CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, VOL. 14. NO. 8, pp. 737-742, 1994

        CHILD VISITATION INTERFERENCE IN DIVORCE

        IRA DANIEL TURKAT, PH.D.

        Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of

        Medicine

 

        ABSTRACT. Divorce related child visitation interference is a national

        problem, affecting six million children. Such interference may be acute or

        may represent chronic disorders, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome and

        Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. In certain cases, visitation

        interference is accompanied by vicious behaviors toward the noncustodial

        parent, including violence and violations of law. The present paper

        describes the problem of child visitation interference, associated clinical

        syndromes, and attributes of the legal system that perpetuate the problem.

        Absence of scientific research devalues psychological input to the

        courtroom. It is hoped that the present paper will contribute to the

        development of a body of scientific literature in this area.

        In recent years, the divorce rate has been similar to the rate of new

        marriages. Approximately one million divorces occur each year in the United

        States alone. The children involved in marital dissolution are commonly

        acknowledged as a vulnerable group (Hetherington & Arasteh, 1988). As

        parents often fight over custody and visitation, the demands placed on

        these children increase significantly.

        To aid in the decision regarding custody and visitation, each state has

        developed guidelines for legal proceedings. Generally, these guidelines

        reflect the best interest of the child principle (Keane, 1990). It is

        assumed that frequent visitation with the noncustodial parent is an

        important right to both parent and offspring (Hodges, 1991). The

        overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female.

        Unfortunately, the desire for ongoing and liberal visitation between child

        and nonresidential parent has frequently not kept pace with actual

        practices. The Children's Rights Council (1994) estimates that six million

        children in the United States have their visitation interfered with by the

        custodial parents. Two surveys support the range of this problem. Arditti

        (1992) reports that approximately 50% of divorced fathers relate that their

        ex-wife has interfered with visitation with their offspring. Similarly,

        approximately 40% of custodial mothers admit denying their ex-husband

        visitation in order to punish him (Kressel, 1985). In some cases,

        visitation interference has been associated with malicious unlawful acts

        against the father of such children (Turkat, in press). On rare occasions,

        a parent may actually kidnap the child.

        The problem of child visitation interference has yet to be adequately

        addressed in the national media. Relatedly, there is an absence of research

        on the nature of child visitation interference, its etiology, or treatment.

        The purpose of the present paper is to raise awareness of the child

        visitation interference problem among psychologists. The first part of this

        article will describe some of the common types of child visitation

        interference situations that exist. The second part of the manuscript will

        discuss associated difficulties in handling this problem in the legal

        system.

 

                                    TYPES OF VISITATION INTERFERENCE

 

        Before discussing specific types of visitation interference, it is

        important first to describe "noninterference." Here, a child's patents

        divorce but the child is not estranged from either parent. The residential

        parent (typically the mother) encourages the child and the nonresidential

        parent to interact frequently and to be fully involved in each other's

        lives. The noninterference situation usually involves joint custody, which

        functionally results in joint decision-making by the parents in regard to

        their offspring. The child visits frequently with the nonresidential

        parent, speaks on the phone with the parent whenever needed or desired, and

        enjoys the benefit of that parent's involvement in school, extracurricular,

        religious, and other activities. State laws, reflecting the best interest

        of the child principle envision the noninterference situation in divorce

        involving children.

        Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that millions of

        children and parents are suffering from the problem of child visitation

        interference. From the clinical and legal literature, there appear to be at

        least three types of situations related to child visitation interference:

        (1) acute interference; (2) Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner, 1987);

        and (3) Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome (Turkat in press).

 

                                               ACUTE INTERFERENCE

 

        The custodial parent who engages in acute interference has no systematic or

        devious plan for ongoing disruption of the relationship between child and

        nonresidential parent. Rather, the custodial parent intermittently or

        transiently denies visitation either through direct action (e.g., informing

        the nonresidential parent that his or her visitation is being denied) or

        passively (e.g., the nonresidential parent arrives to meet with his or her

        child and neither the custodial parent or the child are at home). Such

        instances of child visitation interference are typically associated with

        anger at the nonresidential parent for some matter (e.g. lack of payment of

        child support), poor advice by a friend, or other reasons (e.g. abusive

        behavior by the father toward the custodial mother -- see Shepard, 1992).

 

                                      PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

 

        In certain cases, child visitation interference is a direct result of a

        custodial parent suffering from a Parental Alienation Syndrome (Gardner,

        1987, 1989). Here, the custodial parent engages in a variety of direct and

        indirect methods designed to alienate the child from his or her

        nonresidential parent. The result is that the child becomes preoccupied

        with unjustified criticism and hatred of the nonresidential parent.

        Gardner (1989) has outlined four factors that he believes contributes to

        the development of Parental Alienation Syndrome. These include: (1)

        brainwashing, (2) subtle and unconscious parental programming, (3) factors

        arising within the child, and (4) situational factors.

