Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
1.
Whereas parents believe that separation is for the best, most children would prefer that their parents
were helped to resolve their problems.
This conflict between the wishes of parent and child is heightened when parents seek ‘a fresh start’ by reducing
proximity, contact and memories of a previous partner. Often a feature of High Conflict Contact Disputes
(HCCDs).
2.
The psychological effects of parental separation on children
Subject of considerable published research (e.g. Kelly, 2000) - fairly consistent in showing some adverse
outcomes, though sufficient variability to make it difficult to generalise research findings to an individual case.
Rates of psychosocial problems (behavioural and emotional disturbance, academic under-achievement,
relationship difficulties) that are two to three times higher than children whose parents remain together. Those
children who are affected will continue to have difficulties in coping with people, work and society in adolescence
and adulthood. Despite this increased risk, 70 to 80% of children whose parents separate are not obviously
disadvantaged, and a small proportion is advantaged – e.g. those relieved from serious domestic violence, abuse
or neglect.
Differences between children have a large effect on outcome - children who are already competent, sociable and
intelligent are more able to cope with family breakdown. Individual resilience may play as big a part in determining
outcome as anything else.
Outcome for children varies according to the competence of the residential parent/carer (RP). Some parents
more competent once relieved of distress of an unhappy relationship; an unhappy and preoccupied single parent
is less able to provide support, discipline, supervision and care than one unhappy spouse in a couple.
3.
The psychological effects of parental conflict
When children witness hostility (particularly violence), or are aware they are the subjects of dispute, there are
much higher rates of psychosocial disturbance. When conflict continues following separation, the outcome is
even worse than that for children exposed to chronic conflict between partners who remain together - these
children are the most likely to be the subject of professional assessments in Private Law Court Proceedings.
4.
The Effects of Continuing Conflict
(May be reversible as a result of development, changes, life experiences - the outcomes are widely variable)
Younger children - increased levels of anxiety e.g. separation anxiety and reluctance to separate for contact. In
HCCDs some children become overtly distressed at handover from one parent to the other. Although used as a
reason for aborting a visit, observations of the same child may show that he/she is completely settled and happy in
the care of the NRP once the handover period has passed.
Page 1 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
Some - particularly boys - show increased levels of aggression and hostility, to members of family and others.
May be able to articulate this as anger caused by what is happening between parents. Older children may be
distrusting/disrespectful of adults - can lead to challenging behaviour and lack of respect for rules.
Some become preoccupied with pleasing adults - unduly attentive to adults and seem unable to relax. May
develop adult mannerisms/language/‘parental’ manner. Demeanour is displeasing to other children and may
become isolated and unhappy.
Some (aware that experiences in one or other household arouse strong emotion in the other), become secretive
and uninformative in their communication with their parents. Can lead to a distrust of close relationships.
Children, whose parents communicate poorly, may become manipulative and dishonest in their relationship with
their parents, other adults and children.
Some children feel they are the cause of their parents’ hostility and experience guilt and self-blame.
When parents are obviously hostile children may experience their love for one as disloyalty to the other. Older
children more able to be objective but the conflict of loyalty may be so distressing that some decide to cease
contact (see also ‘parental alienation’ below) for their own peace of mind. Secretly they may be biding their time
until they are independent enough to cope with the conflict of loyalty.
5.
False Allegations
Hostile parents seeking evidence regarding failings of the other parent often question children, who may feel
encouraged by the reaction that revelations cause, or pressurised by repeated and suggestive questioning.
As a result some children become prone to exaggerating, misrepresenting or fabricating events. In the absence of
sufficient contact the continual denigration of one parent by the other can lead to a ‘negative stereotype’ and the
ready formation of false beliefs.
Children (especially younger) exposed to a combination of negative stereotyping, repeated suggestive
questioning, a conflict of loyalty, and the emotional turmoil of family breakdown are particularly prone to making
false allegations against the NRP (Kuehnle and Connell 2009). False allegations can be very serious (e.g. neglect,
physical and sexual abuse)
6.
The Effects of Contact Following Parental Separation
Continuing good quality contact with a NRP who is supportive of the RP brings benefits. Contact with a NRP who
is rejecting, disengaged or deviant appears to make matters worse (e.g. Dunn, 2004).
Page 2 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
7.
Causes of Children’s Resistance to Contact with Non Resident Parents
Kelly and Johnson (2001) suggested reasons for children’s resistance to contact following parental separation.
They suggest that children’s relationship with the NRP can be considered to be spread along a continuum of
