Looking Beyond the Sorting Hat: Deconstructing the “Five Factor Model” of Alienation

Abstract

ABSTRACTOne of the most common dilemmas encountered in today’s family courts is the child who is strongly aligned with Parent A and rejects parent B. In the interest of supporting these children’s opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both of their caregivers, one can work to determine which parent is to blame or what combination of parent behavior, relationship dynamics, and practical circumstances result in this outcome. The Five Factor Model (FFM) does the former, promoting a stepwise approach to “diagnosing” parental alienation. This paper demonstrates that for all of its appeal, the FFM is deeply flawed and promotes a binary (good guy/bad guy) approach that readily exacerbates family tensions. We reject the FFM and advocate instead for a balanced conceptualization of the child’s larger relationship ecology. A rubric guiding this ecological approach (Garber, in press 2023) is recommended.Keywords: AlienationResist/Refuse DynamicsFive Factor ModelRubricEcological model Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The first author has often emphasized that the verb “diagnose” is associated with the medical model of individual pathology and therefore is misleading in this context. The relationship variables at issue are dynamics, not diagnoses, and can only be identified in systems (e.g., family) not within individuals.2 We acknowledge that the proponents of the FFM recognize that there is a larger copntext relevant to understanding resist/refuse dynamics, e.g., “There are several causes of contact refusal, and it is necessary to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the cause in a particular case is PA or some other issue within the child or the family” (Bernet and Greenhill, Citation2022, p. 591), However, the FFM is routinely promulgated (or at least misunderstood) as the singular recipe for identifying the cause of resist/refuse dynamics.3 Note that Baker originally promulgated a Four Factor Model (Baker, Citation2020b). She subsequently inserted the predicate resist/refuse behavioral condition as Factor 1, backing up the original four conditions into positions two through five to create today’s FFM. Note also a Canadian Court’s report that Baker described an alternative FFM as including “(1) evidence that the disfavored parent had an adequate relationship with the child prior to the current contact refusal; (2) evidence of absence of founded abuse or neglect on the part of a disfavored parent; (3) evidence that the favored parent engaged in intentional misrepresentation to professionals; (4) evidence that the favored parent engaged in behaviors consistent with alienation; and (5) evidence that the child exhibited behaviors consistent with alienation” (C.J.J. v. A.J., 2016 BCSC 676 §243; emphasis added).4 The simplicity and appeal of the FFM as evident for example in worksheet format (e.g., Evans, Citation2022) contradicts those proponents who argue that the identification of alienation requires “specialized” skills such as “pattern recognition,” “counterintuitive reasoning” and “backwards thinking” (Gottlieb, Citation2020a; Joshi, Citation2021).5 By analogy, marijuana use is now legal in many jurisdictions and remains illegal in others. The psychology of marijuana dependence remains the same regardless of the law.6 See also Wallerstein and Kelly (Citation1980), p. 262: “By definition, the core feature of alienated children is the extreme disproportion between the child’s perception and beliefs about the rejected parent and the actual history of the rejected parents’ behaviors and the parent – child relationship.”7 Referring to “ … children who are estranged as a cumulative result of observing repeated violence or explosive outbursts of a parent during the marriage or after separation, or who were themselves the target of violence and abusive behavior from this parent” (Kelly & Johnston, Citation2001, p. 253).8 Freed of the myopic binary view, an evaluator attuned to the child’s relationship ecology might consider whether the child has been adultified or parentified in relation to Parent A (e.g., Garber et al., Citation2022).9 This quote by an FFM advocate illustrates the binary nature of the model and the way that proponents attempt to rush to judgment.10 “I have cases where there is abuse and someone says, ‘forget it, get over it, its ancient history.’ But, a parent has been traumatized and those cases are very difficult to resolve” (Jaffe as quoted in Fidler et al., Citation2013, p. 31).11 We argue that all parents, as humans, have strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, to state that most alienated parents do not exhibit sub-par parenting behaviors, is not credible. All parents, at least at times, demonstrate sub-par parenting behaviors.12 Baker et al.’s (2016, p. 181) literature review of children in foster care does not find evidence for a universal bond continuing between children and their abusive biological parents: “ … almost all of the studies had at least some youth who expressed longing for their birth parents … ” (emphasis added).13 Citing to Martin v. Martin (Michigan Court of Appeals 349,261, 01.28.2020). The appeals court quoted the lower court as follows: “The Court concludes that [Mother] has engaged in conduct intended to alienate the children from their father, but the estrangement that [Father] has experienced can also be explained by his own language and conduct.” (see https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/coa/202118_c349261(65)_rptr_14o-349261-final-i.pdf).14 To be clear, Baker (Citation2018) studied the Four Factor Model. This inference regarding the relative unimportance of Factor 1 goes beyond her data