Category: Child Abuse

False Allegations of Abuse: Technical Issues

False Allegations of Incest

Let me approach this discussion with the basic premise that all mental health professionals have the child’s best interests as their primary consideration. All mental health professionals wish to protect children from sexual abuse. No mental health professional seeks to expose a child to sexual abuse victimization.

If there are differing viewpoints on how to accomplish this goal, they are good-faith expressions of “equally valid poles of a dialectic” (Linehan, 1993), and the goal should be to move toward synthesis of differing perspectives rather than adopting adversarial positions.

Authentic sexual abuse occurs far too frequently. We must act to protect children from sexual abuse victimization.

And… on occasion,

A narcissistic/(borderline) parent will induce or elicit false allegations from the child of sexual abuse victimization by the other parent as a means to exploit these child allegations to achieve power over the situation and the other parent. When this occurs, not only does the child lose a loving and affectionally bonded relationship with a normal-range targeted parent, the child also loses the potential protective influence that the normal-range psychological organization of the targeted-rejected parent can have in lessening the distorting pathogenic influence of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent on the child’s development.

Furthermore, for a narcissistic/(borderline) parent to induce or elicit from a child false allegations of sexual abuse against the other parent represents extremely distorted parenting that rises to the level of severe psychological abuse of the child. Failure to respond to this type of psychological child abuse when it is present is to abandon the child to the severely distorting effects of the psychological child abuse of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent that will have a long-term destructive impact on the child’s psychological development, likely influencing future generations of the family as well through the transmission of the effects of the child abuse to the next generation through the future pathogenic parenting of the current child with his or her own children.

Our goal should be to protect the child from ALL forms of child abuse, particularly the severe forms being considered in this discussion. It is NEVER acceptable to abandon a child to any form of child abuse.

Assertion 1: Child Sexual Abuse Allegations are Not Developmentally Normal

Under no circumstances does a child ever spontaneously develop a false belief that a parent sexually abused the child. It doesn’t happen. Ever.

Children may develop on their own symptoms of hyperactivity or inattention, or anger control problems, or cognitive delays, or social problems, or phobic anxieties. All of these types of symptoms can sometimes arise endogenously to the child’s own developmental course.

Children NEVER spontaneously develop, on their own, a false belief that a parent sexually abused the child.

When a child asserts that a parent sexually abused the child, there are only three differential diagnostic possibilities:

1)   Authentic child abuse incest by the parent

2)   Extremely distorted pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/borderline parent in which this parent induces or elicits the child’s false belief of sexual abuse,

A)  In order to exploit the child’s symptoms to achieve power over the situation or other parent, or

B)  As a result of semi-psychotic decompensation of the narcissistic/borderline parent into a delusional belief in the (false) threat represented by the other parent, with the parental delusional belief then being transferred to the child through severely distorted parenting practices of the narcissistic/borderline parent.

“When particular schemas are hypervalent, the threshold for activation of the constituent schemas is low: they are readily triggered by a remote or trivial stimulus. They are also “prepotent”; that is, they readily supersede more appropriate schemas or configurations in processing information. (Beck et al., 2004, p. 28)

“The conceptualization of the core pathology of BPD as stemming from a highly frightened, abused child who is left alone in a malevolent world, longing for safety and help but distrustful because of fear of further abuse and abandonment, is highly related to the model developed by Young… that some pathological states of patients with BPD are a sort of regression into intense emotional states experienced as a child. Young conceptualized such states as schema modes…” (Beck et al., 2004, p. 199)

3)    The child, typically an adolescent, lacks a moral conscience, typically as a result of extraordinarily poor parenting, and is consciously, intentionally, and independently using a false allegation of sexual abuse against a parent as an intentional manipulation to achieve a desired goal or outcome.

This is not a spontaneous development of a false belief, this is simply a conscious lie perpetrated by the adolescent for manipulative gain.

Exclusionary caveat: The adolescent’s actions are not the product of influence from an allied and supposedly “favored” parent to allow the parent (or parent-child alliance) to then exploit the child’s allegations for manipulative gain (i.e., Causal Origin 2).

In my clinical practice I have known adolescents who admitted to me that they colluded with peers on how to create marks on their body to substantiate false allegations they made about physical abuse from a parent. In one of these cases the motivation of the adolescent was to obtain a custody change from the current parent to the desired parent. However, it wasn’t so much that the desired parent was in a cross-generational coalition with the child as much as the desired parent was exceedingly lax and permissive as a parent, which was a parenting style preferred by this adolescent over the current parent’s more structured expectations.  Other adolescents in my clinical practice have threatened their parents with filing false child abuse allegations against the parent if the parent did not capitulate to the child’s demands in some area. These families had a history of highly dysfunctional relationships.

In all three causal origins for sexual abuse allegations made by a child against a parent, there is extremely bad parenting somewhere within the family. Sexual abuse allegations made by a child against a parent are ALWAYS evidence of extremely bad parenting occurring somewhere within the family. The only question is where.

Personal Estimates of Prevalence

Note: There is no existing reliable data to support these estimates. These are personal estimates based solely on my clinical judgment.

From the domain consisting of all sexual abuse allegations made by a child of incest by a parent, my estimates of the prevalence for the three different origins for the child’s sexual abuse allegations against a parent are:

1. Authentic child abuse

Estimate of the likely prevalence of this causal origin for the child’s allegations: I would estimate that authentic sexual abuse of the child is the causal origin of the child’s allegations in approximately 95% of the cases of children’s alleged sexual abuse by a parent.

2.  Extremely distorted pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/borderline parent that induces or elicits from the child a false allegation of sexual abuse against the other parent

Estimate of the likely prevalence of this causal origin for the child’s allegations:  I would estimate that pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/borderline parent that induces or elicits from the child a false allegation of sexual abuse against the other parent is the causal origin of the child’s allegations in approximately 1% – 2% of the cases of children’s alleged sexual abuse by a parent.

3. An intentional adolescent lie as a manipulative or retaliatory action against the parent

Estimate of the likely prevalence of this causal origin for the child’s allegations:  I would estimate that an independent intentional lie created by an adolescent as a manipulative or retaliatory action against the parent is the causal origin of the child’s allegations in approximately 3% to 5% of the cases of children’s alleged sexual abuse by a parent

Individual Assessments

In any individual case, the estimated population prevalence is not a relevant consideration.

For example, in the 1% or 2% of the cases in which the child’s allegation of sexual abuse incest against a parent is induced and elicited by the pathogenic parenting practices of a narcissistic/borderline parent, in those 1% – 2% of cases the likelihood that the child’s symptoms were induced or elicited by the pathogenic parenting practices of a narcissistic/borderline parent is 100% – in those cases.

Is the specific case under consideration one of these rare cases? Perhaps. And if this specific individual case is one of those rare cases, then the probability that the child’s allegations are the induced or elicited product of pathogenic parenting practices by a narcissistic/borderline parent is 100% (i.e., if this specific case is one of those 1% – 2% of cases).

So population prevalence is not a consideration in evaluating any specific case. Each case is individual.

This is a foundational construct in psychological testing.  Just because the population prevalence of any specific issue, such as learning disabilities, ADHD, or mental retardation, is an infrequent occurrence in the general population doesn’t mean that this specific child doesn’t have the issue in question.

General population prevalence is not relevant to the assessment of any individual case. The assessment of each specific case is individualized to the specific data of that individual case.

