Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 5

Potential Wikipedia 3RR Breach
On August 10, Arllaw made a substantial edit to this page which instantly reverted three or more of the previous changes to the text. This has the appearance of breaching one of Wikipedia’s key editing rules: the so-called bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR) which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts … on a single page within a 24-hour period. (A similar event may have occurred previously.) In doing so as one edit, this further risks giving the appearance of ‘gaming the system’ which may, of itself, be considered edit-warring [|Wikipedia:Edit_warring].

I am attempting to resolve this through open discussion of the content in question on this Talk page and welcome any further input.

Given that the editing of this page is shared with a variety of authors some of whom appear not to believe in the existence of the phenomenon we're defining here and some of whom appear to believe that it’s merely a claim or unsubstantiated theory rather than an evidence-based phenomenon, I have often flagged my own proposed edits months in advance (to allow time for debate and consensus) and have engaged in extensive discussion about them.

At risk of repeating previous discussion and while noting a pattern in which Arllaw has specifically followed and altered my edits on multiple pages, I’ve not reported this incident formally but instead attempted to outline just a few of the problems with the most recent reverting of 3+ prior edits:

1.	The change to the first paragraph makes it less accurate. DrPax’s latest amendment was accurate; a child may exhibit unwarranted feelings not just towards a parent or other family members, but towards a parent, multiple relatives and/or other adults, children and even pets - all as a direct consequence of psychological manipulation by one or more others. There was no reason to undo this edit;

2.	As Arllaw has also strongly stated previously, and as discussed above, this page is about Parental Alienation, not about Parental Alienation Syndrome. Apart from stating that the term PA was derived from PAS (a fact previously refuted by Arllaw on this page), it isn’t appropriate to have multiple further paragraphs about PAS on this page and they don’t belong in the History section either;

3.	Equally important, the paragraphs about PAS that were re-inserted are highly inaccurate, redundant/repetitious of existing text and not neutral (NPOV). It should be self-evident that many phrases are:

3.1.	repetitious/redundant (e.g. ‘PAS was proposed by Gardner’ etc. etc.);

3.2.	lack balance and an NPOV (“with the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V …” (‘exclusion’ and ‘not being referred to’ are different things)); “despite lobbying …”; “one psychologist disputes …”; referring to PA researchers as “advocates” etc.;

3.3.	superfluous or meaningless (e.g. “ Some empirical research has been performed, though the quality of the studies vary widely”);

3.4.	inaccurate. The list here is too long and would take considerable time to address in detail, but the very first line, for instance, is inaccurate: “Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was proposed by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner as a means of diagnosing parental alienation …”. PAS was not proposed as a means of diagnosing PA. Many of the references, e.g. Bow et al. 2009, are also far too old to be presented as current consensus (which they are not);

4.	The paragraph “Recognition of parental alienation” is not about recognition of PA. It’s a rewording of pre-existing text that introduces further inaccuracies and misunderstandings. The term PA is used or defined a bit differently by different academics; these different usages cannot be introduced by saying “among theories of PA that have been proposed ...”; this isn't about different theories, it's about different definitions/usage. It’s also unnecessarily wordy and wrong to add that “psychologists have argued that the term … may be used in a manner …”. The simple statement, made in the pre-existing text, is essentially that ‘this is how some psychologists define the term’.

5.	Repeatedly inserting the words “theory”, “claim”, “proposed” is unhelpful; not only does it not reflect a genuine NPOV, but I believe it diminishes the accuracy, clarity and value of this page. Skythrops (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Making false accusations about another editor in this manner is disruptive and inappropriate. Please read No personal attacks and Dispute resolution. Arllaw (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Given your false accusation of a WP:3RR issue, it should be noted that the most recent reversion was by you. Incidentally, you proposed discussion, I attempted discussion, and you ignored both the editor notes and attempt to discuss before engaging in you series of reversions. Arllaw (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arllaw and Skythrops, it seems that there is a bit of contention at the moment that could hopefully benefit from an additional perspective? A few thoughts:

1. This topic is obviously a contentious issue for many, so bearing in mind that there are strongly held and widely varying opinions I think it is very important that any significant changes to the text of this article be discussed and reviewed in the Talk pages for a reasonable period of time prior to editing the article to avoid the current situation.

2. Obviously and in accordance with Wikipedia policy any proposed edits need to supported by appropriate sources and be as succinct and clear as possible.

3. On the recent edits:


 * a. The modification to the first sentence in the definition about “towards a parent, relatives and/or others” is, I think accurate. As Skythrops points out alienation can and is, exercised towards people other than just direct relatives. Step/foster parents, friends of the family, pets (!) are all potential targets.


 * b. Introducing a lot of references and discussion of PAS in this article does seem a bit inappropriate as PAS is dealt with in its own article and, in most people’s assessment, is a separate topic. That said, a mention of PAS as part of the History section would be appropriate, indeed necessary given the genesis of PA as a recognised concept.

4. As has been discussed on numerous occasions in this talk page, one of the main stumbling blocks associated with PA is the multiple ways in which different academics define and use some of the terminology. So as a possible way out of the current situation perhaps we could work together in producing clearer definitions of some of these concepts as much of the current discussion revolves around this?

I’m going to propose that we leave the existing text (definition and History) as is for the moment and change the title of the “Parental alienation versus parental estrangement” section to something like “Definition of terminology” and set about defining the following terms in that section: Targeted Parent, Alienating Parent, Estrangement (justifiable and unjustifiable), Accepted/Rejected (preferred/non-preferred) Parent, plus any other terms that will no doubt arise.

