Parental alienation relates to the intersection between psychology and family law. Because parental alienation is a phenomenon that is relevant to custody disputes, judges can find themselves responsible for determining if parental alienation is occurring, and if so, how best to handle it. Judges can look to prior case law in determining how best to manage these kinds of cases consistent with the “best interest of the child” standard. However, a judge’s personal perception of parental alienation could influence what they believe is in the best interest of the child.
This essay provides background information on parental alienation and how it affects the family court system. Additionally, this essay includes the results of a survey conducted in Colorado in 2022, the goal of which was to determine how judges perceive the issue of parental alienation and apply legal remedies in the context of custody disputes. The survey results show some of the challenges judges encounter in addressing these issues.
Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent 19th-century clergyman, stated, “There is no friendship, no love, like that of the parent for the child.” This timeless sentiment likely rings true with many parents. This theme is reminiscent of a biblical story in which King Solomon used similar logic to determine the true mother of a child over whom two women were fighting. The King offered to use his sword to split the child in two so that each woman could have half of the child. The true mother was revealed when she refused to see her child slaughtered and instead offered him to the other woman in order to save the child’s life. It is difficult to imagine a parent harming their child for the sake of hurting the other parent. “Parental alienation” goes against the notion of both Beecher and King Solomon. It is a form of emotional and psychological abuse that one parent inflicts on their child to hurt the other parent.
The term Parental Alienation Syndrome was coined in 1985 by Dr. Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist who conducted evaluations in child custody disputes for over 25 years during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. He defined Parental Alienation Syndrome as:
a childhood disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a good, loving parent—a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present, the child’s animosity may be justified and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.
Other professionals have researched and conducted studies expanding on what Parental Alienation Syndrome is or is not, how it occurs, and its consequences. Dr. Amy Baker has defined parental alienation as “the overall problem of children being encouraged by one parent—the favored parent—to unjustly reject the other parent—the targeted parent.” Dr. Baker also notes that parental alienation is often seen in situations of divorce.
Through her research, Dr. Baker has identified 17 strategies parents will employ to alienate their children from the other parent. The strategies can be placed into five simplified categories:
(1) poisonous messages to the child about the targeted parent in which he or she is portrayed as unloving, unsafe, and unavailable; (2) limiting contact and communication between the child and the targeted parent; (3) erasing and replacing the targeted parent in the heart and mind of the child; (4) encouraging the child to betray the targeted parent’s trust; and (5) undermining the authority of the targeted parent.
Dr. Baker has further noted that “[n]ot all children who reject a parent are alienated,” as “some children reject a parent for a reality-based reason.” Dr. Baker indicates that a determination “that a child who is rejecting a parent is alienated as opposed to estranged” requires the presence of five factors:
Factor 1: A breach in the relationship.
Factor 2: A prior positive relationship between the child and the parent whom the child is currently rejecting.
Factor 3: Absence of abuse or neglect or seriously deficient parenting on the part of the now rejected parent.
Factor 4: Evidence that the favored parent has engaged in many of the 17 primary parental alienation strategies.
Factor 5: Evidence that the child is exhibiting the 8 behavioral manifestations of alienation.
The “behavioral manifestations” referenced by Dr. Baker, which were identified by Dr. Gardner, are (1) “A Campaign of Denigration”; (2) “Weak, Frivolous, and Absurd Rationalizations”; (3) “Lack of Ambivalence About the Alienating Parent”; (4) “The ‘Independent Thinker’ Phenomenon”; (5) “Absence of Guilt About the Treatment of the Targeted Parent”; (6) “Reflexive Support for the Alienating Parent in Parental Conflict”; (7) “Presence of Borrowed Scenarios”; and (8) “Rejection of Extended Family.”
In 2005, Dr. Baker published a paper based on a study involving 38 adults who believed they were victims of parental alienation as children. The purpose of the study was to determine the long-term effects that parental alienation can have on children as they enter adulthood. After interviewing each participant, Dr. Baker found that “at least six major areas of functioning were affected by the experience of parental alienation.” Specifically, “[m]any of the participants suffered from low self-esteem, lack of trust in themselves and others, depression, drug-alcohol problems, alienation from their own children, and divorce.”
