Phillip Hendrix, M.A., M.B.A., Treasurer Castle Rock, Colorado info@covenantcounselors.com

Parental Alienation

Phillip Hendrix, M.A., M.B.A. A family mediator, parent educator, child custody evaluator, and parenting coordinator in Castle Rock, Colorado, Mr. Hendrix makes presenattions, educates others, and leads a large in-person support group, the Colorado Parental Alienation Support Group. His website: http://www.covenantcounselors.com.

Cara E. Koch, D.Min. Dr. Cara E. Koch, who lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado, recently published a book, From Heartbreak to Healing: Resolving Parental Alienation. Dr. Koch has experienced parental alienation in her own family. She hopes to participate in the effort to increase public awareness and gain support for recognizing, treating, and stopping parental alienation. Her website: https://carakoch.com.

Jennifer J. Harman, Ph.D., and Zeynep Biringen, Ph.D. Professors at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, they published Parents Acting Badly: How Institutions and Societies Promote the Alienation of Children from Their Loving Families. Dr. Harman and Dr. Biringen also established the Colorado Parental Alienation Project, which is at http://www.facebook.com/parentalalienationproject.

Zeynep Biringen, Ph.D. A professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Dr. Biringen and Dr. Jennifer J. Harman co-authored Parents Acting Badly: How Institutions and Societies Promote the Alienation of Children from Their Loving Families and established the Colorado Parental Alienation Project, which is at http://www.facebook.com/parentalalienationproject.

Michael Bone and Brian Ludmer, in particular, have written on this issue.  Note especially that lawyers without strong experience in this area will be highly likely to lose your case.  Experience in other areas of law is insufficient for lawyers to win alienation cases.

How alienation is best treated psychologically.  Individual therapy alone for the alienated child not only will be unlikely to resolve the alienation; it is likely to reinforce the pattern. Alienated children must be treated in joint sessions with the targeted parent.  The alienating parent must be in treatment as well to learn to recognize and stop his/her alienating behaviors.  Treatment addressed toward helping the parents resolve the issues that motivate the alienation also can help. Court intervention is generally essential in more severe alienation cases where time allotted to the targeted parent in the court-approved parenting plan is being blocked. In the case of severe alienation, urgency is an issue.  Earlier intervention prevents worsening and increases the likelihood of successful treatment for all cases.

Dr. Heitler, please feel welcome to email her at drheitler@gmail.com.  PLEASE NOTE THAT DR. HEITLER NO LONG HAS A DENVER OFFICE.

an attractive woman

Patience is a necessity

traumatized

unable to find one he believed understood his experience well enough

education

drive doubt away.

report any doubts or negative thoughts to Jacob

Put forth a closed sense of logic; allow no real input or criticism.

replace it with the leader’s own vision

metaphorically snap.

Control the person’s time and, if possible, physical environment.

six years

Five years

were forbidden contact with family

was more concerned about

I’m not a stupid man. I’m not, really. And I just can’t seem to figure out what went wrong.”

neither seemed to understand what he’d gone through.

I hoped to explain to him how cults operate. Once he understood the powerful techniques of persuasion that were used against him, perhaps at least some of the guilt and foolishness he might be feeling over his cultic involvement would decrease.

DSM-5(3)Childpsychologicalabuse(995.51),whichincludes“harming/ abandoning...peopleorthingsthatthechildcaresabout.”DSM-5, pg. 716,719(5thed. 2013); WilliamBernet,et. al. , ChildAffectedbyParentalRelationshipDistress55J. oftheAm. Acad. ofChildandAdolescentPsychiatry571-579(2016)

DSM-5(2)Parent-childrelationalproblem(V61.20),whichincludes“negativeattributionsoftheother’sintentions,hostilitytowardorscapegoatingoftheother,andunwarrantedfeelingsofestrangement.”DSM-5, pg. 715,719(5thed. 2013); WilliamBernet,et. al. , ChildAffectedbyParentalRelationshipDistress55J. oftheAm. Acad. ofChildandAdolescentPsychiatry571-579(2016)

DSM-5DSM-5 hasTHREEspecificdiagnosesunderwhichParentalAlienationmayfall,albeitbydifferentnames:(1)Childaffectedbyparentalrelationshipdistress(CAPRD)(V61.29),which“shouldbeusedwhenthefocusofclinicalattentionis thenegativeeffectsofparentalrelationshipdiscord(e.g., highlevelsofconflict,distress,ordisparagement)ona childinthefamily,includingeffectsonthechild’smentalorothermedicaldisorders.”DSM-5, pg. 716,719(5thed. 2013); WilliamBernet,et. al. , ChildAffectedbyParentalRelationshipDistress55J. oftheAm. Acad. ofChildandAdolescentPsychiatry571-579(2016

SEVERE: thepreferredparentis obsessedwiththedesiretodestroythechild’srelationshipwiththeotherparent; thebehaviordoesnotrespondtotypicaloutpatientcounseling

and passes the DaubertgatekeepingExpert testimony on parental alienation “aided the court by providing a counterintuitiveexplanation as to the dynamics...present in [the] situation.”Expert testimony met the threshold level of reliability ~ DaubertstandardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine(Bergin v Bergin, __ A.3d __ (2019)) (2019 WL 3788326

The phenomenon of PA is “well known”...-“Thephenomenaofparentalalienationarewellrecognizedinternationallyand,s a d l y,arefrequentlyallegedorencounteredincustodyandvisitationlitigation....Thespecificterm‘parentalalienation’doesnotyetappearasa psychiatricdiagnosisintheofficialclassificationoftheAmericanPsychiatricAssociation,althoughitsfeaturescommonlymaybesubsumedunderoneormoreotherdiagnosticcategories...”McClainv. McClain, 539S. W.3d 170,182(2017)(CourtofAppealsofTennessee

Dr. Amy Baker et al. (2011), Brief Report on Parental Alienation SurveySurveyconductedat2010meetingoftheAssociationofFamilyandConciliationCourts(AFCC).300attendeescompletedsurveyregardingPA.98%endorsed,“Doyouthinkthatsomechildrenaremanipulatedbyoneparenttoirrationallyandunjustifiablyrejecttheotherparent?”

