TV Ontario PA Disscussion Panel - Jun 12

An excellent and diverse cross-section panel with Harvey BROWNSTONE - Ontario Family Court Judge, Jeff WILSON - Family Lawyer, Barb FIDLER - Practicing Psychologist/Child Therapist and Amy BAKER - Professional Researcher. Host Steve PAIKIN slalomed through the various questions and guests keeping to topics moving quickly ahead for 37 minutes.

Snippets I found interesting:

• PA does not include "Realistic Estrangement" - in other words a legitimate reason why a child may not want to be with a parent. The obvious being real physical or sexual abuse (and not just as suggested by the AP or Alienating Parent - it must be objectively proved.)

• BAKER suggested over 20 "tactics" used by an AP to distance a child from the RP (Rejected Parent) - these were also called PA "Exploits" by FIDLER.

• BAKER believes that PA of mother/father is 50/50 and that it does NOT only occur in divorce/separation but intact families as well.

• BROWNSTONE mentioned the difficulty that Judges face in verifying the supposed PA has taken place and suggested that he often finds the parent making the bulk of accusations at fault! Also, he suggests that many parents self-represented.

• WILSON suggested that PA has become much more prevalent in the last 10 years and has raised the level of animosity in court.

• BROWNSTONE said the old approach in "High-Conflict" Divorce cases (how they used to refer to PA) was to remove all contact with the "offending" parent - the one who was accused of creating conflict! That is no longer considered the best strategy and may in fact be dangerous.

• BAKER said it was a Myth that the older the child, the less likely they were susceptible to PA. In fact she suggested the opposite. As these kids become more savvy about the court system, they "step up their campaign". Age has nothing to do with it. If 20 yr olds can become cult members, there is nothing to suggest those younger can't become Alienators of a former parent. Her research indicated that many times, kids "want their bluff to be called by someone" - parents, extended family, courts or lawyers.

• FIDLER was asked about "deprogramming". How is it done and if it is effective. She said the sooner the intervention the better and it can be very effective in mild cases, where parents are not truly aware of the negative consequences of their behaviours. They teach the parents and children. For the kids it involved "critical thinking" skills, how to consider the good/bad of arguments/positions, reintegration exercises with their alienated kids, video's etc. Often the kids do well in closed sessions away from the AP, but can be seen getting visibly distressed/anxious as they are going to be picked-up by the AP.

• Whereas FIDLER explained the results for "extreme/severe" cases as "not so good", BAKER disagreed and explained Dr. Richard WARSHUK's "re-education" program as 3-4 days where kids are removed from the AP and spend greater amounts of time reconnecting with the RP, exclusive of the AP. Out of 24 "rescue" cases, 17 were sustainable "successes" in reconnecting child and AP.

• BAKER suggests that her preferred approach is to counsel ALL children about how to handle these "loyalty conflicts" and mentioned her recent book. (Ed. This seems impractical.) She suggests to empower children with the skills to recognize these problems and tell both their parents that they don't want to be placed in these positions where "they have to choose".

• WILSON (who represented a mother in a recent high profile case, where her 18yr old son went to court to prevent his two tween brothers being forced into a "deprogramming" camp under Dr. WARSHUK in order to reconnect with his father) reiterated that he believes "it is better to have a meaningful relationship with BOTH parents rather than only one", parental conflict harms kids, where parental dysfunction is severe removal of a child by CAS maybe necessary, every 6mths 1 child is removed from both parents and placed in a "benign environment" - supportive relatives or foster care.

• BROWNSTONE was asked about Nick BALA's PAS study and said that such cases are increasing and they take up a significant amount of court resources (he in fact feels that too many trivial complaints are being brought to court - holidays, TV shows, homework, bedtimes etc.) When he began, he said he tried very hard to enforce fathers rights but that this approach backfired because the mothers would come back even harder and ended up turning the children against the father! (Ed. This really made me question Brownstone) But, he said that he strongly enforces "contempt of court" against parents who breech his court orders, especially those who alienate their kids. Finally BROWSTONE admitted that dispite feeling too involved in many PA/High Conflict cases that come before him he has not the time to determine if they have EVER been successfully resolved.