Decisional Errors

There are technical considerations in establishing the criteria by which we make decisions.  In some cases the data allows us to make decisions based on 100% certainty, but this is extremely rare in decisions about psychological issues. When 100% certainty is not available, there are two possible types of errors we can make in our decisions based on the data

When a child makes sexual abuse allegations against a parent, there are two possible hypotheses that can be supported or disconfirmed by the data,

“Null Hypothesis” – no sexual abuse occurred

“Clinical Hypothesis” – sexual abuse did occur

Type I Error: A Type I error is when we erroneously accept the Clinical Hypothesis that sexual abuse occurred when, in truth, there was NO sexual abuse of the child. This is called a “false positive” decisional error, when we erroneously say something took place when it actually didn’t occur.

Type II Error: A Type II error is when we erroneously accept the Null Hypothesis that NO sexual abuse occurred, when in actuality the child was sexually abused by the parent. This is called a “false negative” decisional error, when we say nothing took place when it actually did occur.

These two types of decisional errors are interrelated. The lower the probability of making one type of decisional error, the higher the probability of making the other type of decisional error.

In establishing the criteria for making a decision from data that does not allow 100% certainty, the question is which type of error is worse in the context of the issue under consideration. So if we are making a decision about whether a child has been sexually abused by a parent, is it worse to,

A)  Erroneously conclude that the child was sexually abused when in actuality no sexual abuse took place (a Type 1 Error).

The consequences of this decisional error would be that we would needlessly and erroneously terminate the child’s relationship with a normal-range and affectionally available parent, and we would abandon the child to the custody of a narcissistic/borderline parent who is engaging in extremely distorted parenting practices that will severely distort the child’s emotional and psychological development (Causal Origin 2), or

We will terminate the child’s relationship with a parent in collusion with the child’s manipulative intent of attaining a desired goal or outcome (Causal Origin 3)

B) Erroneously conclude that the child was NOT sexually abused when in actuality the child was sexually abused by the parent (a Type II Error)

The consequence of this decisional error would be that we DO NOT terminate the child’s relationship with a sexually abusive incestuous parent, thereby abandoning the child to continued sexual abuse victimization.

One of the particularly devastating consequences of this decisional error with regard to child sexual abuse allegations against a parent is that we communicate to the child that we do not believe the child’s report is accurate when the child is, in actuality, telling us the truth. This is psychologically devastating to the sexually abused child. For the child to overcome the personal shame and family secrecy surrounding sexual abuse victimization and to come forward in disclosing the abuse, and then not to be believed and to be abandoned to their continued victimization, is psychologically devastating to the child, compounding the severity of the trauma for the child.

The decision as to which is worse, the impact of Type I errors or the impact of Type II errors, with regard to any particular issue is a value judgment regarding the comparative impacts. Based on this value judgment we then set decisional criteria that minimize either the likelihood of making a Type I decisional error (thereby increasing the likelihood of making a Type II decisional error), or we establish decisional criteria that minimize the likelihood of making a Type II error (thereby increasing the likelihood of making a Type I decisional error), or we seek decisional criteria that provide some sort of balance between the risks of making Type I and Type II errors in our decision making about the data.

But the criteria we establish for making our decisions is based on value judgements regarding the relative dangers of making a Type I decisional error (called a “false positive”) compared to the dangers associated with making a Type II decisional error (called a “false negative”).

Prosecution and Child Protection

The legal system in the United States has traditionally made a value judgment to minimize the potential for Type I errors (“false positive” decisions of convicting an innocent person). The decisional criteria in the legal system would prefer to set free numerous criminals (i.e., Type II errors of “false negatives”; saying the person is innocent when the person is actually guilty) in order to avoid (to the extent possible) convicting an innocent person (i.e., to minimize the risk of making a Type I error of a “false positive”).

This approach to establishing decisional criteria is based on our value judgments concerning our desired system of justice.

The impact of this approach within mental health and social service systems dealing with child allegations of parental sexual abuse, however, is troubling to many. The value judgment of the legal system to minimize Type I errors (“false positives” of saying there was child abuse when in actuality there was no child abuse) will correspondingly increase the probability of making Type II decisional errors (“false negatives” of saying there was no child sexual abuse when in truth there actually was child sexual abuse), meaning that many instances of actual child sexual abuse by a parent will not result in a proper child protection response as a result of our Type II decisional error.

Advocates for child protection rightly become extremely concerned about the rate and frequency of Type II decisional errors that leave children unprotected, even when, and especially when, the child discloses the sexual abuse. Parental sexual abuse of the child is surrounded by tremendous personal shame for the child, and is masked beneath the cover of family secrecy. For the child to break free from this family secrecy and personal shame associated with parental incest is a significant achievement for the child. But then for the child not to be believed and to be cast back into the abusive relationship with an incestuous parent compounds trauma upon trauma.

The psychological injury caused to the child by a Type II decisional error of saying there was no sexual abuse of the child when in truth there was, and when the child actually takes the momentous step of disclosing the sexual abuse to others, is extremely severe and devastating to the child. That child advocates within the mental health and family service fields are highly concerned about the frequency of Type II decisional errors is understandable and justified.

And…

There are a certain percentage of cases of false child allegations of parental sexual abuse (i.e., Causal Origins 2 and 3).

Within the legal system, the wrongful conviction of a parent as a pedophile (i.e., a Type I decisional error of a “false positive” attribution), so that this parent is wrongly identified with the lifelong stigma as being a “sex offender” can have an extremely devastating impact on this parent. Given the heavy consequences for an innocent person of a wrongful conviction as being an incestous sexual pedophile, the legal system is justifiably reluctant to make Type I errors, and would prefer to allow some guilty people to go free rather than convict an innocent person. So the decisional criteria within the legal system are adjusted toward limiting the probability of making Type I decisional errors (i.e., a “false positive” attribution that convicts an innocent person).

Most people support this general legal philosophy of limiting to the extent feasible the probability of convicting innocent people for crimes they did not commit (i.e., of making Type I decisional errors of saying something happened when in truth it didn’t), and we are willing to adjust to the negative consequences associated with sometimes allowing the guilty to go free in order to minimize to the extent feasible the risk of convicting an innocent person.

Despite our best efforts, we nevertheless sometimes convict innocent people (i.e., make a Type I decisional error), and this is extremely distressing for both the legal system and the general public, and yet it is also unavoidable. The only way we can ensure with 100% certainty that we will NOT make a Type I decisional error of convicting an innocent person is to set our decisional criteria so far in favor of not making a Type I error that we make far too many Type II errors of allowing all, or nearly all, criminals go free rather than run even the barest of infinitesimal risks of possibly convicting an innocent person.

In our decisions we must balance the risks of making a Type I error (a “false positive”) against the risks of making a Type II error (a “false negative”). As we lessen the risk of one type of decisional error we increase the risk of making the other type of decisional error. That’s just the way it works.

While in general, we can appreciate the reluctance of the legal system to convict an innocent person, so that we accept and tolerate the release of burglars and thieves, and even murderers, when it comes to the sexual abuse of children we become disturbed by the possibility of exposing children to continued sexual abuse victimization in order to limit the risk of making a Type I decisional error of a “false positive” attribution that the parent is an incestuous pedophile when in truth no sexual abuse of the child occurred, especially when the likely population prevalence of “false positives” is so incredibly low (for example, my estimate of between 4% to 7% of all sexual abuse allegations made by children against a parent; Causal Origins 2 and 3).