Dr. Gardner’s work is controversial, and others have challenged “Parental Alienation Syndrome” as lacking scientific support. Critics have also raised concerns about gender bias and about parents using Parental Alienation Syndrome to deflect allegations that they have engaged in abuse against the child or the other parent. Parental Alienation Syndrome is not included in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5).
The following is an acknowledged case of parental alienation that was heard in the Colorado court system and ended in ultimate tragedy. The case highlights the importance of adequately handling these kinds of issues in the courtroom.
“Like it matters if she’s mad, she lied to us, Ty. You know what a piece of crap she is.” “She’s lying to ya. She’s lying. You know how she lies. She’s gonna grab ya.” Anthony Tesoriero speaks to his son, Ty, about Ty’s mother, Jing, who was on the other side of the phone line, desperately wanting to talk to her son. The audio recording was played in court just hours before Ty was murdered.
Born February 5, 2009, Ty was a happy, healthy little boy full of energy with the world at his feet. A photo slideshow at his funeral showed a beloved boy who loved superheroes, Harry Potter, Minecraft, his pets, and being goofy. Ty was 10 years old when his father, Anthony, fatally shot Ty and then turned the gun on himself on September 21, 2019, in Lone Tree, Colorado.
Ty was caught in the middle of a contentious custody dispute. Some eight hours before his death, a Douglas County District Court judge determined that Ty was a victim of parental alienation and reprimanded Ty’s father for the “alienation” of his son, exclaiming that Anthony had “zero” credibility and that the judge’s final order would include substantial time with Ty’s mom, Jing.
There were two issues at the center of Ty’s case. First, the court denied without a hearing two separate motions to restrict parenting time based on allegations of parental alienation. The statute for filing motions to restrict read as follows:
(4) A motion to restrict parenting time or parental contact with a parent which alleges that the child is in imminent physical or emotional danger due to the parenting time or contact by the parent shall be heard and ruled upon by the court not later than fourteen days after the day of the filing of the motion. Any parenting time which occurs during such fourteen-day period after the filing of such a motion shall be supervised by an unrelated third party deemed suitable by the court or by a licensed mental health professional, as defined in section 14-10-127(1)(b).
Denial of these motions led to a 15-month hearing delay, during which Ty was in Anthony’s care.
The second issue in Ty’s case was that the judge did not issue an order immediately to remove Ty from Anthony’s care. The hearing regarding the modified parenting plan took place on a Friday, and Ty died in the early hours of Saturday morning.
Not long after Ty’s death, another parental alienation case found its way to the Supreme Court of Colorado to address the issue of what circumstances would permit a judge to grant a motion to restrict parenting time. Francis Joseph filed a motion to restrict parenting time or parental contact against his ex-wife, Heidi Wollert, based on allegations of parental alienation, after spending more than a decade litigating over parenting time and custody of their son. In November 2019, a court-appointed reintegration therapist assigned to Joseph and his son had terminated her appointment based on a lack of progress and submitted a four-page treatment summary of her professional observations. The therapist concluded that Wollert was engaging in “severe parental alienation” of Joseph and Wollert’s son, that the child’s reasoning for hating his father was “absurd” and “flimsy,” and that he was in “‘imminent psychological and emotional danger’ as a result of [the] [m]other’s severe parental alienation.” Joseph included the entire summary in his motion under § 14-10-129(4).
The lower court denied Joseph’s motion based on a prior appellate court decision that required “facially sufficient” allegations supporting a finding of imminent danger for a hearing to be granted. However, the Supreme Court took this opportunity to overturn this precedent. The court determined that the appropriate standard to apply in determining if a hearing should be required within 14 days based on a § 14-10-129(4) motion was the “particularity” requirement in Rule 7(b)(1) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, or that the party must “identify with specificity the grounds in support of [the motion] or the reasons relief is warranted.” The court found the father’s allegations of parental alienation met this requirement. This was an important decision for cases of parental alienation in Colorado because it makes it easier for parties facing parental alienation to seek a speedy determination, supervision, and potential removal of the child from the abusive home. In Ty’s case, an earlier trial may have saved his life.