        Gardner (1989) uses the term brainwashing to refer to "...conscious acts of

        programming the child against the other parent" (p. 233). Examples include

        accusing the father of being an "adulterer" and "abandoner." Typically, the

        father is unjustifiably accused of providing too little money, sometimes to

        the point that the mother misleads her children to believe that terrible

        things will happen to them. When the father leaves the home, the mother may

        make statements such as, "your father has abandoned us," to teach the child

        that the rejection extends not only to the mother but to the offspring.

        Minor negative attributes of the father are exaggerated greatly. For

        example, the father who occasionally has an afterdinner drink is described

        as an alcoholic. Sarcastic comments are common, including statements to the

        child such as, "your wonderful generous father is finally going to spend a

        few dollars and take you to the movies!"

        More subtle attempts to program the child against the nonresidential parent

        include comments such as, "there are things I could say about your father

        that would make your hair stand on end, but I'm not the kind of person who

        criticizes a parent to his children" (Gardner, 1989, p. 239). Clearly,

        statements such as this create much negative emotion in the child. In

        regard to visitation, the child in such a home becomes astutely aware of

        the mother's desire for the child to hate the father. To gain her

        acceptance, the child makes statements suggesting uncertainty or lack of

        desire to visit with the nonresidential parent. The mother suffering from

        Parental Alienation Syndrome may act in a "neutral" manner by communicating

        to the child that it is the child's decision whether or not to visit with

        the nonresidential parent. This "neutrality maneuver" helps to further

        alienate the father from his offspring by passively discouraging

        visitation; the child knows not to express desire to visit the "hated"

        parent.

        Engendering guilt in the offspring is another common maneuver. A child who

        desires visitation with the father might be told, "how can you leave your

        poor old mother!" (Gardner, 1989, p. 241).

        In regard to factors arising within the child, Gardner notes that the

        child's predivorce psychological bond with the residential parent is

        typically stronger than that with the nonresidential parent. Fearing

        potential abandonment from the residential parent, the child is more prone

        to join the mother in the parental alienation attempt. Gardner also

        believes that psychodynamic factors such as reaction formation and oedipal

        attributes sometimes are contributing factors to the development of

        alienation.

        Finally, a variety of situational factors contribute to the development of

        the syndrome as well. For example, a child who views a sibling being

        punished for having expressed positive feelings towards the father will

        learn quickly not to express such feelings openly. A child who observes the

        mother verbally abuse the father may declare emotional preference for the

        mother for self-protection purposes.

        Gardner notes that the Parental Alienation Syndrome varies in degree from

        case to case. While the overwhelming majority of adult cases are female, he

        believes that 90% of all custody battles reveal some aspects of the

        Parental Alienation Syndrome.

 

                          DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME

 

        Some cases of chronic visitation interference go beyond attempts at

        alienating a child from a parent. Turkat (in press) has reported on cases

        where the divorcing wife has attempted to get her divorcing or divorced

        husband fired from work, investigated for (falsely alleged) sexual abuse,

        publicly ridiculed, or physically harmed. From a variety of clinical and

        legal cases, Turkat (in press) has identified the Divorce related Malicious

        Mother Syndrome. The specific criteria for this disorder can be seen in

        Figure 1.

        The disorder is characterized by the mother: (1) attempting to

        unjustifiably punish her divorcing husband; (2) interfering with the

        father's visitation and access to the child; and (3) engaging in a variety

        of malicious acts towards the husband, including lying and violations of

        law.

        Turkat (in press) provides some dramatic examples of the kind of behavior

        engaged in by individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother

        Syndrome: burning down the house of the ex-husband; falsely accusing the

        father of sexual abuse; manipulating mental health professionals to testify

        in court that the divorcing husband is in need of therapy (even when the

        mental health professional has never met the father); manipulating a

        secretary at a school to participate in kidnapping the child; informing her

        offspring that their father is not really their father; telling the

        father's boss, at his work location, that the father has abused his

        children; breaking into the residence of her divorcing husband and stealing

        important papers; and one woman who intentionally drove her car into the

        house of her divorced husband.

        Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is a serious disorder. Turkat (in

        press) has noted that such individuals rarely see themselves as having a

        problem, are adept at manipulating others in the campaign against the

        father, and are skilled fabricators. The classification, etiology, and

        treatment of such cases is unknown.

 

 

                 FIGURE 1. Diagnostic criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother

           Syndrome. (Adapted from Turkat, in press, with permission of the publisher,

                                          Plenum Publishing, New York.)

 

 

        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 extracurricular

        activities

 

 

        The 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 coexist.

 

 

 

                        VISITATION INTERFERENCE AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

 

        The reader unfamiliar with divorce and custody proceedings may be perplexed

        as to why behaviors such as the ones cited above are permitted.