While we are willing to tolerate the consequences of a “false negative” decision that results in the release of a thief or even a murderer, we are much more reluctant to tolerate the consequences of a “false negative” decision that results in the release of a parental pedophile, in which we will be re-exposing the child to continued sexual abuse predation by the parent.

Given the very low estimated population prevalence of “false positives” (i.e., parents who are accused of sexual child abuse when NO abuse occurred), if we wanted to eliminate the risks of making a Type II error (a “false negative” of saying there was no sexual abuse of the child when in fact the child had been sexually abused by the parent) because of the devastating effect of a Type II decisional error on the emotional and psychological well-being of the child, we could simply accept all child allegations of sexual abuse as valid. This would mean that we would likely make between 4% and 7% Type I errors of making a “false positive” attribution (i.e., saying there was sexual abuse of the child by the parent when, in truth, the parent did not actually sexually abuse the child). In accepting the consequences of making an estimated 5% to 10% (rounding off) wrongful convictions of innocent parents as being incestuous sexual predators when they are not, we can ensure that we do not re-expose ANY child to authentic sexual abuse victimization.

This would represent a value decision regarding the comparative negative consequences associated with making a Type I decisional error as compared to making a Type II decisional error.  The decisional criteria we decide on regarding the acceptable probability of making Type I versus Type II decisional errors is based on our value judgments regarding the comparative damage of making each type of decisional error. The more we reduce the chances of making one type of decisional error, the more we increase the chances of making the other type of decisional error.  

Since the estimated population prevalence of “”false positives” (i.e., false child allegations of parental sexual abuse) is so small relative to all child allegations of parental sexual abuse, it is conceivable that a reasonable discussion would consider the relative benefit of accepting all child allegations of parental sexual abuse as valid in order to eliminate the possibility of making Type II decisional errors of “false negative” decisions that continue a child’s exposure to an incestuous pedophiliac parent even after the child has disclosed the predatory sexual abuse victimization.

However, if this decision is made we should also recognize that we are accepting that there will be a certain, not insubstantial number of “false positive” Type I decisional errors in which we wrongly say that an actually innocent parent sexually abused his or her own child. Recognizing that we will be making such errors in a relatively substantial number of cases (my personal estimates are between 5% to 10% of all cases of child sexual abuse allegations), we would likely want to limit the damage to these wrongly convicted parents.

One approach to limiting the damage to innocent parents who are wrongly accused of sexual abuse that they did not actually commit is to separate the legal from the social service responses, so that the social service response to child allegations of parental sexual abuse would be to accept ALL child allegations of parental sexual abuse as valid, recognizing that approximately 5% to 10% of these allegations are not true, in order to eliminate the damage to children re-exposed to authentic sexual abuse incest because of an erroneous Type II “false negative” decision and response from us. Whereas the legal response of convicting the parent as a “sex offender” would be disconnected from the social service response, so that the legal criteria for conviction would maintain higher standards against making a Type I “false positive” decisional error of convicting an innocent person.

This approach would result in ALL child accusations of parental sexual abuse being accepted as valid by social service agencies, so that ALL child accusations of parental sexual abuse result in termination of parental contact with the child, but only a limited number of these cases would actually result in a legal conviction of the parent as a “sexual offender.”

While separating our social service response to child allegations of parental sexual abuse (limiting our risk of making Type II decisional errors) from our legal response to child allegations of parental sexual abuse (limiting our risk of making Type I decisional errors) would provide for interesting and lively discussion, such an approach to separating decisional criteria would be unlikely to withstand legal challenge in the Courts. But I believe this possibility at least merits considered discussion as we strive for synthesis of equally valid poles of the dialectic.

Low Base-Rate Phenomenon

When a condition is rare in the general population this can substantially affect the rate of “false positive” decisions (Type I errors) we make from our assessments. For example,

Say we are assessing for TRAIT X in the population.

The population prevalence of TRAIT X is 5% (i.e., a “low base-rate”) and our instrument for identifying TRAIT X is 95% accurate. No approach to identifying a psychological trait in a population will be 100% accurate and in most cases a sensitivity of 80% is generally considered excellent. But for the purposes of our example, let’s say we have an amazingly good assessment instrument that can accurately identify 95% of the cases of TRAIT X.

So out of 1000 people assessed for TRAIT X, the prevalence of TRAIT X will be 50 people (i.e., 5%). Our 95% accurate instrument will then correctly identify roughly 48 people with TRAIT X, and will miss only 2 people who actually have TRAIT X but who we said didn’t have the trait (i.e., “false negatives,” a Type II error). Correctly identifying 48 of the 50 people with TRAIT X (i.e., “true positives”) while only missing 2 people with TRAIT X (i.e., “false negatives”) is pretty good.

Great. So far, so good.

However, there are 950 people in our population of 1000 without TRAIT X, and our instrument has a 5% error rate, so our 95% accurate instrument will identify 5% of the 950 people without TRAIT X as incorrectly having the trait (i.e. “false positives”), so that our instrument will incorrectly say that 48 people have TRAIT X when they don’t (5% of 950).

This means that out of 1000 people, our 95% accurate instrument will correctly identify 48 people as having the trait (“true positives”) and will miss only 2 who have the trait (“false negatives”), and will also incorrectly identify 48 people as having the trait when they don’t (“false positives”). So essentially, our identification of TRAIT X is only 50% accurate, we correctly identify as many people as having the trait (“true positives”) as we incorrectly identify people as having the trait when in actuality they don’t (“false positives”).

This is the result of what’s called “the low base-rate phenomenon” – no matter how accurate our assessment instrument (even an insanely accurate 95%) we will nevertheless produce and inordinately high number of “false positives” because of the low-base rate of the characteristic in the population.

Out of all the cases of child allegations of parental sexual abuse, the base rate of false child allegations is going to be low (my estimate is around 1% to 2%, others may assert other prevalence estimates).

If our value system says that we should avoid “false positive” identifications (i.e., avoid Type I decisional errors), then any approach that identifies as many “false positives” as “true positives” is going to present a problem. If we are trying to identify cases of “false child allegations of sexual abuse” and out of 1000 cases of alleged sexual abuse we identify 50 cases of false allegations, but in order to do this we also incorrectly identify 50 children who were ACTUALLY sexually abused by the parent as NOT being sexually abused by the parent, that’s a lot of kids who were authentically abused who we are not protecting simply because of the low base-rate phenomenon.  We protect as many children from child abuse as we expose to child abuse.

AND… if our assessment method is less that 95% accurate, then the number of decisional errors increases substantially. So in actual practice, in order to identify the 50 cases of false allegations of sexual abuse we may wind up erroneously identifying 200 or 300 children who were actually sexual abused as NOT being sexually abused by the parent.  This may mean that for every one parent-and-child we protect from the pathology of a false allegation of sexual abuse, we expose as many as four or five other, authentically abused children to continued sexual abuse victimization.

At what point does the damage caused to the 200 or 300 children who were authentically abused outweigh the damage to the 50 children who were not abused and whose false allegations were the product of severely distorted parenting by a narcissistic/borderline parent?

And yet do we simply abandon these “false allegation” children to the severe psychological abuse inflicted on them by the psychopathology of the narcissistic/borderline parent in order for us to reduce the harm to other children who were authentically sexually abused?  Is it moral to knowingly sacrifice one to save many?

Or do we still try to identify these “false allegation” children anyway, even though we know that this will lead to more Type II errors in identifying children who were authentically abused, so that we will be abandoning some authentically abused children to the psychopathology of their pedophile parent?