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for deleting long-standing content without adequate explanation, or adding new inaccurate claims that are not supported by the cited sources. The last reversion should be undone, with proper discussion and consensus before any such radical changes are made. Given that the only basis for the reversion that is presently in effect comes in the form of false claims and personal attacks, there is no reason to maintain it. The content at issue has been present for years, so let's not pretend that the deletions were of new material -- it was simply reorganization of long-standing material.


 * Use of "and/or" it to be avoided whenever possible. MOS:ANDOR Arllaw (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the conflict here is an excellent illustration of the controversial nature of this topic and the apparent wishes of at least two groups to control the POV. I would like to propose that we continue to try to find neutral language (as discussed earlier) but also that a Critique section be inserted into the article, addressing some of the common concerns about PA concepts and empirical foundations for diagnosis and treatment. The only satisfactory alternative to this that I can see is a separate article on criticisms of PA, but that seems silly when all can be brought under one tent here. I will draft a critique in the near future. JeanAMercer (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A well-composed criticism section is appropriate, but long before we get to that point we should be able to agree that this article should not push a false narrative that scholars or psychologists (outside of the fringe) view "parental alienation" as a synonym for "parental alienation syndrome", nor should the article falsely suggest that there is a trend in that direction. The rejection of PAS is a matter of semantics. PAS was rejected because it has no scientific bases, and it has not experienced a revival because despite literally decades of effort by advocates of PAS nobody has been able to substantiate that such a syndrome exists let alone that it has any evidentiary or psychological value as a diagnostic tool.


 * I also don't see a basis for stripping from this article information about the history of PAS and the development of theories of PA. That content has been present in this article for years, it is not suddenly controversial, and it is part of an accurate history for this subject. The deleted content should be restored pending further discussion, where those who want to strip out the history explain how doing so would be helpful to readers or consistent with the goals of this project. Arllaw (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all and welcome back to the conversation JeanAMercer.

I agree with Arllaw that your suggestion of adding a well composed and referenced critique section is an excellent idea and I look forwards to seeing a proposal.

Arllaw, I’m not convinced that the rejection of PAS is simply a matter of semantics, or that it has no scientific basis, a very large number of researchers and studies would suggest otherwise. However, this again illustrates one of the problems with the terminology around PA: PA is simply the process of psychological manipulation of a child into holding an unwarranted view of another party and, as such is simply an extreme and very specific (litigation related) version of a well-recognised human behaviours – psychological manipulation for personal gain. Arguable it doesn’t even need to be labelled as “Parental Alienation”, instead it should just be recognised as something like “inappropriate psychological manipulation of a child for personal gain, potentially leading to negative health outcomes for that child”. As such PA it is not really a distinct mental condition in itself, and certainly not a “syndrome”, hence the broad agreement around the dropping of that term and the reason for not including it specifically in the DSM. That said the ICD-11 does specifically include “Parental Alienation” as an index term linking to QE52.0 “Caregiver-child relationship problems” and it is arguably referred to in V 955.51 of the DSM-V.

Regarding your comments on the history, the current History paragraph contains, I think, a reasonably good and objective reflection of the genesis of the term PA from PAS and one that is suitably sized relative to overall size of the article. I don’t think that an extended discussion of PAS (for which there is a separate page) is appropriate or adds to the definition of PA? That said, if you have a proposal for an update then certainly posting here for discussion and agreement prior to editing the main article is always welcome.

DrPax (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The basis for undoing Arllaw's substantial revision [“the Revision”] of 10 August (which undid 3+ edits immediately prior) has been outlined above in some detail with, I believe, some clear arguments presented; I don’t believe the evidence on this Talk page supports the suggestion that this was done with “no justification” or “without adequate explanation”. Many further details of the inaccuracies (re-)introduced by the Revision could be given, should this prove useful. Any evidence-based refutation of any of the evidence/arguments I provided would be welcome in this discussion; neither personal comments nor unsubstantiated assertions fulfil that role. It would be particularly useful if evidence and citations could be provided to counter any of the supposedly “new, inaccurate claims that are not supported by the cited sources” so we may reach consensus on how to alter or delete these. Given the nature of the current debate on this page, it’s my view (and Wikipedia’s wish, as I understand it) that we should aim to reach consensus on this Talk page about any such text that’s in debate.


 * With respect to a critique of PA, I think JeanAMercer has already introduced this. Implicit or actual criticism of PA has been present throughout much of this page so it might perhaps be good to confine this to one, accurate paragraph with balanced citations such that the remainder of the page can focus on the actual subject of the page (namely PA and its characteristics/diagnosis/treatment etc.) as is normal on Wikipedia pages about other such concepts. For this page to become balanced and truly reflective of an NPOV, I, like DrPax perhaps?, believe that sections such as History or Critique should not occupy too substantial a proportion of the page. I accept that any authors who don’t fully believe in the existence of this phenomenon are likely to hold a different view (hence, in part, the appearance of controversy) and that consensus on this may therefore be a bit harder than usual to achieve. Skythrops (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Arllaw has highlighted Wikipedia's preference for not using "and/or". Should we replace this in the first sentence by saying "towards a parent, relative or others"? Skythrops (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is always going to be more difficult in the wake of false accusations and personal attacks. Perhaps you are now ready to try discussion? If so, please provide a calm explanation as to why you deleted a significant amount of accurate material that has been in this article for years, and why you believe that it should not be restored. Arllaw (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, I understand perfectly why editors who have been working on an article for a long time and think it's really good would want to retain control over it, but is this not contrary to the idea of crowdsourcing? Presumably, the more people who work on this topic, the more accurate it will be (I don't actually think that, but surely this is a Wikipedia assumption about epistemology). Thing is, until you get to the featured article stage, everything is supposed to be open to editing, right? The idea that consensus has to be reached on the talk page seems difficult to support when views are highly polarized, as they are here... BTW, I can't find it now, but someone commented about ICD-11-- it appears to me that the use of that index term is still under discussion.JeanAMercer (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia makes plain that nobody owns an article. Ownership of content. Wikipedia works best when people assume good faith. It falters when people police articles, attempt to claim ownership, attempt to put barriers in front of good faith editing, engage in personal attacks and edit warring, and the like.


