Survive the Psychopath: TEN THINGS MEN CAN DO TO PREVENT GENDER VIOLENCE

Survive the Psychopath: TEN THINGS MEN CAN DO TO PREVENT GENDER VIOLENCE: TEN THINGS MEN CAN DO TO PREVENT GENDER VIOLENCE Approach gender violence as a MEN'S issue involving men of all ages and socioecono...

Strategies Used by Alienating Parents

The scenario follows:

a parent, mother or father, informs the court that they are opposed to contact between their child and the other parent because it would have an adverse effect on the child`s health or mental welfare.  The alienating parent, through their attorney, convinces the judge that contact with the other parent would not be in the child`s best interests.

When a parent has alienated a child to the point where they appear to express a genuine desire not to have any contact with the non-custodial parent, the family court judge faces a predicament.

Alienating parents will tell social workers, therapists and judges that they fully support the child visiting the other parent, but covertly, they will create anxiety and confusion in the child by making threats or lying about the other parent.

Children perceive through tone, body language and previous punishment, the desire of the alienating parent, and out of fear, will show behaviour that could be interpreted as the child not wanting to have contact with the other parent.

Ŀawyers and Judges need to be educated so that they are able to recognize the symptoms of an alienating parent:

1. where the views expressed by the child (for example, 'I'm frightened of Mommy or Daddy', or 'I hate Daddy/Mommy') are not in any way borne out by the child's behaviour when observed with their father or mother;
2. where the alienating parent 'enmeshes' others (who may become witnesses) who then echo the child's fear or allegations and support the alienating parent's view that contact can only begin very gradually. These others may express admiration that the alienating parent is trying to promote contact;
3. where the alienating parent or others on their behalf hide the child from the alienated parent and pretend that it is a game 'to hide from Daddy/Mommy';
4. where the alienating parent is reluctant to allow the child to be seen by independent psychologists although they may have enlisted the support of their general practitioner, health visitor, etc. as part of the enmeshment process;
5. where the alienating parent agrees to arrangements for contact and at the last moment 'pulls the plug', often citing a real or imagined incident whereby the other parent has upset the child in some way;
6. where the alienating parent is monitoring or trying to interrupt telephone contact between the child and the other parent;
7. where the child checks with the alienating parent(which may merely be by using body language) that it is all right to answer questions asked by social workers or experts in the presence of the other parent;
8. where the child does not answer questions naturally, but appears instead to give pre-programmed answers, or responds to a question by giving a wholly unrelated answer;
9. where the child uses age-inappropriate language which suggests that they have either picked up adult conversation or have been coached by the alienating parent;
10. where the alienating parent insists on being present at all contact sessions, citing the child's need to feel secure, or the alienating parent may say that the child has told them that they are too frightened to have contact unless he or she stays with the child;
11. where 'it is said that' letters and cards from the other parent(alienated) mysteriously fail to arrive, although the alienating parent encourages the child to write so as to demonstrate their commitment to contact;
12. where 'it is said that', immediately after contact, the alienating parent inquires of the child how they are feeling (for example 'have you still got that nasty tummy ache?'), implying that contact has been a painful experience for the child;
13. where the alienating parent alleges that the other parent has abused the child in some way, and they continue to insist on this even in the face of all expert evidence to the contrary. None the less, the alienating parent may assure everyone that they do not want to promote contact but insists that it will have to be re-established on a very gradual step-by-step basis and that continued supervision of the other parent whilst contact takes place is essential to prevent further abuse. The child  may echo the allegations of the alienating parent, appearing to believe that they have been abused.

The damage to children who become victim to a strategy of alienation is both insidious and of long duration.  
What remedy does the court have if it discovers that a parent has alienated the child from the other parent to the extent that the child is refusing all contact and, in addition, seems convinced that the other parent poses a danger? 
The court, if operating according to the law, will have to consider the expressed wishes of the child, especially older children, and this may result in the other parent being denied regular contact, or any access at all. 
The Court needs to consider the possibility that the child has been alienated to a degree that is tantamount to emotional abuse by the alienating parent, and appreciate the danger of leaving this abuse unresolved. 

The role of the expert witness can be significant in this situation. An expert will be able to point first to factors of the case which strongly suggest that there has been alienation by the parent with custody and, in addition, advise the court on the future outcome, for example, by assessing the short- and long-term effects on the child of persistent alienation and of the ability of the alienating parent to change. 
Cases of severe alienation originate from a personality disorder or psychopathy. In a recent UK case (Re W (1996) August) a leading American psychologist held the view that the alienating itself often becomes the custodial parent's 'job'. Experts agree with the thought that a child raised by an alienating parent is more likely to have a disturbed personality themselves.