It would be wonderful if we could achieve 100% accuracy in our diagnosis of both “true positives” (children we identify as being sexually abused who were actually sexually abused by the parent) and “true negatives” (children who make false allegations of sexual abuse and who we identify as false allegations), but be we can’t. There will always be some error in our decisional criteria. Do we wish to limit Type I errors and increase Type II errors, or do we wish to limit Type II errors and increase Type I errors. This is a value judgment based on the relative damage we judge to result from each type of decisional error.

Another consideration in this discussion is that the legal system itself will bias decisional criteria to limit Type I errors (i.e., to limit the probability of incorrectly identifying children as being sexually abused by a parent when there was no sexual abuse), so that the rates of not identifying authentic sexual abuse will already be inordinately high.  Since this is already the case, should we then try to identify actual cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to rescue and protect as many of these children as we can, since trying to identify actual cases of false allegations of child abuse is not likely to affect rates of identifying authentic child sexual abuse cases since the Court is already not identifying these cases anyway by its decisional criteria to limit Type I errors.

Conclusion to Part I

The issues are complex. My assumption is that ALL mental health professionals want what is best for children, and that ALL mental health professionals want to protect all children from all forms of child abuse.

Differing views on how to achieve this represent “equally valid poles of a dialectic” (Linehan, 1993). We should work for synthesis of these poles in which we achieve consensus on a reasonable approach to very difficult and challenging issues, rather than engaging in continual unproductive adversarial conflict in which each side falsely “demonizes” the other as being callously unconcerned about protecting children from child abuse.

We all want to protect children from child abuse. The issues are difficult and challenging.

Moving forward, I hope to engage in productive dialogue regarding these complex and challenging issues in which reasonable people can disagree about approaches while still maintaining a fundamental agreement about the underlying desire to protect ALL children from ALL forms of child abuse.

In a future blog post (Part II) I will discuss my personal views regarding potential resolutions of the complex and difficult issues surrounding child allegations of parental sexual abuse. In this next blog post on the subject of false child allegations of parental sexual abuse, I will offer my thoughts on whether there are specific distinctive identifying features in the 1% to 2% of cases reflecting false child allegations of sexual abuse as a result of the pathogenic influence on the child of a cross-generational coalition with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent (Causal Origin 2).   If there are distinctive and reliable identifying features for false child allegations of parental sexual abuse originating from the pathogenic influence on the child of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent, then we may be able to protect some of these children without inordinately affecting our ability to ALSO protect children whose allegations of parental sexual abuse are true.

I recognize ahead of time that no matter what position I take in this second blog post there will be those who disagree, and that the views of these people are reasonable and well founded. Down the road, they may convince me of the greater correctness of their views, or I may convince them of my views. At this point I believe the primary issue is engaging in reasoned and productive dialogue that recognizes that both poles in the dialectic represent reasonable and understandable positions that merit careful consideration and dialogue.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

 References

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford

“Staff splitting,” as mentioned earlier, is a much-discussed phenomenon in which professionals treating borderline patients begin arguing and fighting about a patient, the treatment plan, or the behavior of the other professionals with the patient… arguments among staff members and differences in points of view, traditionally associated with staff splitting, are seen as failures in synthesis and interpersonal process among the staff rather than as a patient’s problem… Therapist disagreements over a patient are treated as potentially equally valid poles of a dialectic. Thus, the starting point for dialogue is the recognition that a polarity has arisen, together with an implicit (if not explicit) assumption that resolution will require working toward synthesis.” (p. 432)

The Appointment of Minor’s Counsel Must Stop

Appointing minor’s counsel to represent the child in a family custody dispute is the single most destructive action the Court can take.

There are four primary problems with the appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child:

1.) Appointing minor’s counsel introduces two prominent sources of bias into the legal proceedings that favor one side over the other;

2.) The appointment of minor’s counsel introduces, incites, colludes with, and supports pathological processes within the family to the detriment of the child;

3.) By introducing, inciting, and supporting the family’s psychopathology, the appointment of minor’s counsel undermines and can fully nullify therapeutic efforts to resolve family psychopathology;

4.) In failing to comprehend the complexity of developmental immaturity during childhood and adolescence, appointing a minor’s counsel offers an overly simplistic effort at a solution that will result in misguided advocacy by minor’s counsel for positions that are contrary to the child’s best interests and healthy development.

Bias

The Spectrum of Normal-Range Parenting

Normal-range parenting extends across a continuum from lax and permissive parenting to structured and firm parenting.

Lax and permissive parenting favors relationship development, while structured and firm parenting emphasizes the development of maturity. Both styles can be entirely normal range and healthy parenting approaches, and both parenting styles can lead to mature and healthy child development.

Parental preferences for one style over the other is a matter of parental values which are typically the product of parental experiences within their own families of origin. As such, parental preferences for differing parental styles are culture bound and culturally influenced.

Professional psychology typically favors a balanced approach of parenting styles that is more in the mid-range of parenting approaches, combining flexible negotiation with structured expectations for child behavior. For example, if parenting style were represented by a numerical continuum ranging from 1 to 100, with lower numbers indicating a more lax and permissive parenting style and higher numbers representing a more structured and firm parenting style, then normal-range parenting would extend from a range of 20 to 80 on this scale. The more extreme the parenting becomes the more problematic it becomes, but there is a wide latitude of normal-range parenting. Professional psychology tends to favor parenting in the mid-range represented by a combined parenting style, somewhere between 40 to 60 on the numerical range of parenting style.

Lax and Permissive Parenting: Parents who tend toward the lax and permissive style favor emotional and relationship qualities over maturational and behavioral qualities. Rules and expectations for children’s behavior are more flexibly negotiated, and lax and permissive parents may tend to avoid conflict in an effort to maintain interpersonal harmony within the family. As parenting moves toward the extremes of this style, parenting becomes increasingly over-indulgent and disengaged.

Firm and Structured Parenting: Parents who tend toward a more firm and structured parenting style favor maturation in child behavior, and these parents tend to adopt a more hierarchical family organization that emphasizes parental authority. Rules and expectations for child behavior are more clearly established and maintained, and parents adopting a structured and firm parental approach tend to be more comfortable with managing interpersonal conflicts. At extremes of this parenting style (80-100), parents can become dictatorial and overly inflexible, potentially prompting high levels of parent-child conflict or excessively submissive child behavior.

Within the normal-range of parenting approaches, both parenting styles are acceptable, both parenting styles can produce normal-range and healthy children, and both parenting styles have advantages and disadvantages, which is why professional psychology tends to favor a mid-range balanced approach to parenting that blends both parenting styles. Families can also blend parenting styles between the parents in a healthy and normal way, with one parent tending toward the more lax and permissive (emotionally nurturing) parenting style, while the other parent tends toward the more structured and firm (disciplinarian) parenting role. As long as the spousal unit remains cohesive, this blend of parenting styles can work effectively.

However, in fractured marital relationships differences in parenting style can become the source of inter-parental conflict. From the perspective of either parenting style, the other parenting style will appear problematic. For the lax and permissive parent, the more firm and structured parenting style of the other parent will appear too harsh and insensitive. From the perspective of the structured and firm parent, the lax and permissive style of the other parent will appear too indulgent and disengaged. Yet from the balanced perspective of professional psychology, the differing parenting styles of both parents are recognized as entirely normal-range and healthy, with the differences merely reflecting a matter of differing parental value systems.

