|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to the Step-Family-Matters.com Weekly eZine!FREE articles & info. every Friday! |
||
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors: |
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome
Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD
With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children,
a pattern of abnormal behavior has emerged that has received
little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce
Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic
criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given
the lack of scientific data available on the disorder, issues
of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear
ripe for investigation.
INTRODUCTION
A divorced man gains custody of his children and his ex-wife
burns down his home. A woman in a custody battle buys a
cat for her offspring because her divorcing husband is highly
allergic to cats. A mother forces her children to sleep
in a car to "prove" their father has bankrupted them. The
actions illustrate a pattern of abnormal behavior that has
emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown.
Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and
Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in
divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah,
1988) as well. While the majority of such cases
are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom
the battle continues.
The media have spent considerable effort raising public
awareness about the problem posed by divorced fathers who do
not provide court-ordered child support payments. Hodges
(1991) has noted that less than 20 percent of divorced fathers
provide child support payments three years after their
divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic
status following (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has
contributed to recent legislation to address the "Deadbeat
Dad" problem.
While the media correctly portray the difficulties imposed
upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the
cameras have yet to capture the warfare waged by a select
group of mothers against child support paying, law-abiding
fathers. Everyday, attorneys and therapists are exposed
to horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged
against innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately,
there are no scientific data on the subject. Similarly,
the clinical literature has relatively ignored the problem..
A noted exception can be found in the clinical writings of
Gardner (1987, 1989) who has provided excellent
descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Here,
a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of
maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential
parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes
"preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a
parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated"
(Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental
Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in an array
of abnormal actions against the father. Gardner views
"brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to
capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a
child against his/her non-residential parent.
While Gardner's pioneering descriptions of the Parental
Alienation Syndrome provide an important contribution to our
understanding of divorce-related child-involved hostilities,
the present paper is concerned with a more global abnormality.
As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this
manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands take place
which are beyond merely manipulating the children.
Further, these actions include a willingness by some mothers
to violate societal law. Finally, there are mothers who
persistently engage in malicious behaviors designed to
alienate their offspring from the father, despite being unable
to successfully cause alienation. In sum, these
cases do not meet the criteria for Parental Alienation
Syndrome. Nevertheless, they portray a serious
abnormality.
The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate
this more global abnormality with the hope of generating
increased scientific and clinical investigation of this
problem.
DEFINITION
The present section provides a beginning definition of the
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, which has been
derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial
proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to
greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria.
The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as
follows:
1. A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or
divorced husband by:
a. Attempting to alienate their mutual children from the
father
b. Involving others in malicious actions against the
father
c. Engaging in excessive litigation
2. The mother specifically attempts to deny her child (ren)
a. Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father
b. Uninhibited telephone access to the father
c. Paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school
life and extracurricular activities
3. The pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts
towards the husband including:
a. Lying to the children
b. Lying to others
c. Violations of law
4. The disorder is not specifically due to another mental
disorder, although a
separatemental disorder may co-exist.
CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for
each criterion using the reference numbers provided above.
As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Malicious Mother
Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples.
The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the
proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed
more generally.
Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children
The range of actions taken by a mother to attempt to alienate
her children from their father is impressive. For
example:
One mother lied to her children that she could no longer buy
food because their father had spent
all of their money on women in topless bars.
A doctor's wife forced her 10-year-old son to apply for
federally funded free school lunches to
delude the boy that his "daddy has made us poor."
A woman who for years was very close to the children in a
custody battle, was asked by their mother to give up
neutrality and join her campaign against the father to "dance
on his grave."
When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother
falsely informed her children that their father was having an
affair with this woman.
These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only
hate the father, but perhaps go years without seeing him.
As Cartwright (1993) has noted: "The goal of the alienator is
crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the
child's time, but of the time of childhood." (p.210).
Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious Actions
The second component of the first major criterion where the
mother attempts to punish the husband, involves manipulating
other individuals to engage in malicious acts against the
father. Examples of this kind are as follows:
During a custody battle, a mother lied to a therapist about
the father's behavior. The therapist,
having never spoken with the father, appeared as an "expert"
witness to inform the Judge
that the mother should be the primary residential parent and
that the father needed to be in
therapy.
