Family Lore Focus

Implacable Hostility Leading to Parental Alienation
L.F. Lowenstein
Justice of the Peace, (2008), Vol 172, No.12, 185-187

It has been well established by numerous investigators in the area of family problems that
the implacable hostility between parents or partners in a relationship which results in a break-
up of that relationship due to that implacable hostility, features largely in the tendency of the
custodial parent to alienate a child/children against the non custodial parent (Gardner 2002 a,
b,c,d; Ancona. 1998; Knight, 2005; Kelly, 2003; Anthony 2005). While the courts are eager to
accept the term “implacable hostility” they are less inclined to consider “parental alienation”
or “parental alienation syndrome” as this as yet has not been accepted as a “condition” or
“syndrome” by the American Psychological Association, or indeed the British Psychological
Society. The article which follows attempts to show how the connection between ‘implacable
hostility’ and ‘parental alienation’ is very strong indeed. One virtually follows the other.

A recently published book by the author of this article (Lowenstein, 2007) emphasises that
link and attempts to make the courts aware of legitimacy of using “parental alienation”, if not
parental alienation syndrome, in association with implacable hostility. (Heiliger, 2003; Caplan,
2004; Lorandos, 2005).

Those in the Judiciary who feel that the term parental alienation syndrome or parental
alienation cannot be used (Lowenstein, 1999) must also consider the fact that implacable
hostility is also not part of DSM-IV of the British and American psychological associations and
yet it is accepted readily by the courts. An article published by the author (Lowenstein, 2006)
and Enoch (2001) on the subject of “Folie a Deux” produces considerable evidence to the
effect that frequently the custodial parent will ally himself/herself with the child and members
of the extended family to create a situation where the absent or non custodial parent is
alienated in every way, including contrived accusations being made of physical and sexual
abuse towards the former partner and/or the child (Baker, 1997; Lowenstein, 1994b, 2001b).
This is virtually always disproven, as a reason for preventing contact between the alienated,
absent non custodial parent and children. It is nevertheless a powerful weapon used by the
custodial parent to attack and attempt to nullify the very existence of the absent partner or
demonising that partner, and preventing contact between that former partner and children of
that relationship. Hence, many devious and destructive manoeuvres are practiced by custodial
parents (both fathers and mothers) in their effort to annihilate the presence of the absent
parent due to the implacable hostility (Gardener, 2003) existing during the relationship and
even more, following the break up of the relationship. It is especially likely to occur when the
custodial parent has established a new relationship with a partner and wishes that partner to
play the role of the absent parent. Such individuals will even go to the length of attempting to
change the name of the child to the new partner in the relationship. This provides
considerable harm and injustice to children who are caught in the middle and to the alienated
parent who seeks eagerly to play a role of responsibility in having contact with his/her child.

Signs of parental alienation due to implacable hostility

Signs of parental alienation have been recorded by the current author (Lowenstein, 2007) and
Lorandos (2005) and include at least 28 signs many of which are readily observable in
children who have been alienated against the absent parent. It must be emphasised again
that the result or basis of such alienation is due to the implacable hostility by at least one of
the parents towards the other, usually the custodial parent, who wishes to eliminate the
influence and contact of the non resident parent. Among the many signs a number will be
produced at this point (Lowenstein, 2002; 2005e):