Severe PA: remove the children from abusive hom

Long-term Effects of Parental Alienation BehavioralEffects◦Childshunsalienatedparentforyearsora life-time◦ChildrepeatsalienatingbehaviorsinlateradultrelationshipsCognitiveEffects◦Childfailstodevelopcriticalthinking◦ChildexperiencesrelationshipsasallgoodorallbadEmotionalEffects◦Chronicdepressionoverlossoflovedparent◦Chronicguiltoverparticipatinginrejectionofparent

Short-term Effects of Parental Alienation Child escapes battleground between parentsChild resolves cognitive dissonanceChild becomes enmeshed with preferred parentChild loses relationship with rejected parent

What is the difference betweenalienation and estrangement?ALIENATION= childrejectsa parentwithouta goodreason. Thechild’srejectionis faroutofproportiontoanythingtherejectedparenthasdone.ESTRANGEMENT=childrejectsa parentfora goodreason,suchashistoryofabuseorneglect.

World Health OrganizationQE52.0:Caregiver-childrelationshipproblem= “substantialandsustaineddissatisfactionwithinacaregiver-childrelationshipassociatedwithsignificantdisturbanceinfunctioning.”INDEXTERMS◦Parent-childrelationshipproblem◦Parentalalienation◦Parentalestrangemen

Bernet, W. et al. (2018), An Objective Measure of Splitting in Parental Alienation: The Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire(PARQ

Craig Childress (2015), An Attachment-Based Model of Parental Alienation: FoundationsConceptofattachment-basedparentalalienation

2020 EditionParental Alienation: The Legal Landscape

Proposal for Parental Alienation Relational Problemto be Included in“Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention”in DSM-5-TRSubmitted to DSM-5-TR Steering CommitteeNovember xx, 2022Submitted by William Bernet, M.D., and Amy J. L. Baker, Ph.D.

Protecting Your Clients in Parental Alienation Cases When the Courts Don’t

Winning Parental Alienation Cases: A Roadmap for Family Lawyers

rentalAlienation:WHATFAMILYLAWYERSNEEDTOKNOW

Prevalence of adults who are the targets of parental alienating behaviors and their impact

The child’ssense of disconnection and inauthentic realityare reinforced when alienated parents repeat their false narratives to third partiesas part of their alienationcampaign

Losses Experienced by Children Alienated from a ParentJennifer J. Harman, Mandy L. Matthewson, Amy J.L. Baker

What did we find? Of the more than 200 empirical studies we reviewed, 40% were published since 2016. This means that many of the reviews published before 2016—such as the ones critics rely on to argue that parental alienation research is in its “infancy”—are hopelessly outdated. Our study leaves no doubt that parental alienation is a valid concept supported by a robust and well-developed scientific literature. This literature sports several hallmarks of a maturing scientific field. First, the number of studies is increasing each year. Second, the type of studies increasingly favors quantitative (e.g., statistical analysis) over qualitative (e.g., descriptive) methods. Third, the studies increasingly test hypotheses and situate the design and results in a theoretical and explanatory framework.

Developmental Psychology and the Scientific Status of Parental AlienationJennifer J. Harman 1 , Richard A. Warshak 2 , Demosthenes Lorandos 3 , and Matthew J. Florian 41 Department of Psychology, Colorado State University2 Independent Practice, Richardson, Texas, United States3 Psychlaw.net, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States4 Eris Enterprise, LLC, Fort Collins, Colorado, United State

Parental Alienation andAmerican Family Courts:Common Fallacies and PitfallsPRESENTED BY: ASHISH JOSHI

criteria proposed by Judge Richard Dollinger are related to scientific and clinical issues that provide the basis for expert testimony in cases where PA is alleged.

Up until recently, there were no legal criteria for defining parental alienation. Now we have some guidance from New York State. The recently decided NYS AD case of JF v. DF (NY Law Journal, 12/27/18; filed 12/06/18) provides legal criteria for identifying parental alienation (PA) based on tort law. These criteria are intended to differentiate parental alienation from more conventional examples of poor parenting, such as missed phone calls or the occasional vulgarity or snide remark about the other parent.

The Five-Factor Model for the Diagnosis of Parental AlienationAuthor links open overlay panelWilliam Bernet MD a, Laurence L. Greenhill MD b

Five-Factor ModelThe Five-Factor Model (FFM) is a method for diagnosing PA byunderstanding and identifying the components of this mental condition. TheFFM includes the following criteria:¢ Factor One: the child manifests contact resistance or refusal, i.e.,avoids a relationship with one of the parents.¢ Factor Two: the presence of a prior positive relationship betweenthe child and the now rejected parent.* Factor Three: the absence of abuse, neglect, or seriously deficientparenting on the part of the now rejected parent.¢ Factor Four; the use of multiple alienating behaviors on the partof the favored parent.* Factor Five: the child exhibits many of the eight behavioralmanifestations of alienation.

Although the actual words “parental alienation” are not in DSM-5 or ICD-11, the concept of PA is found in those diagnostic manuals. In the DSM-5,there are three diagnoses that can be used when PA has been identified in achild or a family. For example, a new diagnosis in DSM-5, child affected byparental relationship distress, can be used in cases involving PA, which wasexplained in an article by Bernet, Wamboldt, and Narrow (2016). Otherdiagnoses in DSM-5—that ts, parent-child relational problem and childpsychological abuse—may also be used in cases involving PA. Likewise, withregard to ICD-11, the diagnosis of caregiver—child relationship problem canbe used in cases involving PA.

PA-detractors seem to think that somewhere thereis arule or a commandment to that effect, but there is no such rule. There aremany examples of medical and psychiatric ailments being routinely diagnosedbefore those conditions were officially included in diagnostic nomenclature.For example, Tourette’s syndrome was described and identified in 1885, longbefore it was officially included in DSM-III in 1980. Human immunodeficiencyvirus (HIV) and autoimmune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) were described,identified, and diagnosed in the early 1980s, years before they found their wayinto ICD-9 (1991).

Conclusions:Indoctrinating a child to hate or fear a parent without a goodreason is a form of child psychological abuse. Clinicians should use theDSM-5diagnosis of child psychological abuse when an alienating parent is deter-mined to cause parental alienation in his or her children. Child protectionpersonnel should investigate cases of parental alienation as instances of childpsychological abuse

dies showthat when courts remove severely alienated children from the influence ofthe alienating parent and order an appropriate intervention, at least 90%of the children are restored to a satisfactory relationship with bothparents

Social Worker or Counselor has different levels of training and may practice independently or under alicensed supervisor. It is important to ask when making an appointment if the social worker or counselorhas specific child and family training

Effective residential treatment programs provide:

Involvement of the child's family or support system. Model residential programs encourage and provide opportunities for family therapy and contact

Psychiatric care coordinated by a child and adolescent psychiatrist or psychiatric prescriber.

