With the increasing prevalence of divorce involving children, an abnormal pattern of behavior has emerged that has received little attention. The Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is defined in this paper. Specific nosologic criteria are supported by numerous clinical examples. Given the scarcity of scientific data on the disorder, questions about classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear to be ripe for investigation.
INTRODUCTION
When a divorced man obtains custody of his children, his ex-wife burns down his house. Because her divorcing husband is allergic to cats, a woman in a custody battle purchases a cat for her children. A mother makes her children sleep in a car in order to “prove” that their father has bankrupted them. These actions demonstrate a pattern of abnormal behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate with children has increased.
Nowadays, half of all marriages end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has also increased significantly (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988). While the majority of such cases are “settled” legally, the battle continues outside the courtroom.
The media has worked hard to raise public awareness about the issue of divorced fathers who do not pay court-ordered child support payments. According to Hedges (1991), less than 20% of divorced fathers pay child support three years after their divorce. Recent legislation to address the “Deadbeat Dad” problem has been influenced by research on the decline of women’s economic status following divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988).
While the media accurately portrays the difficulties that the “Deadbeat Dad” phenomenon imposes on women and children, 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 witness horror stories in which vicious behavior is directed at innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately, no scientific data exists on the subject. Similarly, the problem has received little attention in the clinical literature.
Gardner’s (1987, 1989) clinical writings are notable exceptions, as they provide excellent descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. A custodial parent successfully uses a variety of tactics to alienate the child from the non-residential parent in this case. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes “…preoccupied with denigration and criticism of a parent—unjustified and/or exaggerated denigration” (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In most cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in a variety of abnormal behaviors toward the father. Gardner considers “brainwashing” to be a “too narrow” concept to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his or her non-residential parent (Gardner, 1989).
While Gardner’s pioneering descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome contribute significantly to our understanding of divorce-related child-involved hostility, the current paper is concerned with a more general abnormality. As shown in the examples at the beginning of this manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands occur that go beyond simply manipulating the children. Furthermore, some mothers are willing to break societal law as part of their actions. Finally, there are mothers who, despite being unable to successfully cause alienation, engage in malicious behaviors designed to alienate their children from their father. In conclusion, these cases do not fit the definition of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Nonetheless, they depict a serious abnormality.
The goal of this paper is to define and illustrate this more general abnormality in the hopes of spurring more scientific and clinical research into this issue.
DEFINITION
This section provides a preliminary definition of Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome based on clinical and legal cases. Future research, as with all initial proposals, is expected to lead to greater refinement of the taxonomic criteria.
The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows:
1. A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by:
a. Attempting to alienate their mutual children from the father
b. Involving others in malicious actions against the father
c. Engaging in excessive litigation
2. The mother specifically attempts to deny her child(ren)
a. Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father
b. Uninhibited telephone access to the father
c. Paternal participation in the child(ren)’s school life and extracurricular activities
3. The pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including:
a. Lying to the children
b. Lying to others
c. Violations of law
4. The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder, although a separate-mental disorder may co-exist.
Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children
A mother’s range of actions to try to alienate her children from their father is impressive. As an example:
One mother told her children she couldn’t buy food because their father had spent all of their money on topless women in bars.
To convince her 10-year-old son that his “daddy has made us poor,” a doctor’s wife forced him to apply for federally funded free school lunches.
In a custody battle, a woman who had been very close to the children for years was asked by their mother to abandon neutrality and join her campaign against the father to “dance on his grave.” When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother lied to her children, telling them that their father was having an affair with this woman.
If these behaviors are successful, a child may not only despise his father, but may also go years without seeing him. “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,” writes Cartwright (1993). (p.210).
Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious Actions
The mother attempts to punish the husband by manipulating other people to commit malicious acts against the father in the second component of the first major criterion. Examples of this type include the following:
A mother lied to a therapist about the father’s behavior during a custody battle. The therapist, who had never met the father, testified as a “expert” witness to the Judge, advising him that the mother should be the primary residential parent and that the father should be in therapy.