 * Not all edits should be discussed on the talk page. If you've been around for a while you've probably encountered articles in which editors attempt to use demands for discussion to police content, bully other editors, and the like, and that should be avoided. However, Wikipedia also recognizes the BRD cycle. When an editor boldly changes content that other editors believe should not have been changed, one good path toward consensus is reversion and discussion. Arllaw (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

Good discussion and Arllaw, thanks for the excellent and magnanimous example you have set in your last sentence by encouraging consensus through discussion when there is dissention. I am sure that all the currently active editors of this article are sufficiently neutral and open to other POVs to be able to reach a calm and considered agreement? I’ll look forwards to discussing your proposed edits here and seeing if we can’t reach a consensus about how to update the article accordingly.

JeanAMercer, whilst I agree that it can be difficult to reach consensus on contentious topics I think you would agree (and Wikipedia certainly prefers) that agreement is best reached in the Talk pages first rather than through an editing war?

BTW regarding your question about the ICD-11: the term “Parental Alienation” has been accepted as an index term by the WHO. You can find it at https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en just do a search for “Parental Alienation” in the search bar and it will come straight up.

Skythrops, your suggestion on how to remove the “and/or” in the definition that Arllaw correctly highlight is good, I will make that edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPax (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , as your history suggests that you have never edited an article other than this one, you may benefit from taking a look around the project to see how editing and consensus are generally accomplished. For the most part the project operates on a principle of bold editing, WP:BOLD. The goal is to produce articles that are both current and encyclopedic, not sclerotic and impeded by demands for discussion of any significant modification to an article.

Parent: QE52 Problem associated with interpersonal interactions in childhood Definition: Substantial and sustained dissatisfaction within a caregiver-child relationship associated with significant disturbance in functioning."
 * Although "Parental alienation" is an index term within ICD-11, if you click on that term you are led to,
 * "QE52.0 Caregiver-child relationship problem


 * If you are proposing that we rework this article around that conception, which is presented by the WHO as independent of cause, that is something that we should discuss first because to do so would involve a dramatic transformation of this article.


 * At this juncture I would like to utilize the WP:BRD approach to resolve the issue of the deletions. Also, given the manner in which this particular discussion began, and the increasing risk that substantive proposals are getting buried within it, I suggest closing this discussion and starting some targeted discussions on specific issues relating to the page, including (if necessary) discussion of the to-be-restored content. Arllaw (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of things: 1. I would agree that BOLD is the best approach for keeping things current, which is presumably a factor that makes Wikipedia of value and cannot be matched by other encyclopedic forms. 2. Reworking the article around PCRP would presumably bring in VRR as I suggested a while ago-- PA is a subcategory under one or both of those concepts. [parenthetically, whatever it says on the ICD-11 site, there is still a great deal of discussion going on, and although I can't give my reasons here I do not think all decisions have been made-- removing an index term would be very simple to do]JeanAMercer (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From a mental health perspective, it may make sense to rework the article around the conception of parental alienation as a parent-child relationship problem. However, the term "parental alienation" has a lay meaning and a use in legal proceedings that is partially to significantly at odds with that conception, with some pushing to make PA something with which a parent or child can be diagnosed and for which fault or blame should be assigned. So... it gets tricky. Arllaw (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia’s recommendations with respect to disputed text – as distinct from new edits, where ‘bold’ editing may be appropriate – are clear. Hence this section and this discussion on this Talk page (though some of the above is moving into other areas and may perhaps warrant separate sections). This section should remain open, pending evidence supporting any proposed changes to the paragraphs in question. Reaching consensus surely demands the presentation of evidence/arguments/citations to support proposed edits. I will continue to do this to support my edits and will similarly continue to support any balanced, evidence-based edits or suggestions that improve the text too. If everyone does this, editing becomes easier and there is, indeed, less need for time-consuming discussion. Skythrops (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to impose upon yourself a standard pursuant to which you propose and discuss any significant changes on the talk page to see if your inspire objection or discussion before you edit, you are within your rights to do so. That might have avoided the kerfuffle surrounding your recent changes and deletions, which we really should be presently resolving through BRD.


 * There is nothing about this article that needs to be special cased. Judging from what we can see right now, on this page, any attempt to interpose standards for what "should" or "must" be discussed will get in the way of editing both because the discussions on this talk page are convoluted and overwhelming, and also because the interpretation and application of any such standards will be inherently subjective, your recent unilateral deletions being a case in point. Arllaw (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

Arllaw, with respect, you have on several occasions accused various editors of making personal attacks on you. The previous statement to me that “your history suggests that you have never edited an article other than this one, you may benefit from taking a look around the project to see how editing and consensus are generally accomplished” is a personal attack – you are implying that I am ignorant of editing policy, procedure and experience despite knowing nothing about me. You made a similar personal attack on me when I initially started editing on this article. As you note in your last post and, again with respect, would it not be appropriate to apply the principles that you expect of others to yourself in the first instance?

