Several months ago I stumbled upon the writings of a British pscyotherapist, Karen Woodhall. The homepage of the website I linked says this concerning her: “Karen Woodall is the lead therapist at the Family Separation Clinic and is a specialist in working with complex divorce and separation and its impact on children. She is a psychotherapist with more than twenty-five years experience in working with parents and children affected by family separation.”
I’ve gathered insights from my limited readings on British psychology experts specializing in children of divorced parents and the negative impacts divorce can have on them. What struck me is their balanced perspective on the complex issues surrounding this problem. They seem more inclined to prioritize aiding children’s recovery from the distress often linked with Parental Alienation (PA) compared to their American counterparts. The American experts, in contrast, seem more concentrated on the psychological roots of PA.
At one time, Woodall was strongly supportive of PA theory as espoused in the United States; then, she switched focus. She writes in one of her blog posts:
“Parental Alienation Theory has been developed by Bernet, Baker et al who are the core members of the Parental Alienation Study Group based in the USA. I used to be a member of PASG, but left in 2019 when I realised that the clinical work we are involved in at the Family Separation Clinic is at odds with the way that this group views the problem. An example of this is the conceptualisation by Parental Alienation Theorists of the problem as a mental disorder in the child, which is not my experience in clinical practice, in which direct work with alienated children demonstrates that the core issue is psychological splitting, which is a defence mechanism caused by relational dynamics around the child.
“Further, the claim by PASG that the problem is caused by high conflict, is at odds with our clinical experience because what might look like high conflict from the outside, is very often the anxious and angry response of a rejected parent to the experience of seeing their children forced into an alignment against them. Finally, parental alienation as a theory is far more focused as a litigation strategy in the USA, in which proving a case of alienation in court, leads to a reunification camp intervention rather than therapeutic structural reorganisation of the family hierarchy to liberate the child.
“Whilst I am not arguing that reunification of children with rejected parents is wrong, I am concerned that reunification without addressing the underlying problem for the child of induced psychological splitting, often leaves the child waiting it out in the care of the rejected parent, until they are old enough to return to the abusive parent, at which time the delusional belief that a child has held captive by the rejected parent is amplified.”
It has taken me some time to understand what she is saying in the above quoted paragraph. At first I thought, “Is she rejecting the entire concept of PA?” If she was, this would then cause me to potentially revaluate my views on PA if, in my further reading on the subject, I agreed with her perspective on the issue.
This stirred a sense of unease within me because I’ve been a steadfast supporter of PA theory for nearly twenty years. If my convictions were mistaken, it would shake the very core of how I perceived what occurred with my children and me. I’d essentially have to start fresh, returning to square one and initiating my research from scratch.
Thankfully, this turned out differently. While I’m not entirely certain I grasp Woodall’s stance completely, I interpret her words when she states, “I used to be a member of PASG, but left in 2019 when I realised that the clinical work we are involved in at the Family Separation Clinic is at odds with the way that this group views the problem…,” as not a rejection of the core elements of parental alienation theory but rather a disagreement in approaches to addressing and resolving the issue.
Why am I writing this particular post? Two reasons. First, because it addresses what I have often written in this series concerning divorce, PAS, and PA: an emphasis on “critical thinking.” (Those posts can be found here, here, and here.)
I cannot emphasize enough to others who are affected by PA the importance of becoming critical thinkers to comprehend their experiences if I don’t “practice what I preach.” A significant aspect of developing critical thinking involves being open to understanding various perspectives and viewpoints on diverse subjects.
The significance lies in the experience of PA-affected children who frequently find themselves confined within the echo chamber of the alienated parent’s narrative. They perceive this alienating parent as entirely virtuous—a saintly figure—while casting the other, rejected parent as wholly malevolent—the embodiment of evil. The reason these children are trapped in this narrative is partly because they refrain from exercising critical thinking and exploring both sides of the story. They solely heed the voice of their alienating parent, unwilling to grant equal consideration to their other, estranged parent.
Doing this (giving equal time to both sides of an issue) is not easy and is counter intuitive to how we humans are hard wired. We are partisans by nature, naturally siding with one person or one political cause or party; this brainwashing begins at an early age.
I think of my high school days during football games. Friday nights were the big night during football season. “My” team would occupy the bleachers (always the largest and most lavish) on one side of the field and the opposing team would occupy the other side (usually smaller and less impressive.). The football field would separate the two sides.
While I didn’t invest much time in watching the actual games (football never held much interest for me then or throughout my life; the social aspect was what mattered), what stands out is how unwittingly the indoctrination started. The division between “us” and “them” was continually reinforced, accentuating the polarization between the opposing sides in every conceivable manner.
It was all in the spirit of good sportsmanship and enjoyment, yet it unwittingly laid the groundwork for an adversarial mindset toward life, which, in some respects, I find unhealthy. This polarized way of thinking often seeps into various facets of American culture and, I believe, can exacerbate family conflicts and impact the handling of interpersonal challenges. Within families fractured by PA, this “us versus them” mentality further intensifies an already turbulent situation.
Critical thinking is crucial to solving and understanding this deadly pathology of PA, especially for children caught in the middle between two warring parents brought out by divorce, especially a high conflict one where PA breeds like cancer cells.
Second, alongside my aspiration to foster critical thinking, I aim to remain open to examining and contemplating alternative theories about what defines alienation within families. Accurately identifying an issue is pivotal in finding its solution, akin to providing a remedy for a sore throat (like gargling with salt water and taking aspirin) when the patient actually suffers from cancer—clearly counterproductive and potentially more harmful than beneficial.
In the case of PA, Woodall is emphasizing a different “cure” than what is typically offered by experts going through family tragedies. She writes, “…parental alienation as a theory is far more focused as a litigation strategy in the USA…” instead of her chosen method of “… I am concerned that reunification without addressing the underlying problem for the child of induced psychological splitting, often leaves the child waiting it out in the care of the rejected parent…”
Ultimately, who is more correct in their diagnosis and treatment plans for this terrible reality known as PA? This is critical, of course, when it comes to hurting children passing through the horrors of PA. Like my above analogy with the sore throat, a doctor advising a treatment plan with a patient with a sore throat to gargle with salt water and take aspirin when this physician should be advising radiation instead is obviously not correctly advising her patient.
In subsequent posts, I will delve further into the writings of Karen Woodall because I find she has something vital to offer to this debate. For both parents and children dealing with this issue, her insights, I believe, are critical in discovering the solutions and recommend my readers explore her writings.