|
|
|
|
Subscribe to the Step-Family-Matters.com Weekly eZine!FREE articles & info. every Friday! |
||
Please take a moment to visit our sponsors: |
Preventing Parentectomy Following Divorce Keynote Address, Fifth Annual Conference National Council for Children's Rights Washington DC, October 20 1990
By Frank S. Williams M.D. (Frank S. Williams, M.D. Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst for children, adolescents and adults, is Director of Family and Child Psychiatry at Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles. Dr. Williams also directs the Cedars-Sinai Program for Children and Families of Divorce.)
Introduction
Parentectomy is the removal, erasure, or severe diminution of
a caring parent in a child's life, following separation or
divorce.
Parentectomy covers a large range of parent removal from
partial parentectomy, "You may visit your Daddy or Mommy every
other Sunday"; to total parentectomy, as in Parental
Alienation Syndrome, described by Gardner; or complete parent
absence or removal. The victims of parentectomy are the
children and the parents so severed from each other's lives. A
parentectomy is the most cruel infringement upon children's
rights to be carried out against human children by human
adults. Parentectomies are psychologically lethal to children
and parents.
In the worst consequential wake of a parentectomy , the victim
parent gives up and walks away from the surgically-minded
adults and the victim children. When this happens, the victim
parent walks away from the chronic warring battlefield with
intense ambivalence and confusion, faced with an insoluble
dilemma. He or she knows that the chronic war in which one
parent tries to erase the other parent, and the other parent
struggles to stave off the parentectomy, is itself destructive
to the children, as it causes ongoing tension and stress in
them, as well as in the ongoing interaction between the
children and each of their parents. On the other hand, if a
mother or father gives up and walks away from the war, the
children feel abandoned by a loved and needed parent, and
unusually resent and become depressed over the abandonment.
Although children hate fighting and pray for it to stop, they
misinterpret a parent's giving up the fight as that parent's
not caring enough about them. Yet, clinicians know that, in
these cases, even when a father or mother gives up the battle
for custody, it is hardly ever due to not caring for their
children enough. Rather, they give up the fight because they
are emotionally depleted, physically exhausted, worn out,
depressed or financially drained; they don't want to continue
to subject their children to the relentless warring; they
discover that they have little chance of success against a
prejudiced legal/judicial system, and little chance of success
against a prejudiced, incompetent or skillful "hired gun" -
mental health professional, who has been paid to facilitate a
parentectomy. Unfortunately, for the right price, such
psychological surgeons can be found.
Further Consequences of a Parentectomy
In addition to the worst scenario of actually being abandoned,
when a parentectomy occurs, children lose the rewarding
ongoing opportunity to give and receive love to and from a
parent who has loved them.
These children frequently become depressed - especially in
later adolescence. At times their depression reaches suicidal
proportions. In my own clinical work, as well as in school and
emergency room consultation experience during the past 15
years, I have found a very high correlation between
suicidality in adolescents and a divorce in their earlier
years, which virtually results in one parent being erased from
their lives.
They often lack self esteem, particularly if they believe the
erased parent willfully abandoned them, or when the remaining
parent behaves as if the erased parent never existed or never
loved and cared for the children.
Children with parentectomies often go on to mistrust and fail
in adult intimate relationships, this is for several reasons.
first, they tend to see people as good or bad, right or wrong,
loving or hateful, worthy of gratitude or worthy of
punishment. Secondly, they have usually witnessed models of
adult relationships based on mutual accusations and
defensiveness, as opposed to the healthier model of tolerating
ambivalence about the good and bad in others and in oneself.
Further, in cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome, they may
leave home prematurely or turn against the "favoured" parent
later in life. Their turning against the one favoured parent
may come about in later adolescence, when they realize they
were "brainwashed" victims caused by a malicious, angry, or
disturbed parent, to unjustifiably hate the other parent.
Methods Used in the Service of Parentectomy
A parent seeking to perform a parentectomy usually enlists the
help of attorneys, relatives, friends, and mental health
professionals, in the pursuit of the radical removal of the
other parent.