One enraged mother duped teenagers into leaving anonymous threatening notes at her ex-house. husband’s
A mother who had lost legal custody of her children persuaded a secretary at the child’s school to help her kidnap the child.
It is important to note in the preceding examples that the person manipulated by the angry mother has been “alienated” from the divorcing husband. Typically, the “duped” individual takes on righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding environment for the mother who initiates malicious actions.
Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation
There is no doubt that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding has the right to adequate legal representation and action.
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, on the other hand, seek to punish the divorcing husband through excessive litigation.
When she saw her ex-husband, a belligerent and unreasonable mother verbally attacked him. His response evolved into ignoring her. She then took him to court, requesting that the judge order the ex-husband to meet with her.
One mother told a judge that her daughter was not the child of her divorced husband.
Despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case, one woman refused to stop attacking her ex-husband through the courts. Seven different attorneys were used over a three-year period.
There is data available to assist in determining the range of excessive litigation. Koel et al. (1988), for example, report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. According to their data, only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, while less than 5% file two or more petitions (Koel et al. 1988); and less than 1% file four or more petitions.
Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation
Except in extreme cases, experts agree that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is desirable and beneficial for children (Hodges, 1991). In fact, some states, such as Florida, have enacted legislation to reflect this viewpoint (Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children have legal visitation rights, people suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome continue to interfere.
A mother who had previously physically assaulted her ex-husband during child visitation transfers refused to provide for the children when the ex-husband had the police present to monitor exchanges.
When a divorced father arrived to pick up his children for visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be somewhere else so that the father could not see them.
When her ex-husband arrived to pick up his children for visitation, one mother’s physically intimidating boyfriend assaulted him.
According to the President of the Council for Children’s Rights (Washington, DC), such alienation is considered a form of child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police usually avoid getting involved in such situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father can afford to return to court on a regular basis, little can be done to prevent such a mother’s behavior. Finally, even when such cases are tried, the courts are frequently insufficient in defending fathers’ visitation rights. 1992 Commission on Gender Bias in the Judiciary
Given one parent’s physical absence, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the child’s bond with the non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome engage in a variety of activities aimed at avoiding phone access.
When a father called to speak with his children, he was told they were not at home, despite the fact that he could hear their voices in the background.
When one father called to speak with his children, his mother placed him on “hold,” informed no one, and then placed him on hold again.
Knowing that the children’s father was away on vacation, one mother advised them to leave several messages on his answering machine, asking him to call back immediately only if he wanted more visitation time with his children.
Some fathers find the alienation attempts so painful and futile that they stop calling their children altogether; they simply “give up.” In a no-win situation, the father’s “abandonment” (Hodges, 1991) achieves the exact result desired by the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities
Participating in activities that one did before the parents separated is an important part of the process of maintaining one’s bond with one’s child. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just a few examples of important activities. Malicious Mothers frequently use tactics to prevent children from participating in these activities.
One father was given the wrong date and time for an important event for his child on purpose. “I wonder why your father didn’t want to come to see you today,” the mother inquired of the child.
One mother refused to provide the father with any information about the children’s extracurricular activities.
Prior to a child’s soccer game, one mother spread rumors about the visiting father to many of the team parents. When he arrived to watch his son’s soccer game, many of the parents stared at him with angry eyes, refused to speak with him, and walked away when he approached them.
Malicious Mothers who engage in such behaviors are rarely punished for their actions. Judges, attorneys, and police officers cannot get involved in every case of denied paternal access. Furthermore, most fathers are unable to meet the financial requirements. As a result, the cycle of access interference continues indefinitely.
Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children
Children in a contested divorce situation are extremely vulnerable due to their developmental status. Examples of malicious behavior may include the following when one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children:
One divorcing mother told her young daughter that her father was “not really” her father, despite the fact that he was.
When her father came to visit, an eight-year-old girl was forced by her mother to hand over unpaid bills because the mother had falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any economic support to the family.
One mother falsely told her children that their father had previously beaten her.