To address your comments on BRD, Wikipedia says that BRD is an “optional method of reaching consensus”. That said, applying the BRD Cycle principle to the current discussion: you made a BOLD edit, it was reverted with a comprehensive list of reasons of why being provided, the next step, according to BRD would be to Discuss, which is what has been proposed several times in the past discussion. So, again, I encourage you to propose an edit here in the talk pages (in a new section if you wish) and I’m sure that we can all reach intelligent consensus based purely on the merit of the proposed change?

Regarding the comments around ICD-11 I don’t think that the definition provided in QE52.0 in any way requires reworking the article. If we look at the definition “Substantial and sustained dissatisfaction within a caregiver-child relationship associated with significant disturbance in functioning” then it fits exactly with PA. The alienating parent manipulates the child into rejecting a healthy relationship (“significant disturbance in functioning”) which result in unjustified estrangement and all the associated health issues (“Substantial and sustained dissatisfaction within a caregiver-child relationship”). JeanAMercer I think you might be ignoring the aspect of the child being manipulated into rejecting the relationship by the alienating parent for personal gain (winning custody, hurting the other parent, etc) as we discuss previously?

DrPax (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting your comment with the words "with respect" does not camouflage what that follows. I have accurately described an editor's personal attacks as directed toward me. You have not shared anything that would make those attacks in any way defensible, so there's no point in the charade.


 * If I am drawing an inaccurate inference about your editing history based upon my impression that you're following Wikipedia's general policy of one account per editor, with your edit history indicating that you edit exclusively on this specific topic and mostly on the talk page for this topic, then please unmuddy the waters. If you have multiple accounts which would give a greater insight into your editing history, it would be helpful for you to share your other usernames. MULTIACCOUNT, Template:User alternative account


 * I do not see any point in discussing what nobody here disputes to be accurate, long-standing content before reverting that accurate, long-standing content. The impetus to explain or justify the edits should be on those who want to delete accurate content from an article, not on those who want to maintain articles in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards. More than enough time has passed for the deletions to be explained, if there were a valid reason for the deletions, so it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that the deletions were inappropriate. Arllaw (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

History Section Restoration
The history section of this article has been restored to its prior form. The material at issue had been reorganized, but was included in this article without controversy for a period of years prior to deletion. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that there is anything inaccurate about the history section, and its inclusion is consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. Arllaw (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk Page Clean-Up
To try to bring focus to this rather cumbersome talk page, I propose the following:


 * 1) Closing prior discussions of the opening paragraph or that largely pertain to the lead -- "Opening Paragraph", "Correcting the Opening Paragraph", "Opening paragraph: 2019 updates", "History/Background/Introduction", "Introduction". While further discussion is almost certain to occur, it makes sense to start a new section while preserving the prior discussions for reference. As things stand, comments and thoughts can end up divided between discussions or buried in the middle of historic discussions.


 * 1) Closing the 3RR discussion for reasons stated therein.


 * 1) Invoking the BRD cycle for the deletions of content from the article, most notably the history section. Arllaw (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I agree with closing the topics that have not been active for more than (say) a couple of months. Topics which have had a post within that timeframe should, I think, be left open until such times as no further discussion occurs.


 * Regarding the final point: invoking the BRD cycle in relation to the edit made by yourself and that was reverted, would now place us at the Discus phase. I believe that proposing an edit that can be assessed by all on merit is the next appropriate step, yes?


 * DrPax (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could identify from the list above which topics you believe should remain open, so as to help ensure that we end up on the same page.


 * This is not a subject for discussing the restoration of content inappropriately deleted from the article, let alone for distorting the circumstances of that deletion -- just for invoking BRD, and so far no credible reasons have been presented for failing to do so even by the editor who made the deletions. But certainly, we can restore the inappropriately deleted content and discuss its continued relevance -- in a new section. Arllaw (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have closed some discussions as described above, with the discussions pertaining to the opening left open if they have been active since @March. Arllaw (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Activism
There are counter-PA activist groups too, which I plan to add when I get a little list together.JeanAMercer (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Characteristics Section
At present the Characteristics section of the article reads, "Parental alienation is the unwarranted breakdown of contact between a child and one of his or her parents, when there is no justification for that breakdown. It may be caused by alienating behavior by the other parent. More neutrally, it is possible to discuss these events in terms of a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to the family dynamic described here.

When defining the characteristics of parental alienation, one may emphasize the role of an alienating parent, sometimes called the "programming" or "embittered-chaotic parent", and his or her relationship dynamics with the child. Alternatively, one may focus on the alienated child, and the relationship dynamics between the child and the alienated parent"

I think that phrasing is confusing for a number of reasons. First, estrangement is different from non-contact, and may occur even when contact is continuing. Second, "parental alienation" as conceived in this article presupposes that a parent is at fault, so while it may be possible to discuss estrangement in neutral terms it does not seem possible within the contest of "parental alienation".

I find little support for the idea that the "alienating parent" is also known as the "'programming' or 'embittered-chaotic parent'"; that latter term seems to have been favored only by a couple of scholars (Wallerstein & Kelly) in the late 1970's. The term "Programming parent" seems to have been favored by Richard Gardner. It thus seems reasonable to discuss whether those terms should be presented in the article as if they're current alternative terms, as opposed to terms that (if ever commonly used) have fallen out of use.

Here's a possible rephrase: "Parental alienation describes the unwarranted breakdown of the relationship between a child and one of the child's parents, when there is no valid justification for that breakdown. When parental alienation is found to exist between a parent and child, the alienation is attributed to inappropriate actions and behavior by the other parent.

One conception of of parental alienation focuses on role of the relationship dynamics between the alienating parent and the child. An alternative conception focuses on the alienated child, and the relationship dynamics between that child and the alienated parent.