adjustment from the healthiest outcome (children able to maintain “a positive relationship with both parents”), to
the most pathological outcome (“parental alienation”) in which one parent is idealised and the other denigrated
and rejected) with 3 intermediate groupings
Whilst easy to characterise each group, children themselves may not fall neatly into one group and may share
characteristics of more than one group. One can see a child who maintains “a positive relationship with both
parents” and a child who has “parental alienation” in the same sibling group.
Children change the way they relate to their separated parents over time - some of these changes are
understandable (e.g. a reduction of separation anxiety with age; a reduction of moral condemnation with maturity;
changes as a consequence of changes to the parents’ relationships), but others are unpredictable. With these
provisos the five proposed groupings, in order along the spectrum are:
(i) “A positive relationship with both parents”
Children enjoy contact with the NRP. By far the largest group and probably includes majority of children whose
parents’ separation remains conflicted. When parental conflict is high these children keep their views to
themselves and resist being drawn into criticism of either parent. They try not to take sides.
(ii) “Affinity” with one parent
Children have or wish limited contact with the NRP e.g. a very young child might have limited experience of being
separated from the RP and have “separation anxiety”. In such a case contact should be modified to allow the
child to build up confidence in being alone with the NRP. Some prefer spending more time in one household for
reasons such as the presence of siblings or step siblings (for or against), step parents, mutual activities and
interests. Teenagers may prefer to spend more time with the same sex parent. Affinities change developmentally
and as a result of life events. Whatever changes take place these children wish to retain a direct contact
relationship with both parents.
(iii) “Alliance” with one parent
Rejection of the NRP may be understandable but not reasonable. Express mixed (ambivalent) feelings towards
the NRP, e.g. that they love the NRP but wish to limit contact because they are angry with them. Children in this
group are old enough to form a moral judgement about the behaviour of their parents. Their criticisms may be
unreasonable because based on a limited /distorted understanding of their parents’ separation. Sympathetic
towards the RP, and express anger towards the NRP, but can admit that they have had a loving relationship with
the NRP and can usually envisage that it might resume. Their moral judgements can be severe and may lead to a
refusal to have contact for a number of years e.g. a parent may be rejected for selfishness because they
“abandoned” their family responsibilities or had an affair. Sometimes the “alliance” is based on pity, and empathy
for the RP’s feelings. These children may benefit from intervention aimed at helping them reflect upon their
feelings and the facts of their parents’ separation.
Page 3 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
(iv) “Estrangement” from one parent
Resistance to contact with a NRP is reasonably based upon traumatic events and the behaviour of the NRP. NB
In the majority of high conflict contact cases parents make serious allegations against each other - some are
unreliable and it is essential that serious allegations are the subject of a determination as to veracity by the Court
– for clinicians it is essential to know and accept the Court’s Findings of Fact.
Some children resist contact after having observed/ experienced repeated violence/outbursts of temper by the
NRP either during the relationship or following the separation; have experienced other forms of abuse or neglect.
Some experience abusive behaviour by the NRP, or their partner, or step siblings during contact.
Management follows assessment of the future risks posed by the NRP/household. Sometimes the risk is such that
supervised contact is necessary.
Rarely, face to face contact cannot be recommended without substantial
change. Some “estranged” children have been so traumatised they show signs of anxiety, fearfulness and other
post traumatic symptoms, and may need psychological treatment before further contact.
Some “estranged” children have not been traumatised by past experiences but come to a mature judgement about
the value of visits to the NRP based upon experiences they are able to describe e.g. the NRP is restrictive, selfish,
neglectful or preoccupied and visits are boring or unpleasant. Older children may object to hearing constant
denigration of the other parent. In these cases it may be possible to raise the problems with the NRP and to reach
some agreement for change, but that is not always the case.
(v) “Parental Alienation”
The child shows complete resistance to any form of contact with the NRP (refusing to visit, often refusing to
receive cards or presents and destroying those that are sent) and freely expresses unreasonable negative feelings
(anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear) which are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience. They
express themselves stridently and without guilt or ambivalence.
The rejected parents fall within the broad range of “marginal” to “good enough” and sometimes “better” parents,
who have no history of physical or emotional abuse of the child. The child’s grossly negative views and feelings
are a significantly distorted and exaggerated reaction and a severe distortion of the previous parent/child
relationship.
The behaviour and expressed views of the child include:
being actively involved in a campaign of denigration against the NRP