Parents have the legitimate parental right to establish their value system with their children and in their families, so wide latitude should be granted to parental prerogatives in the exercise of parental style. As long as parenting avoids the extremes of either parenting approach (i.e., 0-20 the disengaged/neglectful parent; 80-100 the harsh/abusive parent) then due deference should be granted to the legitimate parental rights afforded to parents to establish family structure patterns consistent with their value systems.

Child Preferences

However, from the perspective of the developmental immaturity of children and adolescents, the lax and permissive parenting style will be favored over the structured and firm parenting style until full child-to-adult maturity is achieved, at which point, in retrospect the young adult develops a greater longitudinal appreciation for the benefits afforded by a firm and structured parenting style that led to the development of greater personal maturity. For example, the child may not like practicing the piano or doing homework for 90 minutes every night, yet by adulthood the once-child-now-adult may appreciate knowing how to play the piano and may be more successful in his or her academics and career because of the structured expectations provided by parents during childhood and adolescence.

But if we ask the child at the time, the developmental immaturity of the child would prefer to eat ice cream rather than vegetables, and the developmental immaturity of the adolescent would prefer to play video games or talk with friends rather than do homework and complete household chores. Yet the parental structure of insisting that the child eat healthy meals and insisting that the child complete responsibilities before indulging in play or leisure activities – even though these parentally directed activities are not preferred by the child, and even though parental insistence on these child behaviors can lead to increased parent-child conflict – can nevertheless promote the child’s healthy emotional and psychological maturation and development over more indulgent and permissive parenting.

Yet the developmental immaturity of the child and adolescent will nevertheless favor the lax and permissive parent.

So if minor’s counsel is appointed to represent the child’s or adolescent’s expressed preferences, an inherent bias is introduced into the Court proceedings in favor of whichever parent adopts a more lax and permissive parenting style. The more structured and firm parent is then placed in a problematic position through the inherent bias introduced by the Court of altering his or her parenting style and the legitimate expression of parental values within the family in favor of adopting a lax and permissive parenting style commensurate with the other parent in order to seek the child’s favor, since the child’s preferences and favor are being granted weight in the legal proceedings.

The influence of this Court-introduced bias in favor of one parenting style over the other then unbalances the family by requiring that both parents adopt an equally lax and permissive parenting style, which can undermine providing the child with the needed structure and discipline necessary for healthy maturation. However, if the more structured and firm parent continues to act in the best interests of the child by providing normal-range structure and discipline, then the inherent bias introduced by the Court in appointing a minor’s counsel to represent the expressed but developmentally immature preferences of the child will tend to produce unfavorable rulings against the structured and firm parent because of the weight given to the child’s expressed “preferences”.

The deliberate introduction of bias by the Court into legal proceedings is contrary to the principles of balance and fairness within the legal system, and the potentially detrimental impact that such Court-introduced bias has on family relationships, family functioning, and the long-range healthy emotional, social, and psychological development of the child or adolescent is contrary to the best interests of the child or adolescent. Courts should respect the legitimate parental rights and prerogatives of parents to establish within their families interaction patterns with their children that are consistent with parental value systems, and Courts should avoid taking actions that deliberately introduce preferential bias and that give preferential influence to one set of family values over another set of family values, particularly considering that these family values can be culturally embedded.

Second Source of Bias

The second source of inherent bias introduced by the appointment of minor’s counsel is in favor of pathological family processes over healthy family processes.

The appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child fails to appreciate the complexity of family relationship dynamics, and two particular family relationship patterns are of particular concern relative to the appointment of minor’s counsel, 1) a role-reversal relationship in which the child is being used to gratify and meet the emotional and psychological needs and the psychopathology of the parent, and 2) the child’s triangulation into the spousal conflict through the formation of a cross-generational parent-child coalition of the child with one parent against the other parent.

Role-Reversal Relationship

There are a variety of types of role-reversal relationships. In some role-reversal relationships the child takes on a parental caregiving role for the parent (such as with an alcoholic, depressed, or incapacitated parent). Other types of role-reversal relationships involve the parent using the child as a “regulating object” (such as when the parent prevents the development of the child’s independent autonomy in order to ameliorate the parent’s own abandonment insecurities).

In role-reversal relationships the child is induced or seduced by the parent into taking care of the parent’s emotional and psychological needs, and a role-reversal relationship is considered highly pathological and highly destructive to the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development (for example, the prototype exemplar for a role-reversal relationship is incest, in which the child is used to meet the parent’s sexual/psychological needs).

The outward appearance of a role-reversal relationship, however, is of a bonded parent-child relationship in which the child expresses a high degree of affectional bonding toward the (pathological) needy parent. This pathological bonding motivation is typically at the expense of the child’s relationship with the other parent.

“By binding the child in an overly close and dependent relationship, the enmeshed parent creates a psychological unhealthy childrearing environment that interferes with the child’s development of an autonomous self… Enmeshment in one parent-child relationship is often counterbalanced by disengagement between the child and the other parent (Cowan & Cowan, 1990; Jacobvitz, Riggs, & Johnson, 1999).” (Kerig, 2005, p. 10)

Note that Kerig’s analysis of role-reversal relationships (also referred to as a “cross-generational boundary dissolution”) is published in the Journal of Emotional Abuse. Role-reversal relationships are considered to be highly pathological.

Also of note, is the commentary of Minuchin on the impact of enmeshed parent-child relationships on the cognitive functioning of the child,

“Members of enmeshed subsystems or families may be handicapped in that the heightened sense of belonging requires a major yielding of autonomy… In children particularly, cognitive-affective skills are thereby inhibited” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 55)

The appointment of a minor’s counsel to represent the child’s expressed “preferences” colludes with the psychopathology of a role-reversal relationship within the family and will introduce an inherent bias in the legal proceedings in favor of the pathological parent over the healthy and normal-range parent. The deliberate introduction by the Court of an inherent bias to the Court proceedings that favors the continued maintenance of family psychopathology is exceedingly ill-conceived.

Triangulation and Coalitions

It is both extraordinarily common and unhealthy for children to become triangulated into spousal conflicts. One of the common forms of children’s triangulation into spousal conflict is through the formation of a cross-generational parent-child coalition in which the child is drawn into an alliance with one parent against the other parent.

Salvador Minuchin, considered by many to be the preeminent family systems theorist, described the cross-generational parent-child coalition as a form of “rigid triangle”,

“The rigid triangle can also take the form of a stable coalition. One of the parents joins the child in a rigidly bounded cross-generational coalition against the other parent.” (Minuchin, 1974, p. 102)

Another preeminent family systems theorist, Jay Haley, defines the cross-generational coalition as a “perverse triangle”,

“The people responding to each other in the triangle are not peers, but one of them is of a different generation from the other two… In the process of their interaction together, the person of one generation forms a coalition with the person of the other generation against his peer. By ‘coalition’ is meant a process of joint action which is against the third person… The coalition between the two persons is denied. That is, there is certain behavior which indicates a coalition which, when it is queried, will be denied as a coalition… In essence, the perverse triangle is one in which the separation of generations is breached in a covert way. When this occurs as a repetitive pattern, the system will be pathological. (p. 37)

Note that it is definitional to the cross-generational coalition that the coalition is denied. The client child or adolescent of minor’s counsel will, by definition, deny the coalition that exists between the child and the allied and supposedly “favored” parent that is against the other parent. This means that in representing the child’s expressed preferences, minor’s counsel is actively colluding with the cross-generational coalition of the child and one parent against the other parent. This then, becomes an inherent source of Court-introduced bias in the legal proceedings.