As estrangement may occur between a parent and child for other reasons, it is possible to discuss alienation in terms of a child's having a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to parental alienation." Arllaw (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of cans of worms, this word "unwarranted" strikes me as pretty wriggly. Can you state what would be a warranted breakdown? Is it anything other than substantiation of physical or sexual abuse? JeanAMercer (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In reviewing the sentence, the word is "unwarranted" is redundant. If the estrangement occurs with "no valid justification" then it's implicit that the alienation is "unwarranted". Perhaps then, "Parental alienation describes the breakdown of the relationship between a child and one of the child's parents, when there is no valid justification for that breakdown.". Arllaw (talk)

Same problem, though. What makes a justification valid or invalid? Actually I think this language is also redundant, as surely any real justification is valid-- but be that as it may, what information from a child or other observers would lead to the decision that the child has a good reason for avoiding a parent? Is there anything besides substantiated physical or sexual abuse that can be read as a good enough reason for avoidance? JeanAMercer (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources in the "PA vs. Parental Estrangement" section suggested a parent's harmful or abusive behavior, substance abuse, neglect or abandonment. Arguably mental illness could be included as well (with appropriate sourcing), although arguably that's the cause of behavior or absence that results in estrangement.


 * I think that you're hinting at a larger problem -- how can a person 'diagnose' PA in a situation in which the alleged alienating parent denies any wrongful conduct, and the children describe the acts or behavior of the other parent as the cause of the alleged alienation, let alone to a degree that the children should be compelled to undergo treatment to make them deny their allegations and then live exclusively with that other parent. Perhaps, though, that's the distinction between those who would argue that parental alienation can be considered by the courts under the existing "best interest" framework, perhaps in association with psychological evaluation, as opposed to those who want courts to specifically identify parental alienation and authorize or order specific treatments. Arllaw (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Update to "Parental alienation versus parental estrangement" Section
Hi all,

As noted in previous discussion I am proposing that the “Parental alienation versus parental estrangement” section be re-titled to something like “Definition of Terminology” and that the existing text be expanded to include all the significant terms used within the context of PA. I’ve drafted up a first pass at this – see below. I haven’t provided references yet but I am confident that it is representative of the research. Thoughts?

The term Parental Alienation has at least three distinct usages:

1.	Observable characteristics in the child, the behaviours and reactions of the child towards a parent.

2.	Process or tactics by which a child is manipulated into unreasonably rejecting a parent.

3.	Outcomes for parents who have become victims of unwarranted rejection.

All three usages rely on common terminology, the definitions of which are:

•	Alienation – Alienation is the act of causing someone to become indifferent or hostile. In the context of Parental Alienation it is the act of causing a child to become indifferent or hostile towards a parent with whom they previously had a good relationship.

•	Alienating Parent – The Alienating Parents is the party that is actively manipulating the child(ren) into holding an unreasonable view of the other parent or parties and does so for selfish reason.

•	Targeted Parent – The Targeted Parent is the party that is the subject of the unreasonable view and the rejection by the child. In the context of Parental Alienation the Targeted Parent is generally a good parent but has become the target of the Alienating Parents ire.

•	Preferred or Accepted Parent – The preferred or accepted parent is the parent with which the child aligns themselves. In the case of Parental Alienation this alignment arises out of the psychological manipulation and does not necessarily represent the child’s true desire.

•	Non-Preferred or Rejected Parent – The non-preferred or rejected parent is the parent that the child is manipulated into rejecting by the Alienating Parent. Often the child will have a had a meaningful relationship with this parent prior to the onset of Parental Alienation.

•	Estrangement – Estrangement occurs when the relationship between two parties breaks down, generally as a result of an extended period of separation. The term estrangement carries with it no indication of the cause of the breakdown and estrangement can occur due to many reasons (geographical separation, death, etc.) In the context of Parental Alienation estrangement occurs when the child is manipulated by the Alienating Parent into rejecting the relationship with the Targeted Parent over a sufficiently long period of time to result in that relationship breaking down, at which point estrangement occurs.

•	Justifiable Estrangement - occurs when a child become estranged because they are removed from one (or both) parent because those parents are abusive towards the child. The estrangement occurs because the child no longer has any connection with the parent(s). Justifiable Estrangement differs from Parental Alienation in that the estrangement that occurs due to Parental Alienation is not justified, the Targeted Parent has not been abusive towards the child however the child has been manipulated into rejecting that relationship by the Alienating Parent.

DrPax (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't you forgetting some direct evidence of the preferred parent's having manipulated the child? This is the omission that makes people object to the PA concept. JeanAMercer (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an important observation. Also, if declarations are going to be made about how various terms are presently used, they should be supported with current scholarly references. Arllaw (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

JeanAMercer thanks for your comment, we have talked at length in previous discussion in the NPOV section about the motivations for a parent to manipulate a child into holding an unreasonable view of the other parent in the context of a legally assisted breakup. I think that we agreed that the motivations are clear. We also noted that getting direct evidence of this is very difficult as the separating couple never stand up in court and say “We’re breaking up! Could you please take a baseline of the relationship between the children and us so we can assess if it changes over the course of this divorce?”

However, someone of your experience in psychology and children would undoubtedly agree that children in healthy relationship with a parent do not randomly reject that relationship (monetary tantrums aside, as any parent will know!). Rejection of a relationship occurs for a reason, and in the case of abuse, a fully justified one. You would also recognise that some people will not hesitate to use psychological manipulation of another to win, particularly when placed in a situation where the stakes are high and emotions are running wild (otherwise known as “family court litigation” in the case of PA)! In these situation where a parent sees an advantage (conscious or unconscious) in destroying the relationship with the other parent through psychological manipulation then they will often take it if they are more focused on themselves than the wellbeing of their child.