The survey was created to better understand how judges and magistrates perceive the issue of parental alienation and the legal remedies available. The survey was sent out in 2022 and circulated only in Colorado. The Colorado Bar Association sent it out in a mass email to all their members twice, and individualized emails were sent to every court in Colorado. The emails all included an explanation of the project, a request to forward the survey to all the judges and magistrates at that courthouse, and a link to the online survey.
There were seven survey results received. The respondents were all promised that their surveys would be anonymous unless they indicated otherwise. The first few questions on the survey requested the respondents’ name, email, and phone number. Of the seven respondents, six offered their names and contact information to verify their identity. The next verification question inquired about how many years the respondents had served on the bench. All seven of the respondents indicated that they had served at least five years on the bench; three of the respondents have served over 10 years, and one respondent indicated they have served over 20 years on the bench. The rest of the questions asked, and the responses given, were as follows:
The answer choices were yes or no. Five responded yes, and two responded no.
The answer choices were yes or no. All the respondents answered yes.
The answer choices were Very Familiar, Somewhat Familiar, and Not at all Familiar.
(3.1) Parental alienation is one type of contact refusal when a child—typically whose parents are engaged in high conflict separation or divorce—allies strongly with one parent and resists and rejects contact and/or relationship (i.e., contact refusal) with the other parent without legitimate justification.
All seven respondents indicated that they were “Very Familiar” with this term.
(3.2) Estrangement refers to a child’s justified contact refusal of a parent, such as due to a history of abuse, neglect, or severely deficient parenting.
Five respondents indicated that they were “Very Familiar” with this term, one indicated that they were “Somewhat Familiar,” and one indicated that they were “Not at all Familiar”.
(3.3) A Hybrid case refers to a family situation in which a child is strongly aligned with one parent against the other and the underlying explanation involves features of both alienation and estrangement.
Four respondents indicated that they were “Very Familiar” with this term, and three indicated that they were “Not at all Familiar.” Interestingly, the two respondents who answered that they were either “Somewhat Familiar” or “Not at all Familiar” with the term estrangement were two of the respondents who answered that they were not familiar with the term hybrid as it relates to parental alienation. Of the two respondents who answered no to the first of the parental alienation questions, asking whether they had received training on parental alienation, only one of them was not familiar with the terms estrangement and hybrid. The other respondent who answered that they had not received training on the topic responded that they were “Very Familiar” with all those terms.
(4.1) Denigrating/badmouthing the other parent
(4.2) Creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous, unloving, immoral, etc.
(4.3) Limiting the child’s contact with the other parent (whether via telephone, text, online conferencing, etc.)
(4.4) Allowing the child to choose for themselves whether or not to follow the parenting plan
(4.5) Failing to implement appropriate consequences for the child’s refusal to follow the parenting plan
(4.6) Withholding medical, academic, and other important information from the other parent/Keeping targeted parent’s name off medical, academic, and other relevant documents
(4.7) Requests to change the child’s name to remove association with the other parent
(4.8) Making false allegations of abuse or neglect against the other parent
All seven of the respondents indicated that they had observed each of these behaviors in contested family law cases except for (4.7). Four of the seven respondents have observed a parent requesting to have their child’s name changed to remove association with the other parent.
The answer choices were Most of the Time, About 50% of the Time, About 25% of the Time, Seldom, and Never. Four of the respondents answered that they have seen evidence of the above-listed behaviors “About 50% of the Time,” two of the respondents answered “About 25% of the Time,” and one respondent answered “Seldom.”