Note also, that Haley identifies the cross-generational parent-child coalition as “pathological”. The minor’s counsel then is colluding with the family’s psychopathology against the interest of the healthier parent who is seeking resolution of the family’s pathology.

When minor’s counsel is appointed to represent the child who is in a pathological cross-generational coalition with one parent against the other parent, minor’s counsel is essentially being appointed to represent the maintenance of the psychopathology within the family. An inherent bias is thereby introduced into the Court proceedings in favor of maintaining the family’s psychopathology over the healthier elements of the family system that seek resolution of the family’s pathology.

Appointing minor’s counsel is essentially appointing legal representation for the family’s psychopathology. This is both insane and extraordinarily destructive.

If the Court insists on appointing legal counsel to represent the interests of the family’s psychopathology by supporting the child’s role-reversal relationship with the pathological parent and the child’s pathological cross-generational parent-child coalition with one parent against the other parent, and that will inherently introduce bias into the Court proceedings in favor of maintaining the family’s psychopathology over the healthier aspects of the family that seek resolution of the family’s pathology, then additional compensatory and balancing legal counsel should be appointed to represent the healthy aspects of the family that are seeking to resolve the family’s psychopathology.

Better still is for the Court to avoid deliberately introducing an inherent bias into the legal proceedings that favors maintaining the family’s psychopathology by completely avoiding introducing into the legal proceedings the inherent bias associated with the appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the interests of maintaining the family’s psychopathology.

Nullification of Therapy

By appointing minor’s counsel to collude with and support the maintenance of the family’s psychopathology, the actions of the Court will effectively undermine, and in some cases completely nullify therapeutic efforts to treat and eliminate the family’s pathological functioning.

First, as noted above, the appointment of minor’s counsel colludes with and entrenches the pathological processes within the family. Therapy must then OVERCOME the distorting influence of minor’s counsel that supports and colludes with the maintenance of the family’s psychopathology.

Second, the appointment of minor’s counsel destructively inverts the parent-child hierarchy by placing the child in an overly empowered and overly inflated position of judging parents. Salvador Minuchin discusses the importance of parental authority within the family,

“Parenting always requires the use of authority. Parents cannot carry out their executive functions unless they have the power to do so…. Children and parents, and sometimes therapists, frequently describe the ideal family as a democracy. But they mistakenly assume that a democratic society is leaderless, or that a family is a society of peers. Effective functioning requires that parents and children accept the fact that the differentiated use of authority is a necessary ingredient for the parental subsystem. This becomes a social training lab for the children, who need to know how to negotiate in situations of unequal power. (p. 58)

The appointment of minor’s counsel inappropriately and destructively elevates the child’s position in the family hierarchy, which serves to further entrench any pathological processes that exist within the family.

The elevation of the child puts the “non-favored” parent in a position of having to appease the child in order to curry the child’s favor. This is an extremely destructive family dynamic that undermines the therapeutic resolution of the family’s pathology. As long as this family dynamic exists, therapy will be ineffectual because the parent has been disempowered by the Court’s decision to appoint minor’s counsel and so lacks the necessary parental authority to “carry out their executive functions.”

Seeking and giving weight to the child’s preferences regarding his or her parents effectively acts to triangulate the child into the spousal conflict by asking the child, or allowing the child, to form alliances with one parent against the other, and choose one parent over the other. The child’s “preferences” are elevated into becoming a “prize to be won” within the spousal/parental relationship, with each parent competing to be the “winner” of the child’s “preference”. This is an extremely destructive relationship dynamic to introduce into the family, yet it is EXACTLY this destructive triangulation of the child into the spousal conflict as a “prize to be won” that the appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child’s expressed preferences introduces into the family.

In my professional view, the appointment of minor’s counsel in a family conflict situation is so inherently destructive of the conditions necessary for effective treatment, that professional psychology should strongly consider whether the appointment of minor’s counsel to represent the child in a family conflict precludes and effectively prevents therapy.

Standard 10 of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct established by the American Psychological Association addresses the context and conduct of Therapy, and Standard 10.10a requires that “psychologists terminate therapy when it becomes reasonably clear that the client/patient… is not likely to benefit…”

The appointment of minor’s counsel acts to firmly entrench the family’s psychopathology and actively colludes with the family’s psychopathology, and appointment of minor’s counsel both introduces and sustains distorted family relationship dynamics that are likely to prevent and preclude therapy from resolving the family’s pathology, so that under Standard 10.10a of the ethics code for the American Psychological Association psychologists should terminate treatment because the child and family are “not likely to benefit” from therapy in that context.

Developmental Immaturity

The appointment of minor’s counsel grossly misunderstands the nature of child and adolescent immaturity and development. Focusing only on adolescents, brain neurodevelopment is still incomplete during adolescence. While some proto-adult capacities are active and available, other important socio-emotional and judgment capacities remain incompletely developed, so that the judgment of adolescents remains significantly impaired.

If an adolescent is to make an informed “independent” decision (the construct of “independent” is questionable from a socio-neurological perspective, see for example Cozolino, 2006) then the adolescent should be afforded all of the relevant information necessary to make an informed decision. In the context of divorce and the dissolution of the intact family structure, the relevant information can include the reasons for the divorce from each parent’s perspective, since in the absence of balanced information one parent may provide the child with inaccurate and unbalanced information that potentially blames the other parent, thereby inciting and inflaming the child’s anger and hostility toward the other parent.

Simply asking the child if one parent influenced the child is insufficient to guarantee that the child has balanced and accurate information on which to base a decision, since a number of family processes can subtly provide the child with distorted information and interpretations, but the processes by which the child acquired this information may remain below the level of the child’s conscious awareness. So if we are to seek the child’s preferences, then we should guarantee that the child has accurate and balanced information from both sides regarding the family dysfunctions and family relationship dynamics so that the child can make an informed “independent” decision regarding his or her desires and best interests.

So then, let’s have each parent in turn sit before the child and recount the reasons for the divorce and family’s dissolution and describe for the child the failures of the other parent as a spouse and parent, with each parent presenting to the child the reasons the child should choose a particular option. In this way, the child will have balanced and (reasonably) accurate information regarding the family situation from which the child can then make an informed decision about his or her best interests and preferences regarding family relationships.

But is this actually what we want to do? Absolutely NOT.

But in the absence of establishing such a procedure to ensure that the child has accurate and complete information on which to base his or her decisions, then we are vulnerable to advocating for child decisions that are based on the child’s incomplete understanding of the situation and its consequences.

It is best to avoid this whole quagmire by not seeking the child’s supposedly “independent” preferences, and by instead making decisions among adults as to the best interests of the child.

Furthermore, the adolescent brain lacks important executive function abilities that would allow it to make fully reasoned decisions. There is a tendency for the adolescent brain to make impulsive decisions based on indulgent gratification of present-moment desires, and it lacks the capacity for longer-term perspective taking that fully considers future consequences of present decisions.

This is an inherent, neuro-developmentally based limitation on the adolescent brain.

So while it may appear that the adolescent brain has some mature decisional capacities, these capacities are biased in favor of momentary gratification and self-indulgence that inherently favors the lax and permissive parenting style over the structured and firm parenting style, even though the structured and firm parenting style may be in the adolescent’s longer-term best interests.