An Individualized Treatment Plan that puts into place interventions that help the child or adolescent attain these goals.

who have not responded to outpatient treatments

Residential treatment programs provide intensive help for youth with serious emotional and behavior problems. While receiving residential treatment, children temporarily live outside of their homes and in a facility where they can be supervised and monitored by trained staff.

AACAPOFFICIALACTION

Comply with the training requirements mandate

derstand the Colorado Children’s Code, §§ 19-1-101 to19-7-103,C.R.S. Volume 7 CDHS Rules and Regulations for Child Welfare Services, 12 Code Colo. Regs. 2509-1 –2509-8, this Chief Justice Directive, the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 to 1963 and other relevant State and Federal law

requiredto:1.Possess the knowledge, expertise, and training necessary to perform the courtappointmen

COURT APPOINTMENTS THROUGHTHE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT PARENTS’ COUNS

AFCC AND NCJFCJJOINT STATEMENT ON PARENT-CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS

Holding Negligent Doctors AccountableWhen a doctor fails to diagnose your medical condition, it can have serious consequences. We put our trust in medical workers to identify a disease to increase our chances of recovery. A doctor’s failure to diagnose is a form of medical malpractice because such negligence can cause significant injury

‘Reasonable Efforts: A Judicial Perspective’ Releases Second Edition to Update Juvenile Courts on Meaningful Oversight of Social Service Actions

Many services are not on the evidence-based list. That does notmean, however, that they have not been evaluated for effectiveness. The agency should be able toexplain to the court how it has evaluated the effectiveness of a particular service.

7.200.12 County Responsibilities [Rev. eff. 9/1/15]The county department shall be responsible:A. To deliver prevention and intervention services according to the state-approved service deliveryplan that is an addendum to the Core Services Plan.B. To ensure community agencies and/or other divisions within the county provide prevention andintervention services according to the state-approved service delivery plan.C. To ensure community agencies and/or other division within the county department refer families,youth, and children to the prevention and intervention service according to the contract with thecounty Child Welfare Division.D. To ensure community agencies and/or other divisions of human services offer prevention orintervention services according to the contract with the county department.E. To ensure documentation in the approved state automated case management system of thenames, age, ethnicity, gender, service provided, and the reason the service ended for families,youth, and children referred for or provided prevention and intervention services.F. To ensure documentation in the approved state automated case management system of allrequired data elements of each funding source used for prevention and intervention services.G. To follow the rules and requirements governing the specific funding stream the county elects touse to provide prevention and intervention services.H. To follow the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Human Services

Monthly ContactThe primary purpose for case contacts shall be to assure child safety and well-being and movethe case toward achieving identified treatment goals

ORPC’s Federal Title IV-E Funding Priorities to Enhance the Quality of LegalRepresentation for Parents and FamiliesIn light of the priorities of the Children’s Bureau,89 the ORPC has developed a plan for use of IV-Ereimbursement funds that include the following new initiatives and expansions of existingprogramming:1. Increasing RPC access to an interdisciplinary team, which may include social workers, parentadvocates, experts, and other professionals

Based on such successful outcomes, the Children’s Bureau “strongly urges all Title IV-E agencies toactively pursue utilization of Title IV-E funding to create, expand and sustain models of multi-disciplinary representation....”85 In other words, the federal government is actively urging childwelfare stakeholders across the country to use federal dollars to pay for paralegals, investigators, peeradvocates, and social workers to better respond to the overall needs of parents and families who maybe candidates for foster care.

investigators and experts where appropriate, and participate in case planning and ongoingadvocacy for services, family time, and placements that support their clients’ objectives

attorneys for parents and children should conduct independent investigations, utilize and engage

Practice outside of or beyond professional training, experience, or competence. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, no licensee, registrant, certificate holder, or unlicensed psychotherapist is authorized to practice outside of or beyond his or her area of training, experience, or competenc

Colorado Mental Health Practice Act Colorado Revised Statutes Title 12 Professions and Occupations Article 43 Mental Health Effective July 1, 200

nform the parents of the reasons for stateintervention

Reasonable Efforts: A Judicial Perspectiveby Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)1

Neither affidavits nor subsequent “nunc protunc” orders are acceptable verification for meeting this “reasonable efforts” requirement.

There must be an order of the court within sixty (60) calendar days after the date the childis placed in out-of-home care with a finding to the effect that:a. Reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the child from the home

County departments shall make reasonable efforts to advise county residents of servicesavailable through the state and county department by means of such methods as press releases,presentations, pamphlets, websites, social media and other mass media.

7.601 COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES [Eff. 1/1/15]There are basic information, legal mandates, and policies generic to the administration and/or provision ofservices that cut across all program and service areas. These include general administrativeresponsibilities, protection of clients' rights, responsibilities of clients, case processing anddocumentation, and reporting requirements. The county departments shall provide services to personswho are eligible and belong to the particular Program Area target groups within the following rules of theState Department

Reasonable CandidatesReasonable candidates for foster care, for the purposes of Title IV-E program, are childrendetermined to be at risk of imminent placement out of the home as defined in Section 19-1-103(64), C.R.S. Administrative costs may be claimed for children who are determined to be atimminent risk of removal from the home through a voluntary placement agreement or court-ordered custody with the county department. A determination must be made as to whether thechild is at imminent risk of removal from the home no less frequently than every six (6) months.Reasonable efforts shall be made to prevent the removal of the child from the home until suchtime that pursuing removal of the child from the home becomes necessary.

26The Counseling PsychologistTable 1.Criteria and Related Measures for Assessing ExpertiseCriteriaPossible ways of assessing criteria1.PerformanceA.Client-rated working allianceB.Client-rated real relationshipC.Observer-rated responsivenessD.Use of observer-rated theoretically appropriate interventionsE.Observer-rated competenceF.Client-rated multicultural competenceG.Observer-rated responsivenessH.Supervisor-rated competence or responsiveness2.Cognitive functioningA.Observer-rated assessment of cognitive processingB.Observer-rated assessment of case conceptualization ability3.Client outcomesA.Engagement in therapy (percentage of clients who return after intake)/dropout ratesB.Clinically significant change on reports by clients, therapists, significant others, or observers using measures of symptomatology, interpersonal functioning, quality of life/well-being, self-awareness/understanding/acceptance, satisfaction with workC.Behavioral assessments (e.g., fewer missed days of work, fewer doctor visits)4.ExperienceA.Years of experienceB.Number of client hoursC.Variety of clientsD.Amount of trainingE.Amount of supervisionF.Amount of reading5.Personal and relational qualities of the therapistA.Self-rated self-actualization, well-being, quality of life, lack of symptomatology, reflectivity, mindfulness, flexibilityB.Empathy ability (self-rated, nonverbal assessments, observer ratings)C.Nonverbal assessments of empathy6.CredentialsA.Graduation from an accredited training programB.Board certification7.ReputationA.Professional interactionsB.Advancement to positions of honor within organizations based on recognition of clinical expertiseC.Positive feedback and referrals from clientsD.Reports from colleagues/friendsE.Invitations to demonstrate methods in videos, workshops, or booksF.Lack of ethical complaints8.Therapist self-assessmentA.Evaluation of own skillsNote. The criteria are listed in the order of perceived relevance to assessing expertise, from 1 (most relevant) to 8 (least relevan