One angry mother manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous
threatening notes at the ex-
husband's home.
A mother who had lost legal custody of her children,
manipulated a secretary at the child's
school to assist in kidnapping the child.
In the above examples, it is important to note that the person
manipulated by the angry mother has, in a way, been
"alienated" against the divorcing husband. Typically,
the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation,
contributing to a rewarding climate for the mother initiating
malicious actions.
Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation
There is little question that either party in a divorce or
custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal
representation and action.
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome, however, attempt to punish the divorcing husband by
engaging in excessive litigation.
A belligerent and unreasonable mother verbally attacked her
ex-husband whenever she saw him. Over time, his response
was to ignore her. She then took him to court, asking
the judge to require the ex-husband to talk with her.
One mother told a judge that her daughter was not really her
divorcing husband's child
One woman refused to stop attacking her ex-husband through the
courts, despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily
leaving the case. Over a three-year period, seven
different attorneys were utilized.
Data exist which can help in determining the range of
excessive litigation. For example, Koel et al.
(1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a
sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only
12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court,
whereas less than 5 percent file two or more petitions (Koel
et al. 1988); less than one percent file four or more
petitions.
Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation
Experts are in relative agreement that regular and
uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is
desirable and beneficial for children, except in extreme
circumstances (Hodges, 1991). In fact, some states, such
as Florida, have laws written to reflect this view (Keane,
1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children
have legal rights to visitation, individuals with
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome continue to
interfere with it.
A mother who previously attacked her ex-husband physically
during visitation transfers of the children, refused to
provide the children when the ex-husband had the police attend
to monitor exchanges.
When one divorced father arrived to pick up his children for
visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be
elsewhere so that the father could not visit with the
children.
One mother had her physically intimidating boyfriend assault
her ex-husband when he came to pick up his children for
visitation.
The President of the Council for Children's Rights
(Washington, D.C.) notes that such alienation is considered a
form of child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the
police typically avoid involving themselves in such
situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father is
financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis,
there is little that can be done to prevent such mothers'
behavior. Finally, even when such cases are brought to
trial, the courts are often inadequate in supporting fathers'
visitation rights. (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial
System, 1992).
Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays
an important role in maintaining the bond between child and
non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome engage in an array
of actions designed to circumvent telephone access.
A father called to speak to his children and was told that
they were not at home when, in fact, he could hear their
voices in the background.
When one father called to speak with his children, the mother
put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him on hold.
Knowing that the children's father was away on vacation, one
mother encouraged them to leave several messages on his
answering machine to call back immediately only if he would
like some additional visitation time with his children.
Some fathers find the alienation attempts so painful and
fruitless that they eventually are extinguished from calling
their children; they simply "give up." Placed in a
no-win scenario, the father's "abandonment" (Hodges, 1991)
unfortunately achieves the precise result aimed for by the
individual suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome.
Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in Extra-Curricular
Activities
An integral part of the process of maintaining one's bond with
one's child is to participate in activities that one did
before the parents separated. School plays, team sports,
and religious events are just osme of the type of activities
of importance. Malicious Mothers frequently engage in
maneuvers designed to prevent participation in these
activities.
One father was deliberately given the wrong date and time for
an important event for the child. The child was asked by
the mother, "I wonder why your father didn't want to come to
see you today"?
One mother refused to provide the father with any
information about any extra-curricular activities in which the
children were engaged.
Prior to a child's soccer game, one mother told many of the
team parents disparaging falsehoods about the visiting father.
When he came to watch his son's soccer game, many of these
parents looked at him with angry eyes, refused to talk with
him, and walked away when he moved toward them.
Malicious Mothers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to
face penalties for such actions. Judges, attorneys, and
policemen cannot involve themselves in every instance of
blocked paternal access. Furthermore, most fathers
cannot afford the financial requirements involved. As
such, the cycle of access interference perpetuates itself.
Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children
Given their developmental status, children in a disputed
divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent
decides to attack the other by lying to the children,
examples of this type of malicious behavior may include some
of the following:
One divorcing mother told her very young daughter that father
was "not really" her father, even though he was.
