It’s a tale as old as time. Parents disparage each other in hopes of garnering favor with their child during a divorce or custody dispute after divorce. At some point the child, having been so exposed to the bashing, blame and ill will from one parent toward the other, becomes disenchanted with the targeted parent. The relationship begins to break down; sometimes, irreparably.

Parental alienation seems to have taken on “buzz word” status in recent years, used offensively even in cases where there may be a legitimate concern for the child’s safety and well-being. This misuse and abuse of the term has led judges to become increasingly jaded with the concept which, when overlooked in legitimate cases, could lead to disastrous outcomes for those who are truly targeted by a poor actor in a divorce litigation.

Cases of true alienation are injurious to all involved. University of Texas psychologist Richard Warshak, author of “Divorce Poison: Protecting the Parent-Child Bond From a Vindictive Ex,” explains that children typically reject the emotionally healthier parent, whereas the alienating parent believes it acceptable to use the child as a form of punishment for the other parent. Warshak characterized parental alienation as a form of abuse toward both parent and child.

Preeminent expert in the field Linda Gottlieb, LCSW, has described alienation as a form of brainwashing, akin to cult-like behaviors. Children adopt a trance-like state of allegiance to the offending parent, and believe everything the targeted parent does is evil or wrong. A child’s adoption of this binary, black-and-white thinking is a telltale sign of alienation.

Still, the American Psychiatric Association has not gone so far as to characterize parental alienation syndrome as a mental illness in the DSM-5 (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, fifth edition). However, as practitioners, we can all tell you that we know it when we see it. Parental alienation exists and has true consequences for affected families even in the absence of a formal diagnosis.

Considering the grave effects of parental alienation on both parent and child, aggressive steps to try to restore the parent-child bond are necessary if a targeted parent has any hopes of repairing their damaged relationship.

Sometimes, this will mean reunification therapy for the child and targeted parent, perhaps beginning once a week, and then gradually increasing. The therapist may ultimately place the child and parent in a “real-life” situation, like having the therapy occur in a restaurant, or at the park. Eventually, the parent may have parenting time alone with the child for an increasing amount of time as the relationship progresses.

For more extreme cases of alienation, where the child is completely past the point of even being open to conventional reunification therapy, the court may order an intensive, immersion therapy program such as Turning Points for Families which is an intensive therapeutic reunification intervention for families impacted by separation resulting from high-conflict divorce and parental alienation.

There, the families essentially move out of their homes and stay at a site for intensive therapy, immersing themselves in activities together. The goal is to create new memories and reestablish existing bonds and attachments in hopes of repairing the relationship. Each family leaves with a treatment plan for further reunification.

The most extreme cases, however, may warrant a complete overhaul of the custody arrangement. Experts such as Gottlieb recommend that courts order a separation from the alienating parent to allow a manipulated child time to bond with the targeted parent without contrary influence. Judges may award primary custody of the child to the alienated parent in an effort to extract the child from a toxic situation and reestablish the bond with the other parent.

In the 2012 case of Milne v. Goldenberg, the New Jersey Appellate Division reaffirmed the necessity of trial court judges to consider removing a child from the custody of the uncooperative parent and/or imposing temporary or permanent modification of custody. The decision reinforced the holding of New Jersey courts that interference with an ex-spouse’s parenting rights is so inimical to the welfare of the child that judges should transfer custody when the non-compliance puts parent/child relationships at risk:

“[T]he necessity for at least minimal parental cooperation in a joint custody arrangement presents a thorny problem of judicial enforcement in a case such as the present one, wherein despite the trial court’s determination that joint custody is in the best interests of the child, one parent (here, the mother) nevertheless contends that cooperation is impossible and refuses to abide by the decree … However, when the actions of such a parent deprive the child of the kind of relationship with the other parent that is deemed to be in the child’s best interests, removing the child from the custody of the uncooperative parent may well be appropriate as a remedy of last resort.”

The Milne court reinforces that the Rules of Court provide for a change of custody as a remedy for recalcitrant parents. R. 5:3-7(a)(6) explains that remedies for violations of custody and parenting time orders include “temporary or permanent modification of the custodial arrangement provided such relief is in the best interest of the children.”

Turning custody on its head, although seemingly an effective remedy, may prove difficult to swallow for some judges. Even if the court finds alienation has occurred, it may be almost impossible to override the child’s wishes, who, by the time the court is involved, may be a preteen absolutely refusing to have any relationship with the alienated parent.

According to the Psychology Today article “House Divided: Hate Thy Father” by Mark Teich, it will take a “sophisticated judge to realize what psychologists might see as obvious: Deep down, the child has never really stopped loving the other parent. He or she has just been brainwashed like a prisoner of war or a cult victim, programmed to accept destructive beliefs until critical thinking can be restored.” The same sophistication is required when a judge is asked to identify whether a parent accused of alienation is merely attempting to protect his or her child from actual abuse by the other parent.

As it stands right now, alienation can be repaired, but it requires judges to differentiate real alienation from legitimate concerns about abuse or neglect; order parents to intensive therapy programs and ensure that resulting treatment plans are complied with; and most importantly, overlook the supposed desires of an alienated child to see that he or she has never stopped loving their parent, but has just been brainwashed to accept untrue and very destructive beliefs. By understanding and swiftly addressing the complexities of parental alienation, courts can help protect children and ensure their well-being.

Eliana T. Baer is a partner in the family law practice group of Fox Rothschild LLP, representing clients statewide in divorce, asset distribution, support, custody, domestic violence, premarital agreements, and appellate practice. Eliana is a member of the boards of the Jewish Bar Association and the Family Law Executive Committee. Eliana has been selected to the Best Lawyers in America (2024-25), JD Supra’s Readers Choice Award for Family Law (2024), Super Lawyers – Rising Stars (2014-2024), New Leaders to the Bar by the New Jersey Law Journal (2018), “Top 10 Under 40” list by the National Academy of Family Law Attorneys (2017), and “Trailblazers” list in Divorce Law (2016)*. Eliana appears in both civil and rabbinical court. You can reach Eliana at (609) 895-3344, or [email protected].

 *Award methodology available at https://www.foxrothschild.com/eliana-baer/honors-awards.