The immature development of the adolescent’s frontal lobe executive function capacity would recommend that in making decisions the adolescent should be provided with the scaffolding support of a fully mature nervous system of an adult. This raises the question of which adult should provide the scaffolding support (i.e., directive influence) for the adolescent’s still immaturely developed frontal lobe executive function capacity. In normal-range families, this scaffolding support is provided by the adolescent’s parents until the age of 18, at which time this scaffolding support is withdrawn and the late-adolescent is allowed to enter into contracts and make decisions independently of parental permission.

If the Court is to advance the adolescent’s decision making influence into the period of earlier neuro-developmental immaturity and instability by appointing legal counsel to represent the younger-adolescent, then it becomes incumbent upon minor’s counsel to possess a professional level of understanding for the exact nature of the compromises inherent to the cognitive functioning and judgments of the adolescent client. Unless we compensate for the yet uncompleted developmental immaturity of the adolescent brain we will be inadvertently providing support to the compromised decision making by the client that can lead to long-term negative consequences for the adolescent client because of poor decision making which received our misguided and developmentally ignorant support.

Conclusion

Except under extraordinary circumstances, minor’s counsel should NEVER be appointed by the Court to represent the child or adolescent in family conflicts.

The role of representing the child’s (or adolescent’s) interests should be shifted into the domain of professional psychology. If the Court wishes to achieve representation for the child’s interests in the legal proceeding, or for those of an adolescent, then the Court should appoint a family therapist to act as the child’s or adolescent’s representative (the voice of the child) to the Court. This would allow the Court to receive balanced and professionally informed input from the perspective of the child or adolescent while avoiding collusion with the family’s pathology that would undermine the ability of therapy to treat and alleviate the family’s psychopathology.

If the Court insists on appointing minor’s counsel, then standards of practice should be developed to direct and guide the interface of minor’s counsel with the surrounding mental health needs of the family and client. Additional guidelines would be needed to address the inherent biases to the legal proceedings in favor of one party over the other that are introduced as a consequence of appointing minor’s counsel.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

 References

Cozolino, L. (2006): The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. WW Norton & Company, New York.

Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J. Weakland (Eds.), The interactional view (pp. 31-48). New York: Norton.

Kerig, P.K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 5-42.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard University Press.

 

Parental Alienation as Child Abuse: The Regulating Other

Note: narcissistic and borderline personality processes are outward variations of the same underlying personality organization (see Kernberg, 1975)

The “Regulating-Other”

In attachment-based “parental alienation,” the child is being used by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent to regulate the emotional and psychological state of the parent.

(see my blog on Attachment Foundations: Regulation Systems for more on the construct of “regulation”)

The clinical phrase for this process is that the child is being used as a “regulating-other” for the parent.  The child must express the attitudes and behavior desired by the parent or else be exposed to parental displays of narcissistic or borderline anger and rejection.

Narcissistic anger is very intense, although it can be subdued on the surface, and it combines signals of hostile-rejection with disgust (a visceral repulsion).  The combination of intense parental anger, rejection, and disgust can be extremely disturbing for a child.  Children exposed to parental narcissistic anger (commonly referred to as “narcissistic rage,” Kohut, (1972) find the experience so psychologically disturbing that they become strongly motivated to avoid venturing outside of the psychological state desired by the narcissistic parent.

This requires that the child continually monitor the internal psychological state of the narcissistic parent to remain aware of the emotional and psychological needs of the parent, so that the child can then meet the parent’s needs and avoid the retaliation of narcissistic anger and rejection should the child fail to be what the narcissistic parent needs the child to be.

One of the primary needs of the narcissistic parent is for continual admiration, called “narcissistic supply,” in which the narcissistic parent is perceived to be the all-wonderful, perfect and ideal parent.  This creates the surface appearance of a seemingly hyper-bonded parent-child relationship, with the child expressing uncritical adoration for the parent.  Rather than an authentically bonded relationship, however, this superficial appearance of bonding actually reflects the child being used by the narcissistic parent as a “regulating other” to maintain the narcissistic parent’s own grandiose self-image as the ideal and perfect parent/(person).

“To the extent that parents are narcissistic, they are controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of their children’s needs and of the effects of their behavior on their children, and require that the children see them as the parents wish to be seen. They may also demand certain behavior from their children because they see the children as extensions of themselves, and need the children to represent them in the world in ways that meet the parents’ emotional needs.” (Rappoport, 2005, p. 2)

Borderline anger is more chaotic and disorganized in its intensity, and will typically be combined with tearful displays of supposed victimization because of the alleged “abuse” supposedly being inflicted on the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  The borderline personality cannot organize or modulate its hyper-intense emotional experiences, leading to chaotic swings of intense emotional displays.

In addition, the thought processes of the borderline personality, the “cognitive structure” of the borderline personality, breaks down in response to the intensity of the emotional experience and the over-arching need of the impaired borderline personality structure to regulate the intensity of the emotions.  If truth and reality needs to be changed in order for the borderline personality to regulate the intense emotions, then the borderline personality simply asserts a different truth, a different reality.  For the borderline personality, “truth is whatever I assert it to be.”   Truth and reality are fluid constructs for the borderline personality, subject to the changing moment-to moment emotional needs of regulating the intensity of the emotional experience.

Within this context of volatile parental anger and an ever-changing definition of truth and reality that is based on the shifting moment-to-moment needs of the borderline parent, the child learns to continually monitor the emotional state and needs of the borderline personality parent in order to be what this parent needs, so that the parent remains in a regulated emotional state and the child can avoid the parent’s volatile displays of anger and hostility.

Because the truth and reality asserted by the borderline parent are continually in flux based on the shifting emotional needs of the parent, the child is unable to anchor his or her own perception of truth and reality in any stable frame of reference.  And in the context of unpredictable and intense displays of parental anger based on an ever changing reality, the child ultimately surrenders to the truth and reality asserted by the borderline parent in order to keep the anger and emotional volatility of the parent regulated and in check.  If the borderline parent asserts that the sky is red, the child agrees.  An hour later, if the borderline parent asserts that the sky is yellow, the child agrees.  No mention is made by the child regarding the inconsistency, because this would only provoke the parent into a tirade.  The child learns to surrender completely to the reality defined by the needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.

Role-Reversal Relationship

In the child’s relationship with a narcissistic/(borderline) parent, the child becomes a “regulating other” for the psychopathology of the parent.  The child is used by the parent to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent.  When a parent uses a child to meet the parent’s needs, this is called a “role-reversal” relationship (note: there are several different types of role-reversal relationships).  In healthy parent-child relationships, the parent meets the needs of the child.  In a role-reversal relationship, the child is used by the parent to meet the needs of the parent.

The prototype exemplar of a role-reversal relationship is incest, in which the child is used to meet the psychological-sexual needs of the parent.

  • A role-reversal relationship is the product of relationship patterns contained within the internal working models of the attachment system (Macfie, McElwain, Houts, & Cox, 2005).
  • The development of borderline personality structure is linked to distorted relationship patterns contained within the internal working models of the attachment system  (Agrawal, Gunderson, Holmes, & Lyons-Ruth, 2004; Fonagy, Target, Gergely, Allen, & Bateman, 2003)
  • Borderline personality organization is also linked to childhood sexual abuse victimization (Hodges, 2003; McLean & Gallop, 2003; Ogata, et al., 1990; Trippany, Helm, & Simpson, 2006; Zanarini, et al., 1990) and to role-reversal relationships (Shaffer & Sroufe, 2005).

