|
16/11/02
Divorce Related Malicious
Mother Syndrome
Dr Ira Daniel Turkat
Journal of Family Violence, Volume 10,
Number 3, p 253-264, 1995
With the increasing commonality of divorce
involving children, a pattern of abnormal behaviour has emerged that has
received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with
abundant clinical examples. Given the lack of scientific data available on the
disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear
ripe for investigation.
INTRODUCTION
A divorced man gains custody of his children
and his ex-wife burns down his home. A woman in a custody battle buys a cat for
her offspring because her divorcing husband is highly allergic to cats. A
mother forces her children to sleep in a car to "prove" their father
has bankrupted them. These actions illustrate a pattern of abnormal behavior
that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown.
Today, half of all marriages will end in
divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce
has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While
the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective,
outside the courtroom the battle continues.
The media has spent considerable effort
raising public awareness about the problem posed by divorced fathers who do not
provide court ordered child support payments. Hedges (1991) has noted that less
than 20% of divorced fathers provide child support payments three years after
their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following
divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed to recent
legislation to address the "Deadbeat Dad" problem.
While the media correctly portrays the
difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad"
phenomenon, the cameras have yet to capture the warfare waged by a select group
of mothers against child support paying, law abiding fathers. Every day,
attorneys and therapists are exposed to horror stories in which vicious
behaviors are lodged against innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately,
there are no scientific data on the subject. Similarly, the clinical literature
has relatively ignored the problem.
A notable exception can be found in the
clinical writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has provided excellent
descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Here, a custodial parent
successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the
non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes
"...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration
that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the
typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in
an array of abnormal actions against the rather. Gardner views
"brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to
capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against
his/her non-residential parent.
While Gardner's pioneering descriptions of
the Parental Alienation Syndrome provide an important contribution to our
understanding of divorce related child involved hostilities, the present paper
is concerned with a more global abnormality. As noted in the examples provided
in the beginning of this manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands take
place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions
include a willingness by some mothers to violate societal law. Finally, there
are mothers who persistently engage in malicious behaviors designed to alienate
their offspring from the father, despite being unable to successfully cause
alienation. In sum, these cases do not meet the criteria for Parental
Alienation Syndrome. Nevertheless, they portray a serious abnormality.
The purpose of the present paper is to define
and illustrate this more global abnormality with the hope of generating
increased scientific and clinical investigation of this problem.
DEFINITION
The present section provides a beginning
definition of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, which has been
derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is
anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the
taxonomic criteria. The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as
follows:
A mother who unjustifiably punishes her
divorcing or divorced husband by:
- Attempting to alienate their mutual
child(ren) from the father - Involving others in malicious actions against the
father - Engaging in excessive litigation
The mother specifically attempts to deny her
child(ren):
- Regular uninterrupted visitation with the
father - Uninhibited telephone access to the father - Paternal participation in
the child(ren)'s school life and extra-curricular activities
Tile pattern is pervasive and includes
malicious acts towards the husband including:
- Lying to the children - Lying to others -
Violations of law
The disorder is not specifically due to
another mental disorder although a separate mental disorder may co-exist.
CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
In this section, I will provide clinical
illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As
criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Malicious Mother Syndrome, I will
provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the
relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be
discussed more generally.
Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children
The range of actions taken by a mother to
attempt to alienate her children from their father is impressive. For example:
One mother lied to her children that she
could no longer buy food because their father had spent all of their money on
women at topless bars.
A doctor's wife forced her 10 year old son to
apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that his
"daddy has made us poor."
A woman who for years was very close to the
children in a custody battle, was asked by their mother to give up neutrality
and join her campaign against the father to "dance on his grave."
When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother falsely informed
her children that their father was having an affair with this woman.
These behaviors, if successful, could lead a
child to not only hate the father but perhaps go years without seeing him. As
Cartwright (1993) has noted: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to
deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of
childhood" (p.210).
Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious
Actions
The second component of the first major
criterion where the mother attempts to punish the husband, involves
manipulating other individuals to engage in malicious acts against the father.
Examples of this kind are as follows:
During a custody battle, a mother lied to a
therapist about the father's behaviour. The therapist, having never spoken with
the father, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that
the mother should be the primary residential parent and that the father needed
to be in therapy.
One angry mother manipulated teenagers to
leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex-husband's home.
A mother who had lost legal custody of her
child, manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping
the child.
In the above examples, it is important to
note that the person manipulated by the angry mother has, in a way, been
"alienated" against the divorcing husband. Typically, the individual
"duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding
climate for the mother initiating malicious actions.
Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation
There is little question that either party in
a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation
and action. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome, however, attempt to punish the divorcing husband by engaging in
excessive litigation.
A belligerent and unreasonable mother
verbally attacked her ex-husband whenever she saw him. Over time, his response
was to ignore her. She then took him to court, asking the judge to require the
ex-husband to talk with her.
One mother told a judge that her daughter was
not really her divorcing husband's child.
One woman refused to stop attacking her
ex-husband through the courts despite numerous attorneys being fired or
voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three year period, seven different
attorneys were utilized.
Data exist which can help in determining the
range of excessive litigation. For example, Keel et al. (1988) report on the
frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data
indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the
court, whereas less than 5% file two or more petitions (Keel at al. 1988); less
than 1% file four or more petitions.
Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation
Experts are in relative agreement that
regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is
desirable and beneficial for children, except in extreme circumstances (Hedges,
1991). In fact, some states, such as Florida, have laws written to reflect this
view (Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children have legal
rights to visitation, individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome continue to interfere with it.
A mother who previously attacked her
ex-husband physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to
provide the children when the ex-husband had the police attend to monitor
exchanges.
When one divorced father arrived to pick up
his children for visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be
elsewhere so that the father could not visit with the children.
One mother had her physically intimidating
boyfriend assault her ex-husband when he came to pick up his children for
visitation.
The President of The Council for Children's
Rights (Washington, D.C.) notes that such alienation is considered a form of
child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving
themselves in such situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father is
financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little
that can be done to prevent such mothers' behavior. Finally, even when such
cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in supporting
fathers' visitation rights (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System,
1992).
Criterion 2B: Denying Uninhibited Telephone
Access
Given the physical absence of one parent, the
telephone plays an important role in maintaining the bond between child and
non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious
Mother Syndrome engage in an array of actions designed to circumvent telephone
access.
A father called to speak to his children and
was told that they were not at home when in bet he could hear their voices in
the background.
When one father called to speak with his
children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then
left him there.
Knowing that the children's father was away
on vacation, one mother encouraged them to leave several messages on his
answering machine to call back immediately only if he would like some
additional visitation time with his children.
Some fathers find the alienation attempts so
painful and fruitless that they eventually are extinguished from calling their
children; they simply "give up." Placed in a no-win scenario, the
father's "abandonment" (Hedges, 1991) unfortunately achieves the
precise result aimed for by the individual suffering from Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome.
Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in
Extra-Curricular Activities
An integral part of the process of
maintaining one's bond with one's child is to participate in activities that
one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious
events are just some of the types of activities of importance. Malicious
Mothers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to prevent participation in
these activities.
One father was deliberately given the wrong
date and time for an important event for the child. The child was asked by the
mother, "I wonder why your father didn't want to come to see you
today"?
One mother refused to provide the father with
any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children
were engaged.
Prior to a child's soccer game, one mother
told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the visiting lather.
When he came to watch his son's soccer game, many of these parents looked at
him with angry eyes, refused to talk with him, and walked away when he moved
toward them.
Malicious Mothers who engage in such
behaviors rarely have to face penalties for such actions. Judges, attorneys,
and policemen cannot involve themselves in every instance of blocked paternal
access. Furthermore, most fathers cannot afford the financial requirements
involved. As such, the cycle of access interference perpetuates itself.
Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children
Given their developmental status, children in
a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to
attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of malicious
behavior may include some of the following.
One divorcing mother told her very young
daughter that her father was "not really" her father even though he
was.
An eight year old girl was forced by her
mother to hand unpaid bills to her lather when he visited because the mother
had falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any economic
means of support to the family.
One mother falsely told her children that
their father had repeatedly beat her up in the past.
These examples of malicious lying can be
contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen in Parental Alienation
Syndrome, such as "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, the
mother setting up a Parental Alienation Syndrome may hint that abuse may have
occurred, whereas the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious
Mother Syndrome falsely claims that abuse has actually occurred.
Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others
Individuals suffering from Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their
attacks upon the ex-husband. However, with this particular criterion, the
individual with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to
other individuals in the belligerency against the father. Some examples include
the following.
One furious mother called the president of
the (1500 employee) workplace of her divorcing husband, claiming falsely that
he was using business property for personal gain and was abusing their mutual
children at his work locale.
One woman falsely told slate officials that
her ex-husband was sexually abusing their daughter. The child was immediately
taken away from him and his access to her was denied.