I’ve no doubt you have read plenty of research on triangulation, enmeshment, etc to know that people will use psychological manipulation of a child to gain advantage and can provide a multitude of examples of people doing exactly this in a whole range of situations?

But I digress! In defining the terminology I don’t think that it necessary to provide evidence that the concepts existence. Scientific process says you develop a hypothesis (including terminology if necessary) and then you test it until you can either disprove it or accept it. (Dark matter is an excellent example of this – we know it’s out there by indirect observation but nobody has actually isolated it in a test tube yet!) In this section we are not proving the existence (or not) of PA, we are just defining the terminology associated with it.

Arllaw, as you have correctly pointed out everything needs to be supported by credible references, you will note that in the opening paragraph of this section I did indicate that I would provide reference and that I believed the definitions to be representative of current research, unless anyone can show otherwise?

Thoughts?

DrPax (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is more useful to share sources here within the context of a discussion of definitions and their general validity, than to speak of theoretical sources that may be added in the future. Arllaw (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I would not deny that PA as defined by you can occur. My concern is that it is stated to occur, with clear practical and legal consequences for the claim, in the absence of evidence that one parent has acted to create a child's negative attitude. When children avoid a parent and show negative attitudes in other ways, there are many factors (such as the nonpreferred parent's inadequate social skills) that may cause this outcome. Inferring PA from the child's behavior alone is not acceptable. Child custody evaluation guidelines demand use of a wide range of information in the making of custody recommendations, and some of that information needs to be observation by someone of a parent's denigration, etc., if a child's avoidance of a parent is to be attributed to that factor.

Even if denigration is observed, at this time, there is no empirical work that defines a normal level of negative statements about a co-parent, either in divorcing couples or in well-functioning families. People do make negative remarks about a current or ex-partner and do this in front of children. What level of this behavior goes beyond the normative? Unless we know this, we are in no position to claim that there has been unusual persuasion or that that persuasion alone has had the concerning outcome. Incidentally, Rowen and Emery have reported that young people whose parent made a point of negative speech about the other parent ended up being annoyed with both parents.

Now, about discussion of the concept of PA and the presentation of a PA hypothesis: I would be all for that. However, when I made some edits that referred to PA as posited or described in certain ways (I forget exactly what I said), that did not get a good reception here. Do your comments now indicate that you are ready to present PA as a hypothetical construct in the process of being tested?JeanAMercer (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The inability to infer parental alienation (in the sense of bad conduct by one parent) from a child's conduct alone is at the heart of the failure of the conception of "parental alienation syndrome", as there was nothing within the set of behaviors observed by Gardner that could not be explained either alone or in combination by factors other than one parent's attempt to turn a child against the other parent. Similarly, we know that alienating behaviors (such as badmouthing the other parent) happen as a matter of routine within the context of divorce, but that children do not ordinarily as a result become alienated. So I think it should go without saying that we don't want to oversimplify, or falsely imply that the concept of "parental alienation" is somehow analogous to or synonymous with "parental alienation syndrome".


 * This article is predicated upon an outcome-based conception of "parental alienation", one that follows a post hoc, ergo propter hoc approach to explaining the phenomenon. While it may make sense to better develop the reasons to be skeptical of parental alienation as diagnosable by outcome, it does not make sense to me to define as "parental alienation" acts that are potentially alienating but have not (or cannot) be demonstrated to actually produce that outcome. Trying to define a set of "outcomes or tactics" that somehow signify parental alienation seems to be to walk directly into the same trap into which Gardner fell -- you cannot determine if a parent acted wrongly based upon outcome (the child's estrangement from the other parent), nor is there a set of tactics (even those that are committed by a specific parent and that are potentially estranging) that are predictively useful for determining when estrangement will or will not occur. Arllaw (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me just repeat-- some level of denigration of one parent by the other is normative for well-functioning marriages too, although the typical levels have not been empirically described. Who denigrates whom and how, or how other forms of triangulation occur, would hypothetically alter with the developmental changes in one or more children-- puberty perhaps being a time when alignment with the same-sex parent becomes more likely. Children also complain to one parent about the other in well-functioning families and get varying responses depending on the circumstances. Families are dynamic action systems with everchanging rules and periods of equilibrium and disequilibrium, and although it's possible for a single factor to create a tipping point and serious reorganization of the system, it's also possible that changes in apparently important factors may not disturb the equilibrium noticeably.JeanAMercer (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that you are highlighting an issue with this article, in that Parental Alienation is essentially presented as an absolute with a specific context, as opposed to being viewed within its larger context of family dynamics even within intact family units. The article's essential focus seems to be to be upon a conception of parental alienation that may be relevant to legal analysis and child custody proceedings, while the psychology and family systems theory are pushed into the background. I'm not sure how to address that tension, but I'm open to ideas. Arllaw (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a more modest revision of this section, as follows: "Parental alienation falls within the spectrum of family estrangement, a term that broadly describes when family members become alienated from each other without regard to cause. While parental alienation describes a context in which a parent and child become alienated from each other, in order to avoid confusion that term is normally used only in contexts in which the child's alienation from the parent is found to be unwarranted. Under that conception, alienation from a parent falls into one of two broad categories: Justified parental estrangement is an understandable refusal by a child to see a parent, while parental alienation is unjustified and emotionally harmful. In cases of parental alienation, the child typically views the two parents in extremely positive versus extremely negative terms, while in cases of mild or moderate abuse a child is more likely to remain ambivalent toward an abusive parent."
 * Justified parental estrangement, which results from such factors as the rejected parent's harmful or abusive behavior, substance abuse, neglect or abandonment.
 * Parental alienation, in which one parent engages in actions that cause the child to strongly ally with that parent and reject the other without legitimate justification. The rejected parent may contribute in some manner to the estrangement, but the key concept is that the rejection by the child is out of proportion to anything that the rejected parent has done.