This difficulty in judging therapist competence may account for research findings that show that judges have a hard time distin-guishing between adherence and competence (e.g., Weck etal., 2013

Research outside of psychotherapy shows that incompetent performers cannot accurately recognize their own or others’ competence or incompe-tence (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003

Tracey etal. (2015) offered the following four criteria for defining individual expertise in psychotherapy: (a) reputation, degree attainment, professional distinction, and experience; (b) skill, competence, or adherence to a prescribed standard of performance; (c) clinical accuracy; and (d) outcomes, or success with clients

We adopt the performance-based approach and suggest that therapist expertise exists on a continuum, ranging from highly inexpert to highly expert. To be considered an expert or judged as possessing high levels of expertise, one would need to function at a high point on this continuum across sessions and clients.

Although we argue in a subsequent section that experience is not equiva-lent to expertise, we acknowledge here that we cite literature that assesses experience (e.g., years of clinical experience, professional level) rather than expertise. Given the paucity of literature directly related to expertise, we incorporated literature on experience as a proxy for expertise but urge readers to remember that experience is not the same as expertise

Tracey etal. (2014) maintained that there is no evidence that experienced therapists achieve better client outcomes than do inexperienced therapists. They further proposed that therapists overestimate their clinical and diagnostic abili-ties, and an important reason that therapists do not improve in their clinical work is that they do not seek or receive adequate feedback about client outcome

Competence is required of psychotherapists by their profession’s ethics code and it is essential for the provision of effective treatment services to clients

Standard 3.04 (Avoiding Harm), as well as Principle B (Fidelity and Responsibility) of the APA Code of Ethics (2017) discusses avoiding harm and being aware of the “professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work” (p. 3). Cederberg (2017) notes it is impossible for a psychologist to be an expert in all facets of the profession

Standard 2.01 (Boundaries of Competence) of the APA Code of Ethics (2017) states, Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience. (p. 4)

When considering a request for removal, ask if the agency madereasonable efforts to prevent removal, which may include providingfederally supported prevention services.• If reasonable efforts have not been made, consider court orders forprevention services that may allow the child to remain safely at home.• Consider relevance of prevention services outside dependency &neglect context. Who else could benefit from prevention upstream?

If reasonable efforts were not made, request a “no reasonable efforts”finding and an order returning the child to the family with appropriateservices.

If the child is removed, request a copy of the family’s prevention plan (orother reflection of prevention services) to review what the agency offeredand whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal

Reasonable efforts to prevent removal: If a petition must be filed afterservices provided, prepare evidence of the prevention services offeredand used as an element of the agency’s reasonable efforts.

There is a need to assess how poor and vulnerable families are oftenportrayed and perceived and to be mindful of how those portrayals or perceptions influence whattypes of resources are available, and to whom

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Ad-ministration on Children, Youth and Families. ACYF-CB-IM-20-06, Foster Care as a Support to Families, April29, 2020.Provides examples of how agencies and courts can pro-vide meaningful efforts to reunify children and parentsand safely maintain that reunification, including usingresources families as an ongoing support.

Edwards, Judge Leonard. “Overcoming Barriers toMaking Meaningful Reasonable Efforts Findings.” ABAChild Law Practice, January 29, 2019.Explains that it is not enough to make service referralsand note them in a case plan. Instead, “judges shoulddiscuss the availability and effectiveness of services pro-vided by service providers contracted by the agency,” and“frontline social workers should accurately assess familyneeds and report those needs to the court. Those needsshould form the foundation of the case plan.”

Consider citing information on:Reasonable efforts to reunify

When necessary, argue to the court that by not pro-viding a reunified child with appropriate services, the agency is not making mandated reasonable efforts to achieve permanency

Providing states improved access to federal funds for reunification services aligns with the federal Children’s Bureau’s renewed focus on reasonable efforts to achieve permanency requirements. Families should be provided all needed assistance to ensure the safe reunification of the child. (See reasonable efforts resources in Research to Cite: Reunification Services for the Family.)

Judicial decision maker❑When reviewing a petition for removal, ask if the agen-cy made reasonable efforts to prevent removal, which may include providing federally supported prevention services. ƒInvite discussion and debate among parties about whether the reasonable efforts finding is appropri-ate. ƒIf reasonable efforts have not been made, consider court orders for prevention services that may allow the child to remain safely at home. ƒIf reasonable efforts have been made, be specific about what measures constituted reasonable efforts when making written findings in the case

If the child is removed, request a copy of the family’s prevention plan to review what the agency offered and whether reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal especially in cases involving mental health, substance use, and parenting skills challenges (if neces-sary, request the prevention plan through the discovery process)

Key Federal Laws to Incorporate into Advocacy

parties need not wait until the next scheduled hearing for a child to return home if safety risks have been addressed. Indicate whether a motion for an accelerated hearing is needed for reunification to occur

Ensure reunification services begin promptly

reunification services that can begin as soon as a child enters foster care

The Title IV-B Family Reunification Services section de-scribes the services that should be provided to a child and family when the child has been removed from the home “to facilitate the reunification of the child safely and appropri-ately within a timely fashion and to ensure the strength and stability of the reunification.”60 These services may include counseling, substance use treatment, assistance to address domestic violence, peer mentoring, visitation, and transpor-tation

Placement determinations using evidence-based assessments

through evidence-based, trau-ma-informed treatment models

Family First Act requires state and tribal child welfare agencies develop procedures and protocols to prevent children from being inappropriately diag-nosed with mental illness

Research to Cite

Segrue, Erin. Ph.D., LICSW. Evidence Base for Avoiding Family Separation in Child Welfare Practice: An Analysis of Current Research. Alia Innovations, July 2019

Include individuals with lived experiences as par-ents, children, or kin caregivers in the foster care system to discuss what would best serve family prevention services needs in the community

Explore with child welfare stakeholders and local legal service providers whether to access IV-E funding for this area.