since Factor 1 was not a part of the Four Factor Model.15 We note that alienation is not a diagnosis and remind the reader that substantial efforts were mounted by Bernet and his colleagues to have parental alienation included in the DSM-5 but it was not included (e.g., Bernet and Baker, Gottlieb, Citation2020a).16 Apparently participants who did not report that their mother tried to turn them against their father did experience some alienating behaviors, albeit fewer. Does this mean then that the presence or absence of supposedly parental alienating behaviors is less important than the frequency, magnitude, or duration of such behaviors?17 Gottlieb (Citation2020a) invokes “the stopping rule” as relevant to application of the FFM. This refers to the Bayesian statistical principle that dictates when an iterative or progressive process should be terminated. For example, stopping rules are often required in drug trials as a means of minimizing adverse outcomes. In the context of family litigation, Gottlieb asserts that once sufficient evidence of alienation has been obtained, the stopping rule applies and no further evidence need be considered. Given Baker and Eichler’s, (2016) findings, invoking “the stopping rule” upon determining that alienation is present leaves as much as 95% of the broader question unresolved.18 Accessed 08.15.2022 at https://www.ncjfcj.org/publications/afcc-and-ncjfcj-approve-statement-on-parent-child-contact-problems/19 “ … children might rather stay at one parent’s home not because they have an alignment toward that parent. but because their friends or significant other lives in the neighborhood. This is especially important for children who attempt to remove themselves from any ongoing parental conflict by spending more time with friends.” (Polak and Saini, Citation2015, p. 237).20 “The children’s temperaments impact the parenting dynamic. The children are not inanimate, stoic, or passive robots. They are maturing adolescents who interpret the world around them through the individual lens of their developmental stage, lived experience, and personality” KG v. HG, 2021 Nova Scotia Supreme Court 43 at item 69.21 Both dyadic domains (that is, the Parent A-child relationship discussed in 3 and the Parent B-child relationship discussed in 4 correspond to attachment security as discussed by Sroufe et al. (Citation2005) and as assessed by attachment measures in the general population when the child is between 18 and 48 months, noting that these otherwise very reliable and valid measures are not appropriate to this population or older children (Garber, Citation2009).22 Friedlander and Walters (Citation2010): “A child’s proclivity or affinity for a particular parent is a normal developmental phenomenon and can be related to temperament, gender, shared interests, identification with a parent’s physical and psychological attributes, the parenting style of a particular parent, and also attachment security with one parent.” We note further that when affiliation is active, the child may appear to be rejecting the non-affiliated parent.23 “A child may feel more emotionally connected with one parent than the other because they have similar interests (e.g., sports or art) or similar personality styles” (Drozd & Olesen Citation2004, p. 74).24 “Enmeshment -lack of proper boundary between a parent and the child – is simply one behavior of the alienation dynamic” (Joshi, Citation2016, p. 6). However: “Dr. Baker noted that enmeshment can occur without parental alienation being present, although it can be a possible indicator of alienation” (C.J.J. v. A.J., 2016 BCSC 676 at item 250)25 “The mother harbored strong persecutory delusions against her husband and his relatives. She accused her husband of frequently visiting her son in school, and abusing and torturing him physically … The child also harbored similar delusions and, in a separate interview, he too narrated the same story as his mother and showed the ‘scar marks’” (Suresh Kumar et al., Citation2005 p. 165.26 “[Mother] “ … told the oldest son that she was considering suicide if she lost custody of the two boys.” (Jordana v. Corley, 220 N.W.2d 515, North Dakota, 1974.27 “ … . [T]he child has had developmentally inappropriate difficulty separating from the parent … Often the child in these cases is highly attuned to the enmeshed parent’s neediness and dependence and assumes responsibility for protecting the parent. The child and parent are rarely aware of what is going on and believe that they share an excellent relationship” (Friedlander & Walters, Citation2010 p. 105.)28 Note that estrangement as operationalized in items 4(c) and (d) is a dyadic variable. That is, it emerges in the context of the Parent B-child relationship with no necessary contribution from Parent A. By contrast, alienation as discussed in 5 (f) and (g) is a systemic variable. That is, alienation requires consideration of the roles of both parents and the child.29 “Some rejected parents are rigid, controlling and somewhat harsh, and have a chronically distant parenting style; some are passive; others are immature or narcissistic and have difficulty being attuned to the child’s feelings and needs; while still others have problems managing their anger and disappointment” (Friedlander & Walters, Citation2010, p. 106).30 “The child who has rejected one parent no longer has to navigate the emotional minefield between the two parents and does not have to risk losing the one parent that they have come to believe they need the most, or the parent they feel needs them the most. The avoidant response is adaptive for the child as it achieves security and relative peace, albeit at the high price of losing a relationship with the rejected parent” (Friedlander & Walters, Citation2010, p. 101).