The answer choices were yes or no. Every respondent answered yes. If a respondent answered yes, the answer choices were then 0–10, 11–20, 21–50, 51–75, 76–100, and Greater than 100. One of the numerical responses was left blank. Three respondents answered they had presided over 21–50 such cases, one responded 11–20, one responded 51–75, and one responded 76–100.
The answer choices were yes or no. Six of the respondents answered yes, and one answered no.
The answer choices were yes or no, and a box for comment was available if the respondents answered no and wanted to elaborate. Six respondents answered yes, and one respondent answered no.
One of the respondents who answered yes commented that the only reason they would have used the term in one of their decisions would have been to acknowledge that one of the parties had alleged parental alienation. This respondent stated they would not feel comfortable identifying parental alienation on their own because they do not feel well educated on the topic. This respondent indicated earlier in the survey that they had received training on parental alienation.
The respondent who answered no commented that the term is inappropriate and often overused. Additionally, the respondent commented that not only is parental alienation very difficult to identify, but it is also very rare.
(9.1) Routine “in-the-office” therapy for children.
(9.2) A lecture from the bench to the parents.
(9.3) Sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, to the parent engaging in alienating behaviors.
(9.4) Enforcing the current parenting plan as-is and providing make-up time to the disfavored parent.
(9.5) Modifying the current parenting plan to provide more parenting time with the favored parent.
(9.6) Changing primary custody from the favored parent to the disfavored parent.
This question sought to determine which reunification strategies the judges believe are most effective if a child is resisting contact with a parent, with an emphasis on resisting. See below for a color-coded chart of the responses to this prompt. The most favored reunification strategy was “Routine ‘in-the-office’ therapy for children,” while the least favored reunification strategy was “Modifying the current parenting plan to provide more parenting time with the favored parent.”
[chart 1 see pdf p 85]
(10.1) Routine “in-the-office” therapy for children.
(10.2) A lecture from the bench to the parents.
(10.3) Sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, to the parent engaging in alienating behaviors.
(10.4) Enforcing the current parenting plan as-is and providing make-up time to the disfavored parent.
(10.5) Modifying the current parenting plan to provide more parenting time with the favored parent.
(10.6) Changing primary custody from the favored parent to the disfavored parent.
(10.7) Temporarily suspending contact between the favored parent for a period of 90–180 days, followed by therapeutically monitored contacts with the child and the favored parent, until the resumption of parenting time is recommended by a professional.
This question sought to determine which reunification strategies the judges believe are most effective if a child is refusing contact with a parent, with an emphasis on refusing. See below for a color-coded chart of the responses to this prompt. Like the previous question, the most favored reunification strategy was “Routine ‘in-the-office’ therapy for children.” However, the respondents generally scored the reunification strategies less effective when a child is refusing contact. An additional remedy was added: temporarily suspend contact with the favored parent. While Respondent #1 found this to be the most effective reunification strategy, it is clear based on the range in responses that there is no simple agreement.
[chart 2 see pdf p 86]
(11) Assuming the alienating parent is the primary residential parent, and you decide that the parent is engaging in “parental alienation,” as defined above, would you be reluctant to change primary custody to the non-offending parent? Why or why not?
The answer choices were yes or no. Six of the seven respondents answered yes. Each respondent offered a comment that gave more insight into their thoughts. Their comments are listed below next to their answer.
The answer choices were yes or no. All seven respondents answered yes.
The answer choices were yes or no. All seven respondents answered yes.
This question was completely open-ended. Each respondent offered their personal thoughts, as laid out below.
Many agreements among the respondents can be drawn from the survey. All seven of the respondents agree that parental alienation behaviors are a form of child endangerment. All seven respondents considered themselves very familiar with the term parental alienation and what it is. All seven agreed that they had presided over cases involving at least seven of the eight parental alienation strategies listed in question number four. Further, six of the seven respondents agreed that they see alienating behaviors in 25% to 50% of the contested family law cases they have presided over. All but one respondent used the term parental alienation in their decisions, whether oral or written.