During the course of a custody dispute, one
mother falsely informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting
skills of each parent, that the father had physically abused her.
Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty
imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent
liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to
detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a
compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in
borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia
Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder.
Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the
Husband
Individuals suffering from Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome have few if any boundaries in their campaign against
the divorcing husband. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the
laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of
law may be quite serious.
One woman deliberately drove her automobile
into the house of her ex-husband where their mutual children resided.
In the midst of a custody battle, one woman
broke into the residence of her divorcing husband and stole important business
papers.
An angry divorcing mother called a Christian
evangelical television station and pledged $1000, giving the name, address, and
phone number of her divorcing Jewish husband as the pledgee.
The above descriptions may remind the reader
of certain personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic) but
these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic
criteria for an Axis II disorder. Further, in each of the four examples
provided above, none of the Malicious Mothers involved was sentenced for such
behavior by a Judge.
Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder
In assessing the Divorce Related Malicious
Mother Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical
examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder
diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one mother who engaged in extreme
maliciousness toward her divorcing husband had several mental health
professionals testify that she was not suffering from any type of mental
disorder. Clearly, it would seem that individuals who have Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome may or may not have a concomitant mental disorder.
In the author's experience, for each mental
disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an
exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases an Adjustment Disorder
might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one woman still denied her ex-husband
visitation 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility
of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one woman who repeatedly violated the
law in attacking her ex-husband, received no personality disorder diagnosis
despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some
instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger
for many of the mothers does not appear to be intermittent.
Finally, the reader should appreciate that
while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good
as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the
problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners
sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turkat, 195)3). Clearly, the
relationship between Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome and other mental
disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation.
DISCUSSION
The above description of the Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal, and
scientific issues.
From a clinical perspective, families that
involve a Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome are subject to serious
episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to
treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of
these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that
there is anything wrong with them.
An additional difficulty is that many
therapists are unaware of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz,
1993). As such, there are therapists who are "fooled" by such cases
and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing
wrong with the mother involved.
From a legal perspective, there are some
attorneys who may unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner,
1989). On the other hand, there are some attorneys who deliberately encourage
such behavior, as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other
words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for
the attorney (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of
attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns.
Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved
with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well
(Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).
The woman who is not disturbed
"enough" to lose custody of her children in the courtroom will not
have money denied to her because she engages in this behavior; nor will she go
to jail. Thus, many clients report significant frustration when they and their
children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little
if anything about.
In a review of pertinent law literature on
bias against men in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that
there is widespread discrimination. This is well illustrated by one family law
Judge's statement that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls,
they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas"
(Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992 p. 742). Similarly, it
is noted that visitation rights of fathers are not enforced as rigidly as are
child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).
Such bias against men in family law proceedings results in a unique group of
fathers who unintentionally become relatively helpless victims of the system (Tillitski,
1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior
displayed by women suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The issue of sex distribution of the disorder
certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents
are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner
(1989) has noted that Parental Alienation Syndrome appears most commonly in
females, although it is possible for a male who has custody of the children to
engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with
Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is similar to Gardner's. However, the
present writer has yet to see a case of a father engaging in all of the
criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a
"Malicious Father" Syndrome. In fact, Shepard (1992) reports that
there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential
fathers. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are females who are
required to pay chiltl support, but we have yet to heara about "Deadbeat
Moms." Given at the present time that a case in which the father met all
of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syntlrome has yet to be
documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues
of nosologic labeling.
How prevalent is the Divorce Related
Malicious Mother Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that
approximately 90% of all custody battles involve some aspects of parental
alienation. Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data indicating that up to 40% of
maternal custodians denied visitation to the ex-husband in order to punish him.
Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50% of a sample of divorced fathers (N
= 125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. While
aspects of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a
percentage of maternal custodians would meet all of the criteria for Divorce
Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
In regard to incidence, it would appear
through the title of this syndrome that the malicious behavior is precipitated
by the divorce process.
However, this is clearly an empirical
question. While the malicious actions may first be noted during a divorce
process, it is possible that maliciousness may have been present earlier but
undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 1986)
supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases
of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress
of the divorce itself unfolds.
Finally, it should be noted that research on
the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data
exist on the role of parental conflict in children's postdivorce functioning
(e.g., Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and
Stewart, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but studies have yet to appear on the more extreme
cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce Related Malicious Mother
Syndrome.
The Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome
represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children,
parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals, and others.
Until this phenomenon is explored more thoroughly in the scientific and
clinical literature, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce
Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the
present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal
management guidelines can be developed.
|