1. lack of independent thinking from the child who is imitating the alienator’s thoughts and
feelings as well as in some cases instructions.
2. Destroying mail or even presents from the alienated parent so that the child will feel the
absent parent no longer cares for him/her.
3. The alienating parent tends to seek to curtail all communication between the child and the
alienated parent whether it is by telephone, in person, or by letter
4. The alienated parent is shown to be a ‘scapegoat’ and blamed for everything that has
gone wrong in the child’s life. The child of course will have no reason for doubting this.
5. The child no longer calls the alienated parent his/her father/mother and will frequently call
him/her names such as ‘liar’ and other abusive names of various kinds. This has been
inculcated in the child by the custodial parent predominantly.
6. The child is frequently insulting and shows disrespect in many ways if there is any contact
at all between that child and the non custodial parent. This is done usually in front of the
alienator.
7. The alienated parent is viewed as being a despicable individual who should be rejected by
the child permanently.
8. The parent who alienates the child is actually seducing the child emotionally and in so
doing is carrying out considerable ‘emotional abuse’ by carrying out this type of behaviour.
9. The child is made to feel guilty if he/she shows any interest or love towards the alienated
parent. Hence the child will deny any involvement with the alienated parent being fearful of
losing the custodial parent as support and security.
10. The child fears rejection by the programmer and will say and do things in front of the
custodial parent to please that person, against the alienated parent.
11. The child appears to be under control totally due to the indoctrination by the alienating
parent. Hence the alienator is viewed as being all good and wise while the other parent who is
absent is viewed in the opposite manner.
12. The child tends to paraphrase statements used by the alienating parent and frequently
this language is not typical of a child of that particular age. It is a type of cult-like influence of
indoctrination.
13. As a result of the implacable hostility the child frequently suffers from paranoia in relation
to the alienated parent. The child develops a fear of what the absent parent might do which
could be harmful to him/herself or indeed the alienator.
14. The child will often speak in an exaggerated manner of abuse that he/she may have
suffered from the alienated parent due to the encouragement by the alienator.
15. The child or the alienating parent makes statements insinuating quasi or actual sexual,
emotional and physical abuse suffered by the child.
16. The language through which the child portrays such information includes such phrases as:
“He touches me inappropriately”, or “He has penetrated me”. These are borrowed scenarios
from the alienating parent.
17. It must be realised that children who are alienated no longer know the truth from lies
especially if they have been told lies by a parent upon whom they depend so much for
security.
18. The child who is alienated against the non custodial parent will be alienated not only
against that absent parent but against that parent’s family due to the inculcation of false
information by the alienator.
19. The alienator will also poison the child against the therapist who may be involved in some
form of mediation, unless the therapist supports only the alienator, which of course would be
wrong. Hence the therapist is frequently seen as an “enemy” and on the side of the alienated
parent because he/she is seeking to provide some contact between the parent who is
alienated and the child (Gardner, 2002a,b).
20. It is often not what the alienator says but how it is said by saying nothing positive about
the absent parent. Such statements as: “Father/Mother would like to take you out, do you
want to go?” is likely to provide an answer which is negative from the child because the child
expects the custodial parent to feel that is what is expected of him/her.
21. The alienated child often tends to see himself/herself in a very powerful position
(Gardner, 2002b) especially if they ally themselves with the alienator. This creates great
antagonism against the alienated parent. This is done as a result of the programming of the
alienator.
22. The female alienator, which is more common than the male alienator, since more
mothers have custody than fathers (Ancona, 1998), is likely to choose a female solicitor for
the purpose of having an ally of her own gender who will back her up whatever occurs. Fathers
may equally do the same thing and choose a male solicitor. Such sexual preferences are
based on seeking support for their position.
23. Female alienators are often angry due to the fact that the alienated individual may have
a new relationship and this increases the implacable hostility between herself and her former
partner.
24. Some alienators move away from where their ex-partner resides making it difficult for the
alienated parent to seek contact and to have regular contact. This should not be permitted by
the courts.
25. Sometimes, in extreme cases of alienation and implacable hostility the custodial parent
will even change the name of the child to that of the alienator or the new partner of the
alienator.
26. Frivolous reasons are often given for not wanting to be with the alienated parent by the
child. This includes wanting to be out with his/her friends, watching a television programme or
having some other excuse for not wishing to be with the absent parent often supported by the
alienator.
27. The child is encouraged to be with friends or play video games by the alienating parent.
Again, this is in order to stand in the way of the absent parent having regular contact with the
child.
28. The child who has had a happy history and warm relationship with the now alienated
parent before separation or divorce, will frequently fail to remember, or will not be reminded,
of pleasant and happy times by the custodial parent. Hence, a child will forget the happy
times and consider only those times, mentioned by the alienator, of all the negative
experiences of the past, which the child has experienced or remembers again, possibly due to
being reminded of this by the custodial parent. Negative experiences are thus reinforced.

It is important for psychologists or psychiatrists, or anyone acting as an expert witness to be
aware of these undercurrents of activity going on and not merely accept the version that the
child gives of not wishing contact with the absent parent. Frequently the courts will listen to
what the child wants of says and abide by this without any deeper examination of the facts
behind such decisions by children.