If prevention services were not offered before remov-al and the case involves mental health, substance use, or parenting skills, consider whether a fair hearing is warranted pursuant to federal regulations. These regu-lations provide that failure to offer or render prevention services is a possible basis for requesting an administra

If federally funded prevention services were used before the child’s removal, ask whether they were provided with fidelity (e.g., according to written policy, frequency of service, targeted group).

If you are appointed after a petition for removal is filed, advocate for prevention services to be offered as an al-ternative to removal—including services for the parent, kinship caregiver, or the child.

If you are appointed when prevention services are provided, work with your client to ensure those services meet the client’s needs

If you are appointed after a petition for removal has been filed, ask whether prevention services were offered before removal—including services for the parent, kinship caregiver, or child. If appropriate for your client’s goals, advocate for prevention services as an alternative to removal

The requirements for these services do not prohibit a state from offering other prevention services through state and local dollars or the more limited federal funding available through Title IV-B, Subpart 2, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.8 Indeed, a broad service array responsive to specific community needs is encouraged and Family First funding may be just one funding stream used to support a more comprehensive service array.

rendered by a “qualified clinician.”

The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018A Guide for the Legal Community

The Core Services Program was established in 1994 to provide strength-based resources and support to families when children and youth are at imminent risk of out-of-home placement, in need of services to return home or to maintain a placement in the least restrictive setting possible.

19-3-208. Services - county required to provide - out-of-home placement options - rules - definitions.

19-3-100.5. Legislative declarations - reasonable efforts - movement of children and sibling groups.

Demosthenes Lorandos, William Bernet & Richard Sauber (2013), Parental Alienation: Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Pro-fessionals

Journal of Family Medicine and Disease Prevention

• Make specific findings to deviate from the assessmentrequired in 19-1-115 (4)(h).• Make findings regarding why an alternative other thanQRTP does not meet the needs of the child/youth.• Lack of available placements cannot be a reason.• Make required findings:• QRTP provides the most effective appropriatelevel of care for the child/youth/juvenile in the leastrestrictive environment.• Consistent with the permanency plan (if set).• Consistent with the child/youth/juvenile’s short- andlong-term goals.• Set QRTP review prior to discharge date or no longerthan 90 days, see 19-1-115(4)(g)

The court shall give great weight to the recommendation in the independent assessment. If the Court deviates from the recommendations in the assessment, the Court shall make specific findings of fact set forth in 19-1-115 (4)(h)

Family First Prevention Services ActQualified Residential Treatment Program Bench Card

IMPLEMENTING THEFAMILY FIRST PREVENTION SERVICES ACTA Technical Guide for Agencies, Policymakers and Other Stakeholders

Child Welfare Policy Manual

Question 1. May we claim Federal financial participation (FFP) for the administrative costs associated with foster care candidates even for children who never enter foster care? Answer Yes. Federal financial participation for administrative costs listed at 45 CFR 1356.60(c) may be claimed regardless of whether the child is actually placed in foster care and becomes a recipient of title IV-E foster care benefits. However, reimbursement is limited to those individuals the title IV-E agency reasonably views as candidates for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments consistent with section 472(i)(2) of the Social Security Act. The three acceptable methods of documentation indicating that a child is a candidate for title IV-E foster care benefits are: (1) A defined case plan which clearly indicates that, absent effective preventive services, foster care is the planned arrangement for the child, (2) an eligibility determination form which has been completed to establish the child's eligibility under title IV-E, or (3) evidence of court proceedings in relation to the removal of the child from the home, in the form of a petition to the court, a court order or a transcript of the court's proceedings. Should the title IV-E agency determine that the child is no longer a candidate for foster care at any point prior to the removal of the child from his home, subsequent activities will not be allowable for reimbursement of costs under title IV-E. Source/Date ACYF-CB-PA-87-05 (10/22/87); 7/7/2006; (12/17/2019) Legal and Related References Social Security Act - sections 471(a)(15), 472(i)(2), and 479B; DHHS Grant Appeals Board Decision No. 844; ACYF-CB-IM-06-02

By definition, a candidate is a child for whom the title IV-E agency is either pursuing or making reasonable efforts to prevent a remova

Question 2. At what point may a child be considered a candidate for foster care? Answer A candidate for foster care is a child who is at serious risk of removal from home as evidenced by the title IV-E agency either pursuing his/her removal from the home or making reasonable efforts to prevent such removal. The basis for determining when a child may be considered a candidate for foster care can be found in statute, Departmental policy, and Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) decisions: STATUTE: Section 471(a)(15)(B)(i) of the Act provides the frame of reference for determining the point at which a child becomes a candidate for foster care by requiring a title IV-E agency to make reasonable efforts to prevent a child's removal from home. A child may not be considered a candidate for foster care solely because the title IV-E agency is involved with the child and his/her family. In order for the child to be considered a candidate for foster care, the title IV-E agency's involvement with the child and family must be for the specific purpose of either removing the child from the home or satisfying the reasonable efforts requirement with regard to preventing removal. DEPARTMENTAL POLICY: Stipulates the three acceptable methods for documenting a child's candidacy for title IV-E foster maintenance payments. The existence of these forms of documentation indicates that a child legitimately may be considered a candidate for foster care: 1) A defined case plan which clearly indicates that, absent effective preventive services, foster care is the planned arrangement for the child. The decision to remove a child from home is a significant legal and practice issue that is not entered into lightly. Therefore, a case plan that sets foster care as the goal for the child absent effective preventive services is an indication that the child is at serious risk of removal from his/her home because the title IV-E agency believes that a plan of action is needed to prevent that removal. 2) An eligibility determination form which has been completed to establish the child's eligibility for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. Completing the documentation to establish a child's title IV-E eligibility is an indication that the title IV-E agency is anticipating the child's entry into foster care and that s/he is at serious risk of removal from home. Eligibility forms used to document a child's candidacy for foster care should include evidence that the child is at serious risk of removal from home. Evidence of AFDC eligibility in and of itself is insufficient to establish a child's candidacy for foster care. 3) Evidence of court proceedings in relation to the removal of the child from the home, in the form of a petition to the court, a court order or a transcript of the court proceedings. Clearly, if the title IV-E agency has initiated court proceedings to effect the child's removal from home, s/he is at serious risk of removal from the home. DAB DECISIONS: DAB Decision No. 1428 offers the following guidance for identifying the point at which a child may be considered a candidate: "...The methods of documenting candidacy [identified in the Department's policy guidance] involve activities which occur at a point when the state has initiated efforts to actually remove a child from his or her home or at the point the state has made a decision that the child should be placed in foster care unless preventive services are effective..." The DAB also ruled in Decision No. 1428 that a report of child abuse or neglect is insufficient for establishing a child's candidacy for foster care: "...The fact that a child is the subject of [a child abuse/neglect report] falls far short of establishing that the child is at serious risk of placement in foster care and thus of becoming eligible for IV-E assistance..." A candidate, in the opinion of the DAB, is a child who is at serious risk of removal from his/her home because the title IV-E agency is either pursuing that removal or attempting to prevent it. A child cannot be considered a candidate for foster care when the title IV-E agency has no formal involvement with the child or simply because s/he has been described as "at risk" due to circumstances such as social/interpersonal problems or a dysfunctional home environment. Source/Date ACYF-CB-PA-01-02 (7/3/01); (12/17/2019) Legal and Related References Social Security Act - sections 471(a)(15), 472(i), and 479B; Departmental Appeals Board Decision No. 1428