An eight-year-old girl was forced by her mother to hand unpaid
bills to her father when he visited because the mother had
falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any
economic means of support to the family.
One mother falsely told her children that their father had
repeatedly beat her up in the past.
These examples of malicious lying can be contrasted with the
more subtle maneuvers typically seen in Parental Alienation
Syndrome, such as "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993).
Here, the mother setting up a Parental Alienation Syndrome may
hint that abuse may have occurred, whereas the individual
suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome
falsely claims that abuse has actually occurred.
Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their
attacks upon the ex-husband. However, with this
particular criterion, the individual with Divorce-Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to other
individuals in the belligerency against the father. Some
examples include the following:
One furious mother called the president of the (1500 employee)
workplace of her divorcing husband, claiming falsely that he
was using business property for person gain and was abusing
their mutual children at his work locale.
One woman falsely told state officials that her ex-husband was
sexually abusing their daughter. The child was
immediately taken away from him and his access to her was
denied.
During the course of a custody dispute, one mother falsely
informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting
skills of each parent, that the father had physically abused
her.
Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon
legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an
excellent liar. Consistent with research on the
inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and
O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling
witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes
seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that
pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted
to that particular character disorder.
Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Husband
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome, have few, if any boundaries in their campaign
against the divorcing husband. Violations of law are
common in many cases, although the laws broken may be
relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations
of law may be quite serious.
One woman deliberately drove her automobile into the house of
the ex-husband where their mutual children resided.
In the midst of a custody battle, one woman broke into the
residence of her divorcing husband and stole important
business papers.
An angry divorcing mother called a Christian evangelical
television station and pledged $1,000, giving the name,
address and phone number of her divorcing Jewish husband as
the pledgee.
The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain
personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic)
but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to
meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder.
Further, in each of the four examples provided above,
none of the Malicious Mothers involved was sentenced for such
behavior by a Judge.
Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder
In assessing the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, it
is important to note that many of the above clinical examples
seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental
disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one mother who
engaged in extreme maliciousness toward her divorcing husband
had several mental health professionals testify that she was
not suffering from any type of mental disorder.
In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that
might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an
exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases,
an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis,
yet one woman still denied her ex-husband visitation 10 years
after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a
possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one woman
who repeatedly violated the law in attacking her ex-husband,
received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being
evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners.
In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be
considered, yet the anger for many of the mothers does not
appear to be intermittent.
Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic
accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good
as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat,
1990), the problem is compounded in family law where
incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved
in the judicial process (Turk, 1993). Clearly, the
relationship between Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome
and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires
significant investigation.
DISCUSSION
The above description of the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal
and scientific issues.
From a clinical perspective, families that involve a
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome are subject to
serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is
no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon.
It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these
cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria
deny that there is anything wrong with them.
An additional difficulty is that many therapists are unaware
of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993).
As such, there are malicious therapists who are "fooled" by
such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court
testifying that there is nothing wrong with the mother
involved.
From a legal perspective, there are some attorneys who may
unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner,
1989). On the other hand, there are some attorneys who
deliberately encourage such behavior as the financial rewards
for them are time dependent. In other words, the more
involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for
the attorney. (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However,
even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true,
there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore,
independent of economic considerations, many who become
involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of
cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).
The woman who is not disturbed "enough" to lose custody of her
children in the courtroom will not have money denied to her
because she engages in this behavior; nor will she go to jail.
Thus, many clients report significant frustration when they
and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and
the courts seem to do little.
In a review of pertinent law literature on bias against
men in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992)
concluded that there is widespread discrimination. This
is well illustrated by one family law Judge's statement that,
"I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always
follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the
mamas." (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System,
1992, p. 741). Similarly, it is noted that visitation
rights of fathers are not enforced as rigidly as are child
support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial
System, 1992.) Such bias against men in family law
proceedings results in a unique group of fathers who
unintentionally become relatively helpless victims of the
system (Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to
reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by women
suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs
to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial
parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial
System, 1992). Gardner (1989) has noted that Parental
Alienation Syndrome appears most commonly in females, although
it is possible for a male who has custody of the children to
engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The
author's experience with Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome is similar to Gardner's. However, the present
writer has yet to see a case of a father engaging in all of
the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not
possible for there to be a "Malicious Father" Syndrome.