They have several methods at their disposal. First they can
get the potential parent victim - usually the Father - to see
a "friendly," "brilliant" mental health clinician or child
development specialist, who will brain-drill the potential
parent victim about a distorted, out-of-context version of the
psychological and developmental needs of children. The child
development specialist will reiterate that children -
especially young children - need the stability, constancy and
consistency of one home, and that it is emotionally harmful
for the children to be shuttled back and forth between homes.
They will reiterate that children need a primary psychological
caretaker.
From my own clinical experience with children, I would agree
with the position that one home provides stability and
continuity. However, when parents are divorced, the children
cannot enjoy the benefit of both parents living with them in
the same home. Therefore shuttling between homes may be
inevitable. In divorce, we usually do not have the option of
choosing what is in the best interest of the children.
Instead, we most often must choose the least detrimental of
several detrimental options. This is especially so when a
child has been psychologically bonded to two parents. Of two
potential evils for children - the evil of shuttling between
the homes of two loving, caring parents versus the evil of
losing one such parent - certainly the lesser evil is
shuttling between two homes. It is the continued parental
bonding, not the number of homes or vehicular travel, that
will be the crucial determinant of children's forward
psychological development following divorce. In these days,
when both parents frequently work, and rely on sharing the
child-rearing with each other, with other family members and
with housekeepers and day care personnel, the concept of one
"primary psychological caretaker" is outdated. frequently
there are two psychological caretakers or a network of
caretakers, supervised by two parents.
Should the "friendly," "brilliant" mental health clinician
described above fail to convince the victim of the need for a
parentectomy, the determined other parent can then enlist the
aid of the "hired-gun" child development expert. After a
brief, superficial contact with the other parent, of times
without ever seeing the victim parent or without ever seeing
the children interact with the victim parent - the "hired-gun"
will unequivocally and with utmost scientific certainty
declare:
that the children mistrust and are afraid of the victim
parent;
that the victim parent lacks empathy for the children;
that the victim parent emotionally abuses the children;
that the victim parent is an alcoholic or other substance
abuser;
that the victim parent is impulsive and prone to potential
child physical abuse; and,
worst of all, that the victim parent suffers with a serious
psychiatric disorder, such as Borderline Personality,
Narcissistic, Anti-Social, or Obsessive Compulsive Personality
disorder, or perhaps even Paranoia or Schizophrenia.
Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse
Should the "friendly" counselling and "hired gun" approaches
fail, the parent determined to perform a parentectomy can make
an allegation of Child Sexual Abuse. This is most effective
when the child is of preschool age, and easily confused. Such
allegations need careful expert professional attention. Proper
thorough evaluations must be conducted, during which time the
child should not be removed from either parent. In selective
situations, following parental separation and divorce,
mothers, father and children are highly vulnerable to sexual
abuse activity. When a child or parent is quantitively
deprived of loving parent-child contact, the child or parent
may over-cherish or over-respond to physical contact, which
may become eroticized. When there is no other adult to console
a lonely parent who feels frightened at night and that lonely
parent's child also feels lonely and frightened at night, the
parent and child may wind up sleeping in the same bed
together. this increases their vulnerability to erotic, sexual
contacts.
Although we should not summarily dismiss the possibility of
actual sexual molestation, at the same time we have found that
most allegations of child sexual abuse during custody wars are
false allegations. Some are calculated manipulations, while
others result from parents' anxieties, misinterpretations, and
their clouded perceptions during custody battles.
Absence of Cooperation
If all the above methods fail, the parent determined to
perform a parentectomy can then claim, "We can't cooperate and
therefore we cannot share parenting by way of any form of
joint custody, as joint custody requires substantial parental
cooperation." Unfortunately, this declaration is often
supported by mental health clinicians, because of their
misunderstanding or over-statement of the writings of Dr.
Richard Gardner. Dr. Gardner's clinical experience with
children and parents of divorce is often misused to reinforce
this faulty point of view about parental cooperation.
When Richard Gardner stated that "joint custody" requires a
high degree of parental cooperation (1986, 1989), he was using
his particular definition of joint custody - one in which
there is a free-flowing, flexible arrangement; one in which
the children and the parents may frequently shift schedules,
may often change the days and times the children are with each
parent; and may alter parental responsibilities for the
children's school and social activities. In such flexible
arrangements, the shifts in schedule and responsibilities can
occur during any given day, week or month. Of course, such an
unstructured, ever-changing form of joint custody require
frequent parental contact, negotiation and discussion, and
often involves the children. Such a form of flexible,
free-flowing joint custody would require parental cooperation,
and would not work well where one parent hates or is
emotionally allergic to the other parent.