complaints of the NRP’s failings are weak and frivolous; or distorted/exaggerated descriptions of normal discipline
and experiences.

a lack of ambivalence in feelings towards the parents so that one is idealised and the other denigrated

maintaining that their views and memories are entirely their own: sometimes to the point of implausibility (“He
threw my mum down the stairs when she was pregnant with me … I know because I was there”).

having an unusual knowledge of the matters of dispute between the parents, often showing awareness of adult
issues (e.g. the value of the family home) and giving full support to the RP’s position
Page 4 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist

showing an extraordinary lack of guilt or regret regarding things they have said about, or done to, the NRP;
behaviour which they would never show to any other adult.

using phrases, language and complaints which appear to have been “borrowed” or overheard and expressing
them in unusual, or adult language

resisting contact with the NRP’s relatives (including grandparents) and friends.
“Alienation” varies in severity and in the number of features shown over time. Changes can be sudden and
dramatic and can be observed during a set of assessment interviews or during a single contact visit.
Johnson and Kelly hypothesise that Parental Alienation is not simply a result of the active influence of the RP i.e. it
is not ‘brainwashing’ as was the proposed cause of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. A preliminary research study
suggested that Parental Alienation was unusual and occurred in less than 10% of children exposed to HCCDs and
was a result of a combination of factors including :-
A high level of parental conflict in all cases

Rejected fathers were more likely to show a lack of “warm involvement” with the child

Alienated children were more likely to have had separation anxiety in relation to the RP

The RP was likely to show evidence of sabotaging the child’s relationship with the NRP