If there is a finding of fact that there has been alienation, how does the judge decide where the child's best interests lie? 
Some American experts, who have vast experience in this field, advocate immediate removal of the child from the alienating parent and placement with the other parent where possible. They contend that empirical studies have shown that this approach is best for the child's psychological welfare. Further, in cases where there has been severe alienation, the child should have no contact with the alienating parent for as long as it takes to re-establish the relationship with the child and the previously absent parent. Contact with the alienating parent should then restart gradually and be monitored closely to ensure that the damaging behaviour does not recur.

A school of thought in the USA holds that if the child stays with the alienating parent, that parent will probably resort again to negative and destructive ways once litigation is over. Usually the child is not old enough either developmentally or intellectually to be able to see through the parent's covert behaviour. The child may also seek to please the parent who cares for them by reinforcing allegations made against the absent parent. In many instances, as soon as the professionals leave the case the alienating parent will make new allegations and create difficulties, so that contact agreed or ordered by the court will wither and die. 
This viewpoint had support from the two UK experts in Re W (above). The mother in that case had been awarded residence of the three children, partly on the basis that she was the more likely parent to promote contact. As soon as the court proceedings were over, she stopped contact, saying that the children were alleging sexual abuse by their father. The allegations were fully investigated and held to be completely unfounded. The mother continued to insist that she wanted contact to take place but that it had to be supervised at all times.

Is there any effective treatment for the parent who alienates? 
The view of a leading British psychologist is that there is treatment available but that its effectiveness depends upon it being long-term, psychoanalytically informed therapy (in the order of years rather than months), and upon the alienating parent acknowledging the problem and following the therapy programme. Therapy is based on teasing out and understanding the parent's unconscious mental process and how these affect day-to-day functioning, in order to change personality structure and bring a resolution to the underlying problem.

The difficulty is that if the child remains with this parent during the process of treatment, it may be some time before contact with the absent parent is re-established. It is for this reason that immediate removal of the child is advocated by experts. This is a Draconian solution and one which a judge may be reluctant to adopt, but it may be in the child's best interests in the long term to be removed from the insidious influence of an alienating parent.

Speaking out about Psychopaths and Parental Alienation

We become weak in this battle against parental alienation and we allow fear to paralyze us.  When we contemplate resisting, speaking out or making yet another court application, we freeze because we know we can no longer rely on the so-called "justice system". 
Our greatest and most noble human desires are for the Truth, Freedom and Love.  
In the beginning of our journey in family court, we expected justice, truth and freedom to reign.  Over the years, through consistent resistance from the court, manipulation and exploitation by corrupt lawyers and a ruthless agenda by a psychopath ex-spouse, we are worn down to the point where we succumb to Learned Helplessness.

When we speak up about the abuse and the injustice, the judge lashes out yet again, taking yet another freedom away from us or our children or children.
When we don't speak up about the abuse and injustice, the psychopath continues, unfettered in his or her tyranny to destroy the mind and souls of our children.
We fear the repercussions if we speak out, and yet, if we don't, we are doomed - our children are doomed. 
I live the fear, but I will not give in to it, no matter how tired I become.  I will unite and combine my efforts in this battle with other good parents.  We will overcome our fear and present ourselves as a force for freedom for our children and our families.
If we don't work together and act to speak the truth in court and in society, our future and that of our children will be dictated and ruled by psychopaths.
Let us educate ourselves, make a decision and then act.  We owe it to our children.

Is the Root of Evil the Psychopathic Mind? -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

Is the Root of Evil the Psychopathic Mind? -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net: http://www.sott.net/article/246086-Is-the-Root-of-Evil-the-Psychopathic-Mind-

A Structural Theory of Narcissism and Psychopathy

Laura Knight-Jadczyk writes most coherently on the nature of pyschopathy.  Below is an excerpt from her Structural Theory of Narcissism and Psychopathy.

When considering a grown up psychopath, there are highly complex neurological circuits that have developed apace in the process of learning what works to get his needs and demands met. A complex and even brilliant intelligence is harnessed in service of a restricted or deviant emotional nature. But that apparent internal infantile core of being nothing but a hunger at the center of a bundle of neurological inputs and outputs is static - it never changes. In other words, there is no core self, just a sort of black hole that wants/needs to suck everything into it. 

And here we come to the reason for the insatiable rage. 