Despite the agreement among the respondents on the existence of parental alienation, understanding it as a form of endangerment, and acknowledging the frequency with which they see it, responses regarding the effectiveness of different remedies differed significantly. Overall, the remedies were seen as more effective when a child resists contact versus refusing contact. Six out of seven respondents shared that they would be reluctant to change the primary custody from the alienating parent to the alienated parent if they found that parental alienation was a concern. Even though they all agree that parental alienation behaviors endanger the child, the respondents are reluctant to remove the child from the parent engaging in parental alienation.
The survey responses show that more education is needed. Six of the seven respondents reported seeing parental alienation in the courtroom in 25% to 50% of their contested cases. The prevalence of parental alienation requires that judges and magistrates who oversee these cases understand what it is, why it is a problem, how to identify it, and how to address it.
After the survey was completed—and after this essay was first written—Colorado enacted new legislation relating to parental alienation allegations and remedies in the context of cases involving allegations of child abuse or domestic violence. The legislative findings included that “[i]n parental allocation cases in which an alleged or known abusive parent claims alienation from the child, courts are four times more likely to disbelieve the parent who claims child physical or sexual abuse.” Under the new legislation:
In determining allocation of parental responsibilities in proceedings . . . in which a claim of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse, has been made to the court, or the court has reason to believe that a party has committed domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse, a court shall not:
(I) Remove a child from a protective party solely to improve a deficient relationship with an accused party;
(II) Restrict contact between a child and a protective party solely to improve a deficient relationship with an accused party;
(III) Order reunification treatment, unless there is generally accepted and scientifically valid proof of the safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value of the reunification treatment; or
(IV) Order reunification treatment that is predicated on cutting off the relationship between a child and protective party.
The legislation also included new training requirements for judicial personnel “to improve the courts’ ability to recognize domestic violence and child abuse in parental allocation proceedings” consistent with federal law. The impact of this new legislation on judicial perceptions of parental alienation and remedies in Colorado is beyond the scope of this essay.
As with any new project, there are learning curves and hindsight vision. This survey was not immune to either of those. First and foremost, there was a typo. It did not negatively affect the results, but it did hinder the receipt of important information. In questions 9 and 10, which ask to rate the effectiveness of different remedies whether the child was resisting or refusing contact, the fifth remedy in each was written as, “Modifying the current parenting plan to provide more parenting time with the favored parent” (emphasis added). It should have read, “Modifying the current parenting plan to provide more parenting time with the target parent.”
Another problem with the survey is it was limited in size and jurisdiction. This should serve as a foundational stepping-stone to collect data from more judges and magistrates and to include more geographic areas. There may be different levels of education on this topic in other areas of the country that may change the judicial perceptions of parental alienation and its remedies. This survey alone does not offer enough data to understand judicial perceptions overall.
Finally, the results of this survey created new questions. It would be interesting to ask the judges and magistrates if they believe that parental alienation is a high level of child endangerment or a low level of endangerment, and what would lead them to their conclusion. The respondents all agreed that it was indeed endangerment, but they were not necessarily willing to change primary custody to the other parent. At what point is the level of endangerment strong enough to warrant removal from the home? Do judges and magistrates consider psychological and emotional abuse less damaging than physical abuse? These types of questions may help to further illuminate how judges approach parental alienation and how to address challenges in resolving these issues.
Parental alienation can be a psychologically damaging form of child endangerment. Judges who oversee family cases need to be educated on the topic of parental alienation to identify it and address it in a manner that is genuinely in the best interests of the child. This survey helped to better illustrate the judicial perceptions of parental alienation and how judges issue remedies to address it. The survey results showed that the respondents all knew of parental alienation, but there was no clear consensus on what remedy or remedies were most effective in handling cases involving parental alienation.
More surveys should be administered to judges in different states to better understand judicial perceptions on this topic. Further, providing judges with more education on parental alienation might promote a better understanding of what remedies may be most effective and would best preserve the child’s best interests in the present and into adulthood.