Older children were more likely to be rejecting of the NRP than younger children

The mother was more likely to show “warm involvement” with the child
When Parental Alienation is mild there should be an attempt to provide information about the problem to both
parents plus parental mediation. There is no empirical data to suggest that therapy for children is beneficial and
some suggestion that it is resented as children see the problem as lying within their parents’ relationship.
Managing more severe cases of Parental Alienation is difficult. Whatever attempts at mediation/therapy are made
in respect of the family it is essential that there is a resumption of some form of direct contact at the same time.
Without that conventional family or individual therapy always fails (Fidler and Bala, 2010). This is contrary to the
advice often given to Courts in England and Wales.
The assessment of children who are unreasonably resistant to contact should include an observation of the child
during ‘enforced’ contact with the NRP. This is not routinely done by CAFCASS though my study suggested that it
was possible to resume successful and affectionate contact in the majority of cases. It was easier to resume
contact when the child was younger and when the intervening period of no contact had been shorter. Thus Court
delays were definitely damaging to the child’s relationship with the NRP.
The results in individual cases were so variable that it was not possible to predict the outcome as the most mature
and articulate teenagers might decide to resume a relationship with a parent they had rejected.
The manner in which Assessments are done, and the manner in which the reintroduction of contact takes place
may be crucial to success (see below).
Page 5 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
Recent research suggests that the outcome for alienated children may be poor, both in terms of later social and
psychological adjustment and in terms of resumed contact with the rejected parent (Fidler and Bala 2010).
Outcomes appear to be worse the younger the age of onset of alienation suggesting that effective intervention in
these cases is more urgent. Those who become alienated for the first time in the teenage years may resolve their
differences with the rejected parent over time and might not benefit from vigorous intervention. In preteenagers the
most effective outcomes may result from Court Ordered and ‘forced’ resumption of contact or from changes of
residence.
8.
Advising Constraint of Contact
Article 9 (UNCRC 1989) that children are entitled to “maintain personal relations and direct contact with both
parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests”.
Clinicians should advise whether there are clinical grounds to withhold or constrain contact. The Court will
consider other relevant aspects of the child’s interests and welfare many not within the area of clinical expertise
(e.g. risk of abduction; religion; culture; inheritance).
Snap decisions advising cessation of contact following an urgent request from one parent are to be avoided.
Clinicians should insist on Court agreement and full access to all relevant informants before forming an opinion.
To advise constraint of contact from a clinical perspective the clinician should be properly satisfied the child would
be at an unacceptable risk of harm without such constraint. Special consideration has been given to the constraint
of contact following domestic violence (‘A Report to the Lord Chancellor’, 1999).
The clinician needs to be clear as to the exact nature of "harm" to which their clinical expertise is relevant and of
the Court Findings in respect of alleged harm in each case. When that harm is not a result of neglect, sexual
abuse, physical abuse or emotional abuse (continuing denigration, rejection, humiliation and lack of affection) the
clinician has to rely upon observable changes to the child’s emotional and behavioural adjustment. Such changes
should usually be sufficient to:a.
Lead to a clinical diagnosis of child psychiatric/psychological disorder
b.
A certainty that the disorder (or exacerbation of an existing disorder) is caused by contact and not by the many
other factors associated with poor psychosocial outcomes following parental separation.
c.
Be of such severity as to cause substantial impairment and continuing suffering (e.g. not temporary distress
around handover).
d.
Be unlikely to respond to a known, available and effective psychological intervention.
9.
The Assessment Process
Family Courts in England and Wales are bound by the ‘Children Act’ of 1987. They thus “have regard in particular
to … the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and
understanding)” and clinicians may be asked to report upon a child’s views and to give an opinion as to whether
the expressed view is reasonable or otherwise.
Clinicians need to be familiar with the various reasons for children resisting contact. Many parents feel their child
should not be burdened with the responsibility of stating a preference and many children feel reluctant to being
Page 6 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
seen to ‘take sides’. In addition the child’s expressed view may be unreliable and the result of indirect or direct
external pressures.
My approach involves interviews with: a.
Social Worker/Reporter/Guardian if actively involved.
b.
Resident Family and children together. I explain the purpose of my visit as “when adults, like your mum and dad,
can’t agree on important things they can go to a Court…there is a Judge who they ask to decide what is best for
you…your dad wants to see you but your mum doesn’t think that is a good idea…the Judge listens to each of
them...the Judge has people to help him/her decide what is best and I am one of those...I have been asked to talk