Under the influence of this internal structure - this ever-present, never fulfilled, hunger - the psychopath is not able to appreciate the wants or needs of other human beings, the subtle shades of a situation or to tolerate ambiguity. The entire external reality is filtered through - made to conform to - this rigid and primitive internal structure, in the service of primitive drives. 

When the psychopath is frustrated, i.e. doesn't get what they want, satisfaction of the hunger is denied or delayed, what they seem to feel is that everything in the world "out there" is against them while they are only good. This may, of course, translate into actual thought loops of being good, long-suffering and only seeking the ideal of love, peace, safety, beauty, warmth and comfort that comes with satiation (never mind that they can never achieve it), but the most fundamental thing about it is that "the infant experiences itself still in a state of limitlessness power and knowledge, a state that we call its grandiose self". That is, when a psychopath is confronted with something displeasing or threatening to his hunger, that object (person, idea, group, whatever), is placed in the "all bad" category the same way that a newborn infant reacts to a negative trauma or denial of wants or needs: a mindless, instinctive, screaming rage that is designed to be so unpleasant (possibly evolutionarily so) that the caretaker immediately does whatever is necessary to bring the infant's rage to an end, to satisfy the hunger (for whatever). 
In short, if we are positing that the psychopath's inner reality is structurally similar to that of a newborn infant - or at least apparently similar - then we must also realize that the rage is also structural. Whatever triggers it MUST come into compliance, the infant/psychopath cannot be denied; the rage, the crying, the fit, whatever, will continue until the infant either gets what is wanted/needed or is so exhausted that it cannot strive any longer. And, of course, with a grown up psychopath, this structural rage has far more support and possibilities (including utilizing a very complex brain) for sustaining it for a very long time: as long as necessary for THAT OBJECT of the rage to be incorporated as was originally desired. 

The bottom line is: there is never even an instant when the psychopath feels "traumatized" or "shamed" or "helpless" - the structural grandiosity is ever present along with the rage/rejection of denial. 

When dealing with a grown up psychopath, things get a bit more complicated, of course, because, as mentioned above, the brain has continued to grow and develop without the concomitant emotional maturation (and this can vary from individual to individual, though the structure remains the same). If the brain of the psychopath is forced to face mounting evidence that some choice or act of his/hers has created a problem or made a situation worse, this must be denied by the brain, driven by the emotions, as part of the self and projected as coming from "out there." 

The internal structure of the psychopath will admit to no wrong (it cannot), nothing bad, no errors and so, anything that is defined as "bad" is naturally - structurally - projected onto someone or something else. And keep in mind that this is not because they choose to do that, it is because they cannot do otherwise. There is nothing at the core but a hunger connected to neural inputs and outputs, wrapped up in emotional grandiosity and eternal perfection; that is the way they are made. 

As a consequence of having such a primitive core structure coupled with a complex - and in some cases, brilliant - brain, psychopaths become masters of projective identification. That is, they project onto and into others everything that is bad (remembering that "bad" changes according to what the psychopath wants at the moment - that's part of the structure), and seek in manipulative ways to induce in that other person what is being projected, and seek to control the other person who is perceived as manifesting those "bad" characteristics. In this way, the psychopath gains enjoyment and feels "in control" which amounts to getting "fed" or "nurtured" in some way. 

Keep in mind that what the psychopath considers to be good has nothing to do with truth, honor, decency, consideration for others, or any other thing other than what the psychopath wants at any given moment. In this way, any violation of the rights of others, any foul, evil deed, can be perpetrated by a psychopath and he will still sleep like a baby (literally) at night because he has done nothing wrong! 
Subordinating a normal person to psychologically abnormal individuals has a deforming effect on his personality: it engenders trauma and neurosis. This is accomplished in a manner which generally evades sufficient conscious controls. Such a situation then deprives the person of his natural rights: to practice his own mental hygiene, develop a sufficiently autonomous personality, and utilize his common sense. In the light of natural law, it thus constitutes a kind of illegality--which can appear in any social scale--although it is not mentioned in any code of law. 

We have already discussed the nature of some pathological personalities, e.g. frontal characteropathy. Essential psychopathy has exceptionally intense effects in this manner. 

Something mysterious gnaws into the personality of an individual at the mercy of such a [pathological] person and is then fought like a demon. His emotions become chilled, his sense of psychological reality is stifled. This leads to de-criterialization of thought and a feeling of helplessness, culminating in depressive reactions which can be so severe that psychiatrists sometimes misdiagnose them as a manic-depressive psychosis. 

Many people evidently also rebel much earlier and start searching for some way of liberating themselves from such an influence. 

http://www.sott.net/article/154258-A-Structural-Theory-of-Narcissism-and-Psychopathy