If appropriate, a terminology section could be added to the article rather than including a set of definitions under this subsection. The final sentence arguably belongs in the "characteristics" section. The present citations appear to support the revised language, although that would be re-verified as the changes are implemented.Arllaw (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With no objection having been made, I'm implementing the change. Arllaw (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent discussion JeanAMercer, I’m glad that we agree that PA can occur and I would say that PA is no more hypothetical than the processes we agree it is based on: the psychological manipulation, for personal gain, of a child into hold an unwarranted view of another party. I think there would be little question that all of the concepts contained in this are well understood and documented: psychological manipulation, motivation to manipulate for personal gain, the susceptibility of children to manipulation and a child’s (or indeed adults!) capacity to hold irrational positions. So, no I would say that PA it not hypothetical. However this does illustrate the problem with using the term “PA” and in doing so creating a confusing jargon term for a processes that is already well understood! The key difference between “normal” denigration and the situation of PA is that the child is manipulated into internalising an unreasonable and often extreme view of a party without reason. Yes, the alienated party might not be the perfect parent but they have not done anything to warrant the extreme view held by the child (if they had then then the Court would have hopefully found evidence of abuse and rightfully removed the child from their care). As you point out (referring to Rowen, et al) a child who is well differentiated from a parent(s) can form their own opinion and recognise (and get annoyed) with a parent(s) who is denigrating the other. However you would be equally well aware that child who either hasn’t reached that level of separation, has been prevented from doing so (pathological enmeshment, etc.) or is being plain blackmailed does not have the capacity (or possibly freedom) to make that assessment. It is these situations that PA is really focused on, not the normative family situation. Certainly these are a very small percentage of separation situations but they have the potential to have a profound impact on all the parties involved, particularly the children.

As you point out there may be some level of denigration in any normal family, however attempting to define a normative level as a standard for a Court to assess custody against is not, I think, helpful (kind of like saying how much cocaine is okay!). If, as we agree, the problems is the psychological manipulation of a child into holding an unreasonable view then the defining factor is that the child has internalised this view (as opposed to rejecting it, in which case there is generally no case!) and this is where splitting is a potentially helpful tool in assessing whether the child holds an extreme and unreasonable view. If that is observed then it should be a trigger for a Court to direct further investigation (by qualified and trained psychologists/psychiatrists) into the parents and assessment of their motivations, skills and capacities. Obviously this assumes an inquisitorial court model rather than the adversarial model used in many countries. I agree that inferring PA from a child’s behaviour alone is not sufficient grounds but it should be a significant factor when combined with psychological and forensic evidence.

So it seems that your critique (Controversy) should be more focused on the court process by which it is assessed not the existence of the phenomenon itself? We agree that PA can and does occur, the controversy is about how it should be identified and handled within the Court systems? Agreed? DrPax (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well-- my thinking is that there had better be a good means of identification BEFORE this kind of thing is taken to court. Without valid and reliable means of identification, there can be no measures of incidence or prevalence, no evidence of false positives and false negatives, and no means by which treatments can be evaluated for effectiveness. Lacking any of those items, PA is very susceptible to Daubert challenges, in the relatively few cases where attorneys even think of taking such an approach... BTW would you elaborate on the kinds of psychological and forensic evidence that you would argue would contribute to PA identification?

As for the "splitting" issue, I would say that people arguing that this is evidence for PA, need to present evidence that children of a particular age, when under stress and discussing difficult situations, do not ordinarily "split", and that therefore "splitting" has a specific association with denigration efforts. A number of the critical thinking problems sometimes put forward as aspects of PA are characteristic of concrete operational children, whether they have simply not moved farther than that in cognitive development, or whether they are old enough to use formal operations but are not doing so because of emotionality, or because they are dealing with unfamiliar material, which is well-known to limit the capacity for formal operations. (Sorry, too many clauses there.)JeanAMercer (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Haha JeanAMercer, therein lies the major problems! To be able to accurately identify PA we ideally need to have a baseline for the nature of the relationship of the child(ren) with each parent prior (and preferable a long way prior!) to the breakdown of the relationship between the parents. Short of introducing mandatory and regular psychological assessments for everyone, that information is never going to be available. As noted previously, no parent is going to stand up prior to a breakdown or filing an application and say “please take a baseline of our relationships with the kid(s) so we can assess whether it changes for the worse”. Certainly any parents who are sufficiently self-aware enough to consider this would be unlikely to utilise psychological manipulation of a child for personal gain (also known as PA) anyway or to require the intervention of a Court! Therefore the only option we have is to rely on tools that attempt to identify PA after, or at best during, the event. Tools such as Bernets PARQ (splitting) and the new RPAS (see below) are the best we have at this point in time.