F. To be eligible for admission to a qualified residential treatment program (QRTP) the child must bedetermined to be appropriate for placement in a qrtp through the independent assesssmentprocess by a qualified individual in accordance with 19-1-115(4)(e)(i), c.r.s

7.424.21 REFERRAL AND ELIGIBILITY

When the child, juvenile, or youth has not been committed to the division of youth services and the court has ongoing jurisdiction,

If the court or administrative review division deviates from the qualified individual’s assessment and recommendation, the court or the administrative review division shall make specific findings of fact regarding the most effective, appropriate, and least restrictive placement for the child or youth and whether the placement is consistent with child- or youth-specific short- and long-term goals for the child or youth and the family. When making such findings of fact, the court or administrative review division shall consider all relevant information, including:(I) Whether the protocol for the qualified residential treatment program assessment was followed;(II) The strengths and specific treatment or service needs of the child or youth and the family;(III) The expected length of stay; and(IV) The placement preference of the child or youth and the family.

Candidate for Foster Care:For the purposes of Title IV-E Prevention Services,a child is a candidate for foster care when atserious risk of entering or reentering foster careand who is able to remain safely in the home withprovision of mental health, substance use disorder,or In-home parenting services for the child, parentor kin caregiver. Foster youth who are pregnant orparenting are also candidates.COLORADO'S FINALDEFINITION

Coloradowants:• All kids who need services to have access toservices and to be served in their family’s homeor in a relative’s home whenever possible• Families to have what they need to keep theirfamily safe and together, and• Services available without requiring the family tobe involved in the child welfare system

FEDERAL DEFINITION OFCANDIDACYA “child who is a candidate for foster care” is defined asa child who is identified in a title IV-E prevention plan asbeing at imminent risk of entering foster care, but whocan remain safely in the child's home or in a kinshipplacement as long as the title IV-E prevention servicesthat are necessary to prevent the entry of the child intofoster care are provided”This includes a child whose adoption or guardianshiparrangement is at risk of a disruption or dissolution thatwould result in a foster care placement (section 475(13)of the Act).

Family Involvement & After Care•Family members will be involved in treatment

level of care assessment is intended to be collaborative with the family, identified family supports and all who may be providing services and supports to the youth/

assessment process, the caseworker must arrange a "Family and Permanency Team meeting”

placement provides the most effective level of care

QRTP Placement Requirement – Ongoing Review and Permanency Hearing Requirements:As long as a child remains placed in a QRTP, the title IV-E agency shall submit evidence at eachstatus review and each permanency hearing held for the child:• demonstrating that ongoing assessment of the strengths and needs of the child continuesto support the determination that the needs of the child cannot be met through placementin a foster family home, that the placement in a QRTP provides the most effective andappropriate level of care for the child in the least restrictive environment, and that theplacement is consistent with the short- and long-term goals for the child, as specified inthe permanency plan for the child;• documenting the specific treatment or service needs that will be met for the child in theplacement and the length of time the child is expected to need the treatment or services;and• documenting the efforts made by the agency to prepare the child to return home or to beplaced with a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or an adoptive parent, or in a fosterfamily home (section 475A(c)(4) of the Act)

Placement in a QRTP must be necessary, temporary and treatment-focused

3. Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS)The department elected to use the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths functional assessmenttool, adapting as Minnesota’s QRTP Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths functional assessmenttool.The CANS is a functional assessment tool developed by the Praed Foundation that informs QRTPassessments. QIs will interview children, parents, and consult with the family and permanency team andtribal representative to gather all pertinent information needed to complete the CANS and make arecommendation. The CANS is used at the end of this discovery or assessment process to organizeinformation collected. It will help QI understand and determine a child’s strengths and areas where theyneed support. The CANS reflects consensus from the entire group. It is not a diagnostic tool and doesnot make the final decision for a recommendation.According to the Praed Foundation, since the tool’s primary purpose is communication, the CANS isdesigned based on communication theory, rather than psychometric theories that influenced mostmeasurement development. The CANS is based on transformational collaborative outcomesmanagement theory. The decision-making process is a consensus and belief that parents and childrenknow their story. Administering the CANS is a story-telling process. Assessors bring together all of thestorytellers. The key principles of this tool come from Inuit tribal cultural worldview, also used in thewraparound model; it is the concept of expertise using a circle, talking things through, and reachingconsensus. Administration of the CANS is a discovery process leading to a decision to help. The tool firstensures understanding of cultural context before making decisions regarding what to do. This processdescribes a person, not how they are or are not using services.The CANS tool captures:• Narrative of a child’s story• Child and the family and permanency team’s perspectives• Explanations on how needs can warrant action• Ideas that it may also serve as an intervention unto itself• Use of language reflective of a child’s and families’ strengths.The Minnesota QRTP individualized assessment modules, depending on needs of individuals. Basic coreitems are rated for all children and youth:

(2) Within 60 days of the start of each place-ment in a qualified residential treatment pro-gram, a family or juvenile court or anothercourt (including a tribal court) of competentjurisdiction, or an administrative body ap-pointed or approved by the court, independ-ently, shall—(A) consider the assessment, determina-tion, and documentation made by the quali-fied individual conducting the assessmentunder paragraph (1);(B) determine whether the needs of thechild can be met through placement in a fos-ter family home or, if not, whether place-ment of the child in a qualified residentialtreatment program provides the most effec-tive and appropriate level of care for thechild in the least restrictive environmentand whether that placement is consistentwith the short- and long-term goals for thechild, as specified in the permanency planfor the child; and(C) approve or disapprove the placement

(h) In making a decision as to proper placement in a qualified residential treatment program, the court or the administrative review division shall consider the assessment provided by the qualified individual and the most recent assessment, as described in subsection (4)(e) of this section, and shall give great weight to the recommendation in the assessment when making a qualified residential treatment program placement decision. An assessment prepared by the qualified individual must identify whether a qualified residential treatment program is the most effective, appropriate, and least restrictive placement for the child or youth. The assessment must also identify child- or youth-specific short- and long-term goals for the child or youth and the family. If the court or administrative review division deviates from the qualified individual’s assessment and recommendation, the court or the administrative review division shall make specific findings of fact regarding the most effective, appropriate, and least restrictive placement for the child or youth and whether the placement is consistent with child- or youth-specific short- and long-term goals for the child or youth and the family. When making such findings of fact, the court or administrative review division shall consider all relevant information, including:(I) Whether the protocol for the qualified residential treatment program assessment was followed;(II) The strengths and specific treatment or service needs of the child or youth and the family;(III) The expected length of stay; and(IV) The placement preference of the child or youth and the family.