In fact, Shephard (1992) reports that there is significant
abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers.
On the other hand, it should be noted that there are females
who are required to pay child support, but we have yet to hear
about "Deadbeat Moms." Given at the present time that a
case in which the father met all of the criteria for
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome has yet to be
documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence
to guide issues of nosologic labeling.
How prevalent is the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989)
reports that approximately 90 percent of all custody battles
involve some aspects of parental alienation. Further,
Kressel (1985) reviewed data indicating that up to 40
percent of maternal custodians denied visitation to the
ex-husband in order to punish him. Relatedly,
Arditti (1992) reported that 50 percent of a sample of divorce
fathers (N=125) indicated that visitation was interfered with
by the mother. While aspects of parental alienation may
be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of
maternal custodians would meet all of the criteria for
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of
this syndrome that the malicious behavior is precipitated by
the divorce process. However, this is clearly an
empirical question. While the malicious actions may
first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that
maliciousness may have been present earlier but undetected.
Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal,
986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also
be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder
that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce
itself unfolds.
Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of
post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge.
Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's
post divorce functioning (e.g. Frost and Pakiz, 1990;
Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Steward, 1990;
Kudek, 1988), but studies have yet to appear on the more
extreme cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome represents an
important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects
children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health
professionals and others. Until this phenomenon is
explored more thoroughly in the scientific and clinical
literature, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to
plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will
stimulate research so that clinical and legal management
guidelines can be developed.
REFERENCE
Arditti, J.A. (1992). Factors relating to custody,
visitation and child support for divorce fathers: An
exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17:23-42.
Beal, E.W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of
Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York. Cart wright, D.F.
(1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation
syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21:205-215.
Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System.
(1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report
to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev.
8:539-807.
Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar?
American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.
Enos, D.M., and Handal, P.J. (1986). The relation of
parental marital status and perceived family conflict to
adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin.
Psychol. 54:820-824.
Frost, A.K., and Pakiz, B. (1990). The effects of
marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J.
Orthopsychiatry 60:544-555.
Furstenberg, F.F., Morgan, S.P., and Allison, P.D. (1987).
Paternal participation and children's well being after marital
dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52:695-701.
Gardner, R.A. (1987), The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the
Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex
Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.
Gardner, R.A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody
Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics,
Cresskill, N.J.
Greif, G.L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and thieves,
Simon & Shuster, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Healy, J.M., Malley, J.E., and Stewart, A.J. (1990).
Children and their fathers after parental separation.
Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.
Hetherington, E.N., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.) (1988).
Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on
Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
Heinz, H.R., and Heinz, S.A. (1993). Emotional incest:
The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law
7:169-174.
Hernandez, D.J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and
remarriage. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.),
Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on
Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 3-22.
Hodges, W.F. (1991). Interventions for Children of
Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.
Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple
Press, Sarasota, FL.
Koel, A., Clark, S.C., Phear, W.P., and Hauser, B.B. (1988).
A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements.
In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of
Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 73-90.
Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books,
New York.
Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of
visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial
fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation
interparental conflict. J. Appl Devel. Psychol. 9:
315-328.
Laos a, L.N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in
the United States. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh,
J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and
Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.,
pp. 23-49.
Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse.
Child Welf. 71:357-367.
Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the
borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143:1287-1289.
Tillitski C.J. (1992). Fathers and child custody:
Issues, trends and implications for counseling. J. Ment.
Health Counsel. 14:351-361.
Turkat I.D. (1990). The Personality Disorders: A
Psychological Approach to Clinical Management, Pergamon, New
York.
Turkat, I.D. (1993). Questioning the mental health
experts' custody report. Am. J. Fam. Law 7:175-179.
Page Location: http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/malice.htm
|
Looking for something? Find it on Sprinks!
|
Copyright 2000, 2001 - Step-Family-Matters.com - Designed and Maintained by Aesthetica Studios, Inc.