An article which follows will provide ways provided for combating parental alienation based on
implacable hostility and hence the treatment of the problem which is so damaging to children
as well as the absent parent seeking contact.

References
Ancona, P. (1998). Crisis in America: Father Absence. Huntington, NY: Nova Science
Publishers.
Anthony, T. (2005).Calming the Family Storm: Anger Management for Moms, Dads and all
the Kids. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 69:2, 180.
Baker, E. (1997). Assessing and Managing Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse: An Australian
Perspective. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35:3, 293-9.
Caplan, P. J. (2004). What is it That’s Being Called Parental Alienation Syndrome? In:
Caplan, P. J. and Cosgrove, L. (Eds.) Bias in Psychiatric Diagnosis. Lanham, MD: Jason
Aronson.
Enoch, D. and Ball, H. (2001). Folie a Deux (et Folie a Plusieurs) Uncommon Psychiatric-
Syndromes. 4th edn. London, Arnold.
Gardner, R. A. (2002a). Does DSM-IV Have Equivalents for the Parental Alienation Syndrome
(PAS) Diagnosis? American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(1), 1-21.
Gardner, R. A. (2002b). Parental Alienation Syndrome versus Parental Alienation: Which
Diagnosis Should Evaluators Use in Child Custody Disputes? American Journal of Family
Therapy, 30(2), 93-115.
Gardner, R. A. (2002c). Denial of the Parental Alienation Syndrome Also Harms women.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(3), 191-202.
Gardner, R. A. (2002d). The Empowerment of Children in The Development of Parental
Alienation Syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Sciences, 20(2), 5-29.
Gardner, R.A. (2003). The Judiciary’s Role in the Aetiology, Symptom Development, and
Treatment of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). American Journal of Forensic
Psychology, 21(1), 39-64.
Heiliger, A. (2003). Problems With Child Custody and Right of Access in Highly Controversial
Cases. A Call for Decisions Enhancing the Child’s Well-Being. DISKURS, 13:3, 62-8.
Kelly, J. B. (2003).Parents With Enduring Child Disputes: Focused Interventions with Parents
in Enduring Disputes. Journal of Family Studies 9:1, 51-62.
Knight , T. A. (2005). Addressing the Fall-Out of High Conflict Divorce: A Hopeful Model.
Psychcritiques 50: 30.
Lorandos, D. (Ed.) (2005).International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome:
Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations. Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1994b). The Child and Child Sex Allegations. Links. No.3.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1999). Parent Alienation and the Judiciary. Medico-Legal Journal, 67(3),
121-3.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2001b). The Value of Mediation in Child Custody Disputes: Recent
Research. Justice of the Peace, 166: 739-744.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2002). Problems Suffered by Children Due to the Effects of Parental
Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Justice of the Peace, 166(24), 464-6.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2005e). Parent Alienation Syndrome and Its Impact on Children Part 2.
Published on website www.parental-alienation.info .
Lowenstein, L. F. (2006). Parental Alienation due to a Shared Psychotic Disorder (Folie a
Deux). Justice of the Peace, 170(25), 467-471.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2007). Parental Alienation: How to understand and address parental
alienation resulting from acrimonious divorce or separation. Russell House Publishing, Dorset,
UK.
* * *
Dr Ludwig F. Lowenstein M.A., Dip. Psych., Ph.D. founded Southern England Psychological
Services in 1978, following years of experience as a Consultant Psychologist and after serving
the Hampshire Education Authority as Chief Educational Psychologist. He obtained his M.A.
and Doctorate in Psychology and Education at London University, and is one of Britain's most
quoted authorities on psychology in Education. Over the years he has held such appointments
as: Director of Assessment and Guidance for maladjusted boys with learning difficulties,
London and Winchester; Chief Examiner in Education Psychology, College of Preceptors,
London; former educational psychologist in Essex and London; Visiting Lecturer to the
Universities of London, Southampton, Maryland (U.S.A.), and Visiting Professor to the
University of Khartoum (Sudan), as well as to many U.K. Colleges of technology and teacher
training colleges. He is currently an Educational and Psychological Consultant. He was made a
fellow of the college of Preceptors and has also published books and over 360 articles on a
variety of subjects including those dealing with Forensic matters.