to you…and write a report which the Judge and your parents will read”. Gather systematic information to assess
the child’s adjustment and relationships.
c.
Resident parent (with partner if possible), regarding other information best not spoken of in front of the child/ren
including their personal/medical, relationship and marital history, allegations, future plans etc.
There can be
extraordinary diversions of view as to fact and history. Each party can be extremely plausible in their account.
Assessors must be aware that it is the Court’s function to make a determination of the disputed facts (Wall, 2007)
and of attempts to ‘recruit’ professionals (including themselves) to the point of view of one of the disputants.
Accounts of events may be distorted, edited or fabricated to that end.
d.
Child/ren separately (see below); (c) and (d) are interchangeable depending upon one’s ‘feel’ for what is best.
e.
NRP (with partner and resident children if possible); information and caveats as for (b) and (c).
f.
Observation of contact with the NRP is an essential and routine part of the assessment with few specific
exceptions such as Court Findings of very serious domestic violence i.e. the parties and Court are told that the
assessment cannot be completed without observation of a contact visit. The observed visit should be of at least 2
hours duration in the first instance as it may take time for anxiety/resistance to reduce. Where opposition or
anxiety are high this may be reduced if handover occurs in the absence of the RP e.g. at school. The supervised
reunion of a separated parent and child is highly rewarding for all involved. Observation of the hostile and/or
fearful behaviour of alienated children is painful but revealing.
g.
Teachers and other useful informants. If handover is to take place from school, visit the school and meet teachers
before the contact visit.
10. Interviewing Children who are the subject of Parental Conflict
Children’s responses, when caught in a conflict of loyalty, can be quite misleading (Crossman et al, 2002; Weir,
2011). Children may state one set of wishes and feelings when influenced by one party, and an entirely opposite
set when influenced by the other
This is a situation in which an assessment of the child’s “Wishes and Feelings” may be unhelpful. It can place the
child in the invidious position of choosing between their parents. Questioning, if carried out at all, should be
planned with great care and the stated wishes and feelings treated with circumspection. These difficulties are not
referred to in the UK Government’s Guidance to practitioners (CAFCASS 2007).
After introductory chatter I repeat the enquiry regarding the child’s understanding of the reasons for the interview;
the nature of the disagreement between the parents. If necessary I repeat the information regarding the function of
the Court, and the interviewer’s role. I ask if there is anything the child wants the Judge to know but remind them
Page 7 of 8
Relationships Scotland Conference, Edinburgh, Sept 2011
“High Conflict Contact Disputes – understanding and managing children’s alienation from a parent”
Handout on the context of children’s resistance to contact with a separated parent
Dr Kirk Weir – Child Psychiatrist
that when parents can’t agree it is for the Judge and not the children to decide. It is generally worth saying that
many children may feel caught in the middle, and that whatever they say might upset one or other of their parents,
so that many children do not wish to say anything at all. Some children appear relieved to accept this option.
References
1.
Advisory Board on Family Law: Children Act Sub-Committee, (1999). A Report to the Lord Chancellor on the
Question of Parental Contact in Cases where there is Domestic Violence. www.open.gov.uk/lcd
2.
CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service) (2007). My Needs Wishes and Feelings:
Guidance for Practitioners. www.cafcass.gov.uk/publications
3.
Crossman, A., Powell, M.B., Principe, G.F., & Ceci, S.J. (2002). Child testimony in custody cases: A review.
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2, 1, 1-32.
4.
Dunn, J. (2004). Children’s Relationships with their Non-resident Fathers. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 4, 4, 659-671.
5.
Fidler, B.J., & Bala,N. (2010). Children Resisting Post Separation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies,
and Conundrums. Family Court Review, 48, 1, 10-47.
6.
Gould J.W. & Martindale D.A. (2007). The Art & Science of Child Custody Evaluations. Guilford Press, London.
7.
Hynan, D.J. (2003). Parent-Child Observations In Custody Evaluations. Family Court Review, 41, 2, 214-223.
8.
Johnson, J.R. (2003). Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 31,158-70.
9.
Kelly, J.B. (2000). Children’s Adjustment in Conflicted Marriage and Divorce; A Decade Review of Research.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 963-973.
10. Kelly, J.B., & Johnson, J.R. (2001). The Alienated Child: a Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family
Court Review, 39, 249-66
11. Kuehnle K. & Connell M. (2009). ‘Evaluating Child Sexual Abuse Allegations’, in The Scientific Basis of Child
Custody Decisions 2nd Ed (ed Galatzer-Levy R.M., Kraus L. & Galatzer-Levy J.) John Wiley, New Jersey
12. Wall, N. (2007) A Handbook for Expert Witnesses in Children Act Cases. Family Law, Jordan Publishing, Bristol,
2nd Edition
13. Weir, I.K. (2006). Clinical Advice to Courts on Children’s Contact with their Parents following Parental Separation.
Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 11, 40-49.
14. Weir, I.K. (2009). Guide to Parental Alienation Syndrome. Community Care Inform. www.ccinform.co.uk
15. Weir, I.K. (2011). High Conflict Contact Disputes: The Extreme Unreliability of Children’s Expressed Wishes and
Feelings. Family Court Review (in press).
April 2011
Page 8 of 8