making sure that all parties have access to accurate information, as well as educating them on the subject if need be.
Parents and counsel should keep records of their concerns and seek access to relevant professional notes and files where appropriate. These records can help identify problems with an investigation, treatment, or compliance with a court order. They should also clarify each professional’s role and raise questions about the person’s relevant expertise, methods, and treatment goals when those matters affect the case.
Ludmer went on to say that when a problem can’t be resolved directly, the next step may involve an internal review, the invocation of a supervisor, or initiating an appeal process. Court intervention may become necessary when a professional exceeds the parameters of their assigned role, interventions repeatedly fail, or a non-family party contributes to continued breaches of a binding court order. Complaints to licensing bodies or professional associations are generally more appropriate as a later response to serious concerns than as the first reaction to a conflict.
By means of a conclusion, in his 2019 PASG presentation, Brian Ludmer called for better professional education, clearer boundaries, and greater coordination amongst all concerned in family law cases involving allegations of PA. He further asserted that non-family parties are not inconsequential players when their decisions can influence treatment, court compliance, or a child’s relationship with a parent. Because of this, their work should be guided by reliable evidence, established procedure, a sense of fairness, and above all else, careful attention to the long-term psychological and relational well-being of any children involved.
A PDF of the slideshow that accompanied Ludmer’s presentation can be viewed here.
See Similar Blog Posts
A Look Back at Brian Ludmer’s 2017 PASG Presentation on the Voice of the Child in Family Law Cases
Brian Ludmer Selected to Contribute to New Book on Parental Alienation
Brian Ludmer Webinar on Proving Parental Alienation Cases Now Available Online