This particular form of joint custody however, is now a rare
and somewhat antiquated form of joint custody. It reflects the
efforts of those few special early "pioneer" parents who
respected each other as parents and individuals. They were
therefore able to explore flexible joint arrangements in
attempts to continue their children's lives with both parents.
In essence they explored and maintained living environments,
approximating the pre-divorce situation. In contrast to Dr.
Gardner's definition, my definition of "joint custody" is a
multi-faceted one. At one end of the spectrum, it includes
such flexible unstructured, free flowing arrangements, defined
by Gardner. At the other end of teh spectrum it includes a
detailed, rigid and highly structured parent-child plan, which
minimizes the need for parent contact, negotiation and
communication. Between the two extreme ends of the spectrum
are varying arrangements in which real significant living
time, including overnights, is shared with the children by
both parents, with varying degrees of structure and rigidity,
as required. Indeed, with warring, unfriendly, uncooperative
parents, a highly structured, rigid, inflexible custody
schedule is necessary and appropriate. The structure for high
conflict parents should include transitions for the children
between parents, on neutral grounds; for example, the children
can be picked up from and be returned to school, instead of
the other parent's residence. This arrangement avoids points
of battle between the parents, and avoids the need for
frequent negotiations on a day-today, or week-to-week basis,
which, in turn, avoids the need to battle over
decision-making, residential time, or parental authority in
front of the children.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Gardner has been misunderstood and
misused by some mental health clinicians advocating for sole
custody to one parent. In consultation with Dr. Gardner, I
learned that he believes that when there are two highly bonded
loving parents, a rigid structured schedule of even 50-50
shared residential overnights, as well as a pre-defined
structure decision-making authority plan for each parent may
be appropriate to best serve the children. He would just not
define such a 50-50, rigid, structured arrangement as
"joint-custody".
Dynamics Behind the Pursuit of Parentectomy
Parental Identity
The fear of losing one's parental identity is the principal
dynamic behind parentectomy efforts. Throughout life, all
persons gain and integrate many identities, which become part
of their self-images. These identities include one's identity
as: a child member of a family; a student; a peer or team
member; a professional or other worker; a mate with marital
identity; a person with a parental identity; and a grandparent
with a grand-parental identity.
Until recent times, some parents, more traditionally mothers
in our western culture, reached a point of divorce with
primarily marital and parental identities. For such parents,
as their mate or marital identity dissolves, as it does in
divorce, the only identity often left for them to hold on to,
cherish, and fight for is their parental identity.
Grandparents, especially when they are retired from both work
and parenting, often fear loss of their primary remaining
identity - their grandparents identity. As they envision
sharing or losing valued time with their grandchildren, their
fears may prompt them to harp on their sons and daughters to
fight for sole custody of the children, so they will not
become "unemployed" grandparents.
The appearance of a potential stepmother or stepfather on the
scene is highly threatening to parental identity. This is
especially so when that newcomer has a great need to parent.
Hearing one's children refer to a step parent as "mommy" or
"daddy", often triggers the search for the parental scalpel.
The Loss of the Family
For adults, the pain of losing one's family structure is very
intense, and in may cases, much more intense than the pain of
losing one's mate. Divorcing parents often desperately hold on
to a myth that their family has not fallen apart, in their
attempt to not feel the pain and depression which accompanies
the rupture of the family. They maintain the myth of a
one-family structure, embodying elements of one home and one
family. This myth is much easier to hold on to is a parent
does not have to see the other parent. It is especially easier
to hold on to if a replacement is brought in to fulfill the
other parent's role, namely a boyfriend, stepfather,
girlfriend, or stepmother.
In counselling parents of divorce, I have found it much more
productive to focus on the pain caused by the loss of family
structure, as opposed to focusing on the pain caused by the
parent's prior battle with each other, or the pain caused by
their loss of each other.