SEC. 202. ASSESSMENT AND DOCUMENTATION OF TH_ NEED FOR PLACEMENTIN A QUALIFIED RES- —_ IDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM.

The quali-fied individual conducting the assessment, required

The qualified individual conducting the assessment, required under subparagraph (A) shall work in conjunction with the family of, and permanency team for, the child while conducting and making the assessment.

The family and permanency team shall consist of all appropriate biological family members, … as well as, as appropriate, professionals who are a resource to the
family of the child, such as teachers, medical or mental health providers who have treated the child, or clergy.

THE STATE SHALL document in the child’s case plan—
    (I) the reasonable and good faith effort of the State to identify and include all such individuals on the family of, and permanency team for, the child;

    (II) all contact information for member of the family and permanency team, as well as contact information for other family members and fictive kin who are not part of the family and permanency team;

    (III) EVIDENCE THAT MEETINGS of the family and permanency team, including meetings relating to the assessment required under subparagraph (A), are held at a time and place convenient for family

    (IV) if reunification is the goal, EVIDENCE demonstrating that the parent from whom the child was removed provided input on the members of the family and permanency team;

    (V) EVIDENCE that the assessment required under subparagraph (A) is determined in conjunction with the family and permanency team; and

    “(VI) [EVIDENCE^] the placement preferences of the family and permanency team relative to the assessment and, if the placement preferences of the family and permanency team and child are not the placement setting recommended by the qualified individual conducting the assessment under subparagraph (A), the reasons why the preferences of the team and of the child were not recommended.

‘“(C) In the case of a child who the qualified individual conducting the assessment under subparagraph (A) determines should not be placed in a foster family home, the qualified individual shall specify in writing the REASONS WHY THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD CANNOT BE MET BY THE FAMILY OF THE CHILD

determinewhether the needs of the—child can be met with family members

Family System: Parent-Child Interaction andFamily FunctioningWhen results of the comprehensive familyassessment conclude that strengtheningfamily functioning and parent-child interactionwill promote protective factors andreduce risk factors for child maltreatment,multidimensional, family-based strategiesand interventions often are the best option.Interventions range from change strategiesdelivered by family preservation programs,which may be delivered by the worker or aprivate provider to target specific parent-childinteraction or relationships. Examples of bothtypes are included in tabl

The American Professional Society on theAbuse of Children (APSAC) suggests thatthese children and families deserve anapproach that is collaborative, respectful,and includes interventions that are most likelyto lead to outcomes on family-identifiedand programmatic goals. This individualizedapproach is a focused, assessment-driven, andscience-informed approach that both favorsplans

Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies That Compromise Decisions in Courtand in Therapy

Alienated adolescents’ stated preferences should domi-nate custody decisions.Practice recommendations.Custody evaluators and educativeexperts should be aware, and be prepared to inform the court, thatadolescents are suggestible, highly vulnerable to external influ-ence, and highly susceptible to immature judgments, and thus weshould not assume that their custodial preferences reflect matureand independent judgment. If an adolescent’s best interests wouldbe served by repairing a damaged relationship with a parent,evaluators’ recommendations and court decisions should reflectthe benefits of holding adolescents accountable for complying withappropriate authority. Although adolescents protest many of soci-ety’s rule and expectations, they will generally respond to reason-able limits when these are consistently and firmly enforced.8. Children who irrationally reject a parent but thrive inother respects need no intervention.Practice recommendations.Evaluators should be careful notto overlook an alienated child’s psychological impairments thatmay be less apparent than the child’s good adjustment in domainssuch as school and extracurricular activities. Evaluators can assistthe court’s proper disposition of a case by identifying the cogni-tive, emotional, and behavior problems that accompany irrationalaversion to a parent, as well as the potential long-term negativeconsequences of remaining alienated from a paren

an evaluation finds that a child is severely and irrationallyalienated from a parent, and that it is in the child’s best interests torepair the damaged relationship, the evaluator should exercisecaution about recommending a course of traditional psychotherapywhile the child remains apart from the rejected parent. Recom-mendations for therapy in such circumstances should include ad-vice to the court about imposing (a) a time frame after which theimpact of treatment will be assessed, (b) explicit criteria forevaluating progress and success of treatment, and (c) contingencyplans in the event that the treatment is ineffective. For instance, ifthe judge informs the parties that a failed course of therapy mayresult in an increase in the child’s time with the rejected parent orin a reversal of custody, this may help increase the child’s moti-vation to participate meaningfully in treatment and the favoredparent’s support for treatment

need not identify scholastic or social adjust-ment problems outside the family to be concerned about an alien-ated child’s psychological state. Harboring irrational

ome custody evaluators and decision makers oppose interven-tions for alienated children if the parent–child conflict is anexception to a child’s apparent good adjustment in other spheres,such as in school and with peers. These professionals believe thatchildren who are doing well in other aspects of life should beempowered to make decisions regarding contact with a parent.Professionals who advocate this position express concerns thatinterventions for resistant youth, such as court-ordered outpatienttherapy, may disrupt the children’s psychological stability, arelikely to prove unsuccessful, and will leave children feelin

Children Who Irrationally Reject a Parent ButThrive in Other Respects Need No Interventio

child.Courts cannot enforce orders for parent–child contactagainst an alienated teen’s wishes.A judge who understoodthat a 13-year-old’s decision to sever his relationship with hisfather reflected impaired judgment nevertheless acquiesced to theboy’s demands because, “He is now of an age where, even if hemay be too immature to appreciate what is best for him, he cannotbe physically forced to remain where he does not want to be”(Korwin v. Potworowski, 2006, ¶ 145). This judge is not alone.Other judges, child representatives, parenting coordinators, psy-chotherapists, and parents often report feeling stymied when ado-lescents refuse to cooperate with the court-ordered parenting timeschedule (DeJong & Davies, 2012;Johnston, Walters, & Fried-lander, 2001). These children can be so convincing about theirresolve to have their way with respect to avoiding a parent thatthey convince the court that they are beyond its authority. Theyinduce a sense of helplessness in judges.Adults need not feel helpless in the