While other developmental factors can lead to a role-reversal relationship (such as parental alcoholism), the symptomatic presence in “parental alienation”of both a role-reversal relationship and borderline personality organization in the parent suggests the possible presence of sexual abuse “source code” in the internal working models of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent’s attachment system that was inserted into the trans-generational transmission of attachment patterns (Benoit & Parker, 1994; Bretherton, 1990; Jacobvitz, Morgan, Kretchmar, & Morgan, 1991).

“There is evidence for the intergenerational transmission of boundary dissolution within the family. Adults who experienced boundary dissolution in their relationships with their own parents are more likely to violate boundaries with their children” (Kerig, 2005, p. 22)

“A maternal history of sexual exploitation has emerged as a significant predictor of boundary dissolution at 42 months” (Shaffer & Sroufe, 2005, p. 75)

Parent-initiated boundary dissolution in early childhood instantiates a pattern of relationship disturbance in the child. Role reversal is apparent by early adolescence and the available data suggest links to psychopathology in later adolescence, particularly as a result of sexualized behavior observed at age 13. (Shaffer & Sroufe, 2005)

The analogy would be to a computer virus infecting the “source code” of files in the internal working models of the attachment system, that is then passed on inter-generationally as the regulatory networks of the attachment system are “downloaded” from the parent to the child through the distorted parenting practices created by the corrupt “files” in the internal working models of the parent’s attachment system (see my blog, Attachment Foundations: Regulation Systems).

The internal working models of the attachment system mediate all close, emotionally bonded relationships throughout the lifespan.  Distortions in the parental attachment system will distort the parenting practices of this parent, leading to the inter-generational transmission of distorted attachment patterns from the parent to the child (Benoit & Parker, 1994; Bretherton, 1990; Fonagy, Steele, & Steele, 1991; Fonagy & Target, 2005; Jacobvitz, Morgan, Kretchmar & Morgan, 1991)..

The possible sexual abuse origins of this “source code” may be at the generational level of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent, representing the possible childhood sexual abuse victimization of this parent, or the “source code” may have entered the trans-generational transmission of attachment patterns a generation earlier, with the parent of the current narcissistic/(borderline) parent whose distorted parenting practices then produced the narcissistic/(borderline) personality organization of the current parent, so that this particular “phrase” of the “source code” (i.e., a role-reversal relationship in which the parent uses the child to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the parent) is being passed on inter-generationally through several generations following the incest victimization trauma.

Psychological Child Abuse

The child-initiated cut-off of the child’s relationship with a normal-range and affectionally available parent as a consequence of the distorted pathogenic parenting practices of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent in which the child is being used by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent in a role-reversal relationship to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the personality disordered parent (i.e., “parental alienation”) may represent a trans-generational iteration of child sexual abuse victimization that occurred a generation (or two) prior to the current child, but that is continuing to severely distort parent-child relationships through the distorted parenting practices of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent (whose own disordered personalty organization likewise represents the impact of the prior sexual abuse victimization).

There is evidence to suggest that the severely distorted parenting practices associated with an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” represent a variant of child sexual abuse/incest that is being transmitted inter-generationally to the current child in a non-sexualized, but still psychologically abusive form.

Our response should be commensurate with this possibility, i.e., that what we are dealing with is a form of non-sexualized psychological-(sexual) abuse victimization of the child in a trans-generational iteration.  Attachment-based “parental alienation” is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.

Even if the distortions to the child’s attachment bonding motivations toward a normal-range and affectionally available parent as a consequence of pathogenic parenting by a narcissistic/(borderline) parent are not the product of the trans-generational transmission of sexual abuse trauma, the severely distorted parenting practices of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent in which the child is being used as a “regulating other” to meet the emotional and psychological needs of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent nevertheless rise to the level of psychological child abuse that is severely distorting the child’s healthy emotional and psychological development.

What may superficially appear to be a bonded parent-child relationship between the child and the allied and supposedly “favored” narcissistic/(borderline) parent actually represents a role-reversal relationship that is a symptomatic expression of the severe pathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  Attachment-based “parental alienation” is not a child custody issue, it is a child protection issue.

Craig Childress, Psy.D.
Licensed Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

Note:  I want to be entirely clear.  I am in NO WAY suggesting that the currently allied narcissistic/(borderline) parent is sexually abusing the child.  What I am saying is that there is evidence suggesting that the psychological processes currently being manifested through an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” could very possibly represent the trans-generational iteration of prior sexual abuse victimization that occurred a generation or two earlier, and that is continuing to severely distort parent-child relationship processes through the influence of pathogenic “source code” contained in the internal working models of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent’s attachment system

References

Boundary Dissolution

Kerig, P.K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 5-42.

Shaffer, A., & Sroufe, L. A. (2005). The Developmental and adaptational implications of generational boundary dissolution: Findings from a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 5(2/3), 67-84.

Trans-Generational Transmission of Attachment Patterns

Benoit, D. and Parker, K.C.H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations. Child Development, 65, 1444-1456

Bretherton, I. (1990). Communication patterns, internal working models, and the intergenerational transmission of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11, 237-252.

Fonagy, P., Steele, M. & Steele, H. (1991). Intergenerational patterns of attachment: Maternal representations during pregnancy and subsequent infant-mother attachments. Child Development, 62, 891-905.

Fonagy P. & Target M. (2005). Bridging the transmission gap: An end to an important mystery in attachment research? Attachment and Human Development, 7, 333-343.

Jacobvitz, D.B., Morgan, E., Kretchmar, M.D., and Morgan, Y. (1991). The transmission of mother-child boundary disturbances across three generations. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 513-527.

Macfie, J., McElwain, N.L., Houts, R.M., and Cox, M.J. (2005) Intergenerational transmission of role reversal between parent and child: Dyadic and family systems internal working models. Attachment & Human Development, 7, 51-65

Borderline Personality Disorder and Sexual Abuse Association

Hodges, S. (2003). Borderline personality disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder: Time for integration? Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 409-417.

McLean, L. M., & Gallop, R. (2003). Implications of childhood sexual abuse for adult borderline personality disorder and complex posttraumatic stress disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(2), 369-71.

Ogata, S. N., Silk, K. R., Goodrich, S., Lohr, N. E., Westen, D., & Hill, E. M. (1990). Childhood sexual and physical abuse in adult patients with borderline personality personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(8), 1008-13.

Trippany, R.L., Helm, H.M. and Simpson, L. (2006). Trauma reenactment: Rethinking borderline personality disorder when diagnosing sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 95-110.

Zanarini, M. C., Williams, A. A., Lewis, et al. (1997). Reported pathological childhood experiences associated with the development of borderline personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(8), 1101-6.

Borderline Personality Disorder and Attachment Networks

Agrawal, H.R., Gunderson, J., Holmes, B.M., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2004). Attachment studies with borderline patients: A review. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12, 94-104.

Fonagy, P., Target, M., Gergely, G., Allen, J.G., and Bateman, A. W. (2003). The developmental roots of Borderline Personality Disorder in early attachment relationships: A theory and some evidence.Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 23, 412-459.

Co-Narcissism

Rappoport, A. (2005). Co-narcissism: How we accommodate to narcissistic parents. The Therapist.

Narcissistic Rage

Kohut, H: Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child 1972; 27:560-400.

Association of Narcissistic and Borderline Organization

Kernberg, O.F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism.. New York: Aronson.

“One subgroup of borderline patients, namely, the narcissistic personalities… seem to have a defensive organization similar to borderline conditions, and yet many of them function on a much better psychosocial level.” (Kernberg, 1975, p. xiii)