        Technically, they are not permitted. However, from a practical perspective,

        there is little that can be done to prevent such actions.

        The legal system has a variety of attributes that unfortunately help to

        perpetuate child visitation interference by a parent who is dedicated to

        such interference. For example, most judges will demonstrate significant

        patience and "bend over backwards" to allow each side to adequately present

        the case at it's own pace. Unfortunately, the benefit of giving everyone

        his/her "day in court" slows the process considerably. Attorneys who wish

        to stall, postpone, or delay hearings have little difficulty doing so in

        most cares. Often, these are deliberate tactics utilized in a custody

        battle. Thus, a parent who might be charged with visitation interference

        may not have to appear before the judge on the issue for months after the

        fact.

        An additional complicating factor is the expense. Attorney fees can run as

        high as $300 per hour or more. Few individuals can afford repeated

        appearances in court as the bills mount exorbitantly. This proves

        especially straining to a family that must now divide it's income and

        assets into two separate households.

        A further complicating factor is that the court system can be powerfully

        manipulated by a good liar (Snyder, 1986). Research shows that detection of

        fabrication is generally poor (Ekman & O'Sullivan, 1991), and this provides

        an additional problem when it comes to child visitation interference. For

        example, a father who accuses the other parent of interfering with

        visitation may find that the other parent not only denies such interference

        but accuses the nonresidential parent of not appearing at designated

        visitation times. As there are typically no witnesses, the court is left in

        a quandary. Relatedly, a parent who has continually interfered with

        visitation may state in the courtroom that he or she will comply with the

        nonresidential parent's visitation request. Immediately following the

        hearing, the custodial parent returns to the visitation interference

        pattern, knowing that months may go by before a return to court.

        An additional difficulty is that there is often a lack of potent

        consequences for custodial parents who engage in child visitation

        interference. A mother who interferes with visitation typically will be

        warned by the judge that she will be held in contempt of court.

        Unfortunately, this does not really amount to much more than merely

        "slapping her wrists." Rarely are custodial parents who interfere with

        child visitation imprisoned, penalized financially, or forced to lose

        primary residential custody of the children. As such, many parents who are

        aware of the court's ineffectiveness take full advantage. It should be

        noted that the judicial system is well aware of its own inadequacies in

        this area (see the Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).

        In recent years, the courts have facilitated growth of mediation either by

        mental health professionals or by attorneys as an alternative to the

        adversarial process of the courtroom. Unfortunately, it only takes one

        unreasonable or uncooperative parent to sabotage the mediation effort. The

        parent who utters words of cooperation and then violates these words by

        actions outside of the mediation room frustrates the process.

        Finally, when mental health experts are asked to provide input to the court

        on visitation matters, the absence of sound scientific research findings

        hampers the contributions that such experts can make. Accordingly, judges

        often receive widely varying opinions which sometimes serves to depreciate

        the value of mental health input in the courtroom. At times, the mental

        health "expert" is in fact, incompetent (Turkat, 1993).

 

                                                      CONCLUSION

 

        Each year millions of children are denied visitation with their

        nonresidential parent. Little is known about the nature of such

        interference, the causes of such interference, or how to treat such

        interference. Until this issue becomes the focus of scientific research, it

        would appear that psychologist input into the courtroom is significantly

        compromised. Given that millions of individuals are suffering, it behooves

        the profession to begin to address this important and perplexing problem.

 

                                                     REFERENCES

 

        Arditti, J. A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation, and child

        support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Divorce

        and Remarriage, 17, 23-42.

        Children's Rights Council. (1994). Annual convention brochure. Washington,

        DC: Author.

        Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and

        justice in the courts: A report to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia

        State University Law Review, 8, 539-807.

        Ekman. P, & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar! American

        Psychologist, 46, 913-920.

        Gardner, R. A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the

        differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Creskill,

        NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

        Gardner, R. A. (1989). Family evaluation in child custody mediations,

        arbitration and litigation. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

        Hetherington, E. M., & Arasteh, J. D. (Eds.) (1988). Impact of divorce,

        single parenting and step-parenting on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

        Erlbaum.

        Hodges, W. F. (1991). Interventions for children of divorce (2nd. ed.) New

        York: John Wiley.

        Keane, G. (1990). Florida divorce handbook. Sarasota, FL: Pineapple Press.

        Kressel, K. (1985). The process of divorce. New York: Basic Books.

        Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare, 71,

        357-367.

        Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient.

        American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1287-1289.

        Turkat, I. D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert's custody report

        . American Journal of Family Law, 7, 175-179.

        Turkat, I. D. (in press). Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.

        Journal of Family Violence.

 

 

          Correspondence should be addressed to Ira Daniel Turkat, PhD, Florida

          Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine,

          1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, FL 34285.