Alienated Adolescents’ Stated Preferences ShouldDominate Custody Decision

CHILDRENIf you qualify for financial assistance, a lawyer may be assigned to you by the court when a petition is filed. If you are not assigned a lawyer and cannot afford one, the following organizations may be able to help: ƒThe Legal Service Corporation ("America's Partner for Equal Justice") may help you find a legal aid organization near you.ƒYour county or local department of assigned counsel may help you find a private attorney to represent you in court (serve as your lawyer). ƒA State or city LegalAid office may also be able to help you find an attorney who

The APA and the Mental Health Child Abuse ScandalMental Health is Commonly Complicit in Child AbuseThe American Psychological Association (APA) Should Revise Its Policy

To mental health professionals: As of October 1, 2015 you are on notice.  If you choose to remain ignorant, if you choose to remain incompetent, if you continue to collude with the pathology, and if through your ignorance and incompetence you continue to destroy the lives of children and families… look for me… because I’m coming for you.

The destruction of children’s lives needs to stop. The deep sorrow and tragedy inflicted on targeted parents needs to stop. The collusion of mental health professionals with the psychopathology of a narcissistic/borderline parent needs to stop. The psychological abuse of children by the pathology of a narcissistic/borderline parent needs to stop. All of it needs to stop. Today. Now

if you continue to destroy the lives of children and families because you steadfastly choose to maintain your ignorance and professional incompetence, despite reasonable efforts to educate you and guide you into professional competence, then I will become your worst nightmare.

If, however, you stand-up and do the right thing, then all of the theoretical formulations described in Foundations come to your aid. I’ve given you diagnostic checklists. I’ve specified the three definitive diagnostic indicators for you. I’ve specified the complete DSM-5 diagnosis for you when the three definitive diagnostic indicators are present. And I’ve given you a strong and integrated theoretical foundation to stand on. If you stand-up and do the right thing, you can stand on the solid bedrock of Foundations.

But you are not allowed to be ignorant and incompetent, and destroy the lives of children and families. Not allowed. Know what you’re doing and do the right thing

arents have the right to both expect and demand professional competence in the diagnosis and treatment of their children and families. That’s all we’re asking for.

the vitae of the mental health professional. Review this vitae for evidence of professional training and experience in personality disorder pathology, family systems pathology, and attachment pathology

Mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to abandon children to psychological child abuse

I am deadly serious on this. Mental health professionals are NOT ALLOWED to collude with psychopathology that destroys the lives of children.

the therapist only met with the child (and allied parent), and never met with the targeted parent to obtain relevant family history information from this parent’s perspective, then this may represent insufficient information to “substantiate” the diagnostic findings of the mental health professional, in possible violation of Standard 9.01.

Standard 2.01: Boundaries of Competence In cases of attachment-based “parental alienation” the potential violations likely center on Standard 2.01: Boundaries of Competence, in which the mental health professional failed to possess the necessary knowledge and professional competence in personality disorder pathology, family systems pathology, and attachment trauma pathology necessary to assess, diagnose, and treat the particular type of pathology being evidenced in your family

. I define these domains of professional competence in Chapter 11 of Foundations, specifically on pages 341-351. I did this for you. You can use the description of the required “Domains of Professional Competence” for the pathology of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” (i.e., attachment-trauma reenactment pathology mediated by narcissistic/borderline personality pathology) to establish the boundaries of professional competence required under Standard 2.01 (and 9.01) of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association.

I am sometimes asked by an attorney representing their client to provide expert testimony in an ongoing court case involving the pathology of attachment-based “parental alienation.”   These requests will typically ask that I provide my expert opinion from the perspective of clinical psychology, child and family therapy, and child development, regarding information provided to me, such as child custody evaluations and treatment progress reports from therapists.

Heitler agrees a support system is vital. Because targeted parents often experience severe symptoms of depression and anxiety as a result of feeling miscast, she is intentional about outlining the difference between warranted estrangement from children (based on prior abuse in the household) and being alienated (based on no factual forms of abuse in the household before separation) to help reality test a client under the spell of manipulation.

“What’s happening in outpatient reunification therapy is not only not helping [but] it’s making things far worse,” Baker stresses. “One major problem in general is that clinicians often let these cases go on and on with middle-of-the-road treatments without getting to the underlying cause. Many therapists let these cases go for years without saying, ‘Gee, I’m not really doing anything good here.’” “There’s this false belief that it’s impossible to tell what’s really going on,” she continues. But “it’s not impossible to tell if clinicians were trained specifically in this subspecialization.”

Bernet developed the five-factor model, which is an effective method to use when diagnosing parental alienation. This model includes five criteria for diagnosis: Contact refusal: Is the child refusing contact with a parent? Previous relationship: Did the child previously have a positive relationship with the rejected parent? Lack of abuse: Does the rejected parent show signs of being abusive or neglectful Alienating behaviors: Is the preferred parent engaging in alienating behaviors? Child symptoms: Is the child manifesting symptoms of alienation?

“Parental alienation leads to highly complicated and difficult cases that require far more knowledge and specialization,” notes Amy Baker, a psychologist and parental alienation expert who has written over 65 peer-reviewed articles on the matter. “In other words, even seasoned clinicians with experience in family systems are still, in a way, a novice when dealing with alienation. Humility would be the most important thing for clinicians to have in this regard.”

Family Therapy. Functional family therapy (FFT) is a family-based prevention and intervention program for high-risk youths ages 11–18. It concentrates on decreasing risk factors and increasing protective factors that directly affect adolescents who are at risk for delinquency, violence, substance use, or behavioral problems such as conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. FFT is conducted over 8–12, 1-hour sessions for mild cases; it includes up to 30 sessions of direct service for families in more difficult situations. Sessions generally occur over a 3-month period and can be held in clinical settings as an outpatient therapy model or as a home-based model. In one large-scale study on FFT, which was delivered by community-based therapists, Sexton and Turner (2010) found that when adherence to the FFT model was high, FFT resulted in a significant reduction in felony crimes and violent crimesand a nonsignificant decrease in misdemeanor crimes. In addition, a study by Celinska and colleagues (2013) foundthat FFT had a positive effect on youths in the areas of reducing risk behavior, increasing strengths, and improving functioning across key