 * Certainly I agree with you that it is very difficult to be decisive in making an assessment of psychological manipulation after the fact. As you very correctly point out children in those early stages of development either do not yet have the tools or can easily be derailed by emotionality or by unfamiliar material, so any tool used to identify splitting or other symptoms needs to be constructed with this in mind. However I think that this is where we need to use a multifaceted approach to assessing PA in the context of the court. An assessment, by specifically trained, qualified and regulated psychologists needs to be conducted on the parents, looking specifically for behaviours that are maladaptive, particularly in the context of pressures of the court process (sorry to many clauses there too!). This information in conjunction with an assessment of the child for “splitting” and any other indicators of unjustifiable points of view can then be assessed by the court in the context of any (or, often more importantly, the absence of any) actual forensic evidence. This is where I suggest that Courts should be taking a front seat (inquisitorial) role and be directing the gathering of evidence rather than relying on advocacy. I would go as far as to suggest that this psychological assessment should be conducted as a matter of course in any family court proceeding where risk is alleged, be it physical, sexual, emotional (including PA). This would circumvent the problems of Daubert challenges and would also start to generate the much needed data about prevalence and impact not only of psychological manipulation (including PA) but also of many other forms of abuse including false accusations of abuse. Sadly my magic wand appears to still be faulty.


 * You also touch on one of the other major failings of the Court system: there is simply no data generated by the process, there is no assessment of whether any decision made by a family court actually worked for the kids. The is no internal review process, no data generated on what the actual decision was, what the key factors were, what effect it had and whether it needed reviewing. The whole structure of the process confounds any actual intelligent data gathering process! But all this only goes to illustrate that the Court system is entirely the wrong tool for supporting families and children through separation! (If my wand was working we’d have the psychological assessment outlined above (including an assessment of the individual parents capacities to operate effectively as solo parents) as mandatory first step and then an arbitration panel would make a decision, in the absence of any advocacy, about what is best for the child. Done and dusted in weeks or months at the most (rather than years) with a mandatory 6 to 12 month follow up and review of the decisions.)


 * Just on the topic of “splitting” tools, Bernets PARQ was validated on 116 subject (M=13.1yrs SD=2.64) and showed a statistically significant result when comparing alienated children with non-alienated children. Whilst the sample size is small the result is solid, certainly further testing and validation would be helpful but I don’t think it would be reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. I am also aware that a new battery (RPAS) has been developed by Rowlands and only just published (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10502556.2018.1546031) that looks at identifying alienating behaviour in adults, I haven’t had the chance to read it yet but it is claiming high reliability based on a sample size of 592 participants. Both of these tools, especially when used in conjunction with each other might, I would suggest, potentially go a long way towards reliably identifying PA in court proceedings, especially when combined with psychological and forensic (or absence of forensic) evidence.


 * Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, there it does lie! But I don't see the assessment of relationships at various times as helpful, because it still does not tell us anything about denigration or manipulation by the preferred parent. Custody evaluators are supposed to use multiple sources of data to generate and then test hypotheses about what's happening in a family, and it seems to me most unlikely that a parent who wanted to manipulate a child would never do this in front of a third party, who if asked could supply some evidence. But-- to look at the PARQ for a minute, as an assessment method in itself, the Bernet et al study has a lot of problems. The most obvious one is that the criteria for identifying PA assume that somebody, mental health professional or court, can tell accurately whether there is PA or not. To the extent that the PARQ identifies anything in this study, it's that the instrument agrees with people who identify PA; this makes the PARQ a time-saver compared to a mental health professional's assessment, but it does not demonstrate that it is a valid measure of PA. Also, BTW, why can PA(the parental behavior) not co-exist with abusive treatment? I don't see why the existence of abuse, which leads to the label estrangement, necessarily means that there were no efforts to alienate the child, though it does mean that the abusive parent should not get custody. (And, as I've said before, there may be denigration by one or both parents in well-functioning marriages as well, with possible cultural influences.)

Curiously, although Warshak (who might be you for all I know!) wrote some years ago about how to decrease the numbers of false positives in PA identification, nobody seems to be concerned about false negatives. I don't know whether this is because once a child is sent for assessment of PA, he or she is always concluded to show PA.

Be all that as it may, however, a major concern I have about this PARQ study is the very broad age range of the children. Like many other PA studies, this one appear to me to have completely omitted developmental concerns. Nine-year-olds as a group are rather different in their use of concrete operations than 17-year-olds are. What needs to be done is to compare the responses of children in the four groups who are (say) 9-11 years old, 12-14 years old, 15-17 years old; that is, a 3 X 4 table comparing scores of the three age groups and the four family categories. Unfortunately, legal standards tend to treat everyone from 0-18 years as identical, but that does not mean that a psychological assessment has to do that too.

As for the Rowlands study, isn't this rather circular? Courts make PA decisions on the basis of the factors said to indicate PA, and the parents who were said to have been adjudicated as showing PA had children who showed those factors, six of them anyway. And it's exactly these factors that I think need to be tested for their frequency in particular age groups that are associated with certain ways of thinking. "Independent thinker": what is more annoying to a teenager striving for autonomy than to be told he only thinks something because his mother said so? "Presence of borrowed scenarios": first of all, I do not understand what this means -- if I use someone else's example, am I not borrowing a scenario? And is that not what we might expect from stressed young people who are being required to give a "nonfrivolous" explanation of their position but find it very difficult to do? Are there commonly borrowed scenarios in other areas of life, and if so are they more common in one age range than in another? As for lack of affection and reflexive support, these seem to me to be measured primarily by observing the child's reluctance for contact with one parent and strong preference for the other.

But finally, to call a close to my noodling here, I do not see that the courts are the right ones to seek information about PA. Legal arguments are characterized by efforts to bring in multitudes of sources supporting one point of view and to omit or reject counterarguments. Scientific investigation is characterized by efforts to reject a hypothesis by collecting information that contradicts or fails to support it. In addition, in my own experience, most claims of PA settle out of court and there are no public documents to show what the evidence or arguments were, so a great many alleged PA cases do not provide data that courts or researchers could use. What we do about this, I do not know. JeanAMercer (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)