The literature on divorce leans heavily on the concept that
divorced parents chronically battle in an effort to hold on to
each other and not lose the marital relationship. Although
that dynamic does exist, in my experience it is not a
universal post-divorce dynamic, and it is not the primary
reason behind prolonged custody struggles or prolonged custody
wars. Instead, I find the need to hold on to this myth of one
non-ruptured family is a more usual dynamic behind prolonged
custody wars. Unfortunately, maintaining that myth of one
family, requires erasing the other parent.
Envy, Rage and Revenge
A parent's desire to punish the other parent by depriving the
other parent of his or her children often relates to the other
parent's apparent or fantasied greater success or luck in
life. This can create rage and envy. The real or fantasied
greater success is in the area of: finding a new and rewarding
love relationship; achieving greater financial security;
having a wholesome extended support system of family and
friends; and most ironic, envy and rage in relation to the
other parent's fantasied or actual greater success in relating
to their children in warm, comfortable, loving and trusting
ways.
It is this rage, envy, and the wish to punish that we see most
often in severe cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome, with
very pathologically disturbed parents.
Psychological "Allergic" Reactions to the Other Parent
We frequently see situations in which one parent became
psychologically dependent upon the other during the marriage.
Once separated and needing to break the dependency but fearful
of the continued power of dependency, such a dependent parent
feels and urgent compulsion to avoid the other parent as one
avoids poison ivy. Feeling emotionally "allergic" the
dependent parent fears susceptibility to renewed dependency.
To avoid the allergen - namely the other parent - the
dependent parent attempts to achieve complete avoidance which,
of course, is easier to achieve if that parent can be kept out
of the children's lives. The allergy medicine - parentectomy -
becomes the children's poison!
Prevention of Parentectomy
The following recommendations on how to prevent parentectomies
may, in part, appear drastic. These prevention measures which
are presented in the spirit of suggestions, and based on
clinical experience, include:
Person contemplating marriage and children should consider a
proposed mate's tendency toward relying on the role of being a
parent as his or her exclusive identity. Such persons may need
to rely totally on full-time control over the children for
identity following divorce.
One should try to fall in love with and have children with a
mate who has great empathy for children's needs and feelings.
A mother or father with empathy who loves his or her children
will usually not subject the children to a parent removal.
One should not separate from one's mate without a scheduled,
structured, legal custody arrangement, in advance of parting
the marital relationship.
Once separated, a parent should never speak with and certainly
should never see a mental health professional - other than a
court appointed one - that he or she has not helped choose in
advance, and should further avoid like the plague a
friendly-sounding psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker,
or counsellor, who calls and says he or she wants to help the
parents and children through the pain of divorce. this is
especially so when that professional has already seen the
children and the other parent.
Parents should seek and hopefully find attorneys not biased by
the conviction that all children need a primary home and a
primary caretaker after divorce.
The first moment it becomes clear that scheduled custodial
time with one's child is being consistently blocked, the
parent so blocked should, run not walk, with his or her
attorney, to the nearest family court.
Conclusion
Many parents, mental health clinicians, and attorneys have had
contact with the process of parentectomy as a victim or as
someone close to a victim. Professionals must guide victims or
potential victims through the maze of legal, judicial, mental
health and family processes which can lead to the radical
"surgery" of parent-erasure I call parentectomy. Attempts at
parentectomy create a psychological reign of terror, for the
intended parent and child-victims. Those victims who survive
are emotionally bloodied, bitter, war-torn, and exhausted.
They often form and join support groups with committed and
caring persons in organisations to protect their children and
themselves, or to help others to protect their children and
themselves from the dreaded sequelae of parentectomy. Most
parentectomy victims and most of those who try to help such
victims, experience a great deal of chronic emotional pain.
I wish there were a panacea to help reduce that pain. There is
not. The author has shared his experience and thinking around
children and parents of divorce, in the hope that increased
understanding of the dynamics behind parentectomy, will help
clinicians, attorneys, judges and parents eradicate this most
dreaded, malevolent and destructive affliction of parents and
children who love, care for and need each other.
Page Location: http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/pas-nccr.htm
|
Looking for something? Find it on Sprinks!
|
Copyright 2000, 2001 - Step-Family-Matters.com - Designed and Maintained by Aesthetica Studios, Inc.