These instances of malicious lying contrast with the more subtle maneuvers seen in Parental Alienation Syndrome, such as “virtual allegations” (Cartwright, 1993). In this case, the mother establishing Parental Alienation Syndrome may imply that abuse occurred, whereas the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome falsely claims that abuse occurred.
Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may enlist the help of a variety of other people in their attacks on the ex-husband. However, under this criterion, the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to other people who are fighting against the father. Some examples are as follows:
One enraged mother called the president of her divorcing husband’s (1500 employee) workplace, falsely accusing him of misusing business property for personal gain and abusing their mutual children at his workplace.
One woman falsely reported her ex-husband sexually abusing their daughter to state officials. The child was immediately taken away from him, and he was denied access to her.
During a custody dispute, one mother falsely informed the guardian, who was investigating each parent’s parenting skills, that the father had physically abused her.
Snyder (1986) reported on the difficulties that legal authorities face when confronted with an excellent liar. A skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in court, according to research on the inability of “specialists” to detect lying (Ekman and O’Sullivan, 1991). (Snyder, 1986). While pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that it is not limited to that specific personality disorder.
Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Husband
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome have few, if any, restraints in their battle against the divorcing husband. Law violations are common in many cases, even when the laws violated are minor. In some cases, however, the violations of the law may be quite serious.
One woman purposefully drove her car into her ex-house, husband’s where their mutual children lived.
During a custody battle, one woman broke into her divorcing husband’s home and stole important business papers.
An enraged divorcing mother called a Christian evangelical television station and pledged $1,000, giving her divorcing Jewish husband’s name, address, and phone number as the pledge.
The above descriptions may bring to mind certain personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic), but these behaviors can be demonstrated by people suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. Furthermore, in each of the four examples provided above, none of the Malicious Mothers involved were sentenced by a Judge for such behavior.
Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder
It is important to note that many of the above clinical examples appear to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment when assessing the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. In fact, one mother who was extremely hostile toward her divorced husband had several mental health professionals testify that she did not have any type of mental disorder.
In the author’s experience, there is an exceptional case for every mental disorder that comes to mind to account for some of this behavior. For example, while an Adjustment Disorder may appear to be an appropriate diagnosis in some cases, one woman still denied her ex-husband visitation ten years after the divorce. Other cases may suggest the possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, but despite being evaluated by masters and doctoral level examiners, one woman who repeatedly violated the law by attacking her ex-husband received no personality disorder diagnosis. Although Intermittent Explosive Disorder may be considered in some cases, the anger for many of the mothers does not appear to be intermittent.
Finally, while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is exacerbated in family law, where incompetent mental health examiners occasionally become involved in the judicial process (Turk, 1993). Clearly, the link between Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome and other mental disorders is complex and warrants further investigation.
DISCUSSION
The above description of Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome raises numerous clinical, legal, and scientific concerns.
From a clinical standpoint, families affected by Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome experience severe stress and distress. However, no scientific evidence exists on how to treat this phenomenon. It is made even more difficult by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that anything is wrong with them.
Another challenge is that many therapists are unaware of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As a result, there are malicious therapists who are “duped” by such cases and, as previously stated, will testify in court that there is nothing wrong with the mother involved.
From a legal standpoint, some attorneys may unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, some attorneys actively encourage such behavior because their financial rewards are time-dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the attorney’s profits (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). Even for the subset of attorneys who believe this, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, regardless of economic considerations, many people who end up in family law courtrooms discover that these types of cases are poorly handled (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).
The woman who is not “enough” disturbed to lose custody of her children in court will not have money taken from her or go to jail as a result of her actions. As a result, many clients express significant frustration when they and their children are subjected to such behavior, and the courts appear to do little.
Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination against men in family law proceedings after reviewing relevant legal literature on the subject. One family law Judge stated, “I’ve never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas.” (P. 741, Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Similarly, fathers’ visitation rights are not as strictly enforced as child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992.) Because of this bias against men in family law proceedings, a distinct group of fathers unintentionally becomes relatively helpless victims of the system (Tillitski, 1992). This scenario appears to reinforce much of the vicious behavior exhibited by women suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The disorder’s gender distribution must undoubtedly be addressed. The vast majority of custodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) observed that Parental Alienation Syndrome is more common in females, though a male with custody of the children can engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. Gardner’s experience with Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is comparable to the author’s. However, the author has yet to see a case of a father fulfilling all of the criteria listed. This does not rule out the possibility of a “Malicious Father” Syndrome. Shephard (1992) reports that non-residential fathers abuse some custodial mothers significantly. However, it should be noted that females are required to pay child support, but we have yet to hear about “Deadbeat Moms.” Given that there has yet to be documented a case in which the father met all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, it appears prudent to wait for scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling.
What is the prevalence of Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome? The solution is unknown. According to Gardner (1989), approximately 90% of all custody battles involve some form of parental alienation. Furthermore, Kressel (1985) examined data indicating that up to 40% of maternal custodians denied ex-husband visitation in order to punish him. According to Arditti (1992), 50 percent of a sample of divorce fathers (N=125) reported that the mother interfered with visitation. While some forms of parental alienation are common, it is highly unlikely that such a high proportion of maternal custodians meet all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
In terms of incidence, the title of this syndrome suggests that the malicious behavior is triggered by the divorce process. This, however, is clearly an empirical question. While the malicious actions may be discovered during the divorce process, it is possible that the maliciousness was present earlier but went unnoticed. This theory is supported by research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 986). Similarly, it is possible that some cases of pre-existing mental disorders are not discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds.
Finally, research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is just starting to emerge. There is some research on the role of parental conflict in children’s post-divorce functioning (e.g., Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley, and Steward, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but studies on the more extreme cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome have yet to appear.
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is a significant societal phenomenon. Children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals, and others are all affected by the disorder. Until this phenomenon is thoroughly investigated in the scientific and clinical literature, the problems caused by Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the current manuscript will spark further research, allowing clinical and legal management guidelines to be developed.
REFERENCES
- Arditti, J.A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation and child support for divorce fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17:23-42.
- Beal, E.W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York. Cart wright, D.F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21:205-215.
- 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 Univ. Law Rev. 8:539-807.
- Ekman, P., and O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.
- Enos, D.M., and Handal, P.J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54:820-824.
- Frost, A.K., and Pakiz, B. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60:544-555.
- Furstenberg, F.F., Morgan, S.P., and Allison, P.D. (1987). Paternal participation and children’s well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52:695-701.
- Gardner, R.A. (1987), The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.
- Gardner, R.A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.
- Greif, G.L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
- Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and thieves, Simon & Shuster, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
- Healy, J.M., Malley, J.E., and Stewart, A.J. (1990). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.
- Hetherington, E.N., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.) (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
- Heinz, H.R., and Heinz, S.A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7:169-174.
- Hernandez, D.J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 3-22.
- Hodges, W.F. (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.
- Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.
- Koel, A., Clark, S.C., Phear, W.P., and Hauser, B.B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 73-90.
- Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York.
- Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers’ perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328.
- Laos a, L.N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United States. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 23-49.
- Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welf. 71:357-367.
- Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143:1287-1289.
- Tillitski C.J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends and implications for counseling. J. Ment. Health Counsel. 14:351-361.
- Turkat I.D. (1990). The Personality Disorders: A Psychological Approach to Clinical Management, Pergamon, New York.
- Turkat, I.D. (1993). Questioning the mental health experts’ custody report. Am. J. Fam. Law 7:175-179.
Is your company dedicated to exposing “malicious mother syndrome” and “parental alienation syndrome” and assisting fathers and anti-dad judges in recognizing that these “mothers” are using their children to punish their fathers?
Having a vagina, two ovaries, and two breasts does not automatically make someone a better parent, but that is still the prejudice and attitude of judges and courts. When there is anti-father bias in these courts, which are supposed to be neutral when it comes to awarding custody but still award primary custody to the “mother” in over 80% of the cases, the child’s best interests are overlooked. When judges and courts are blinded by one person’s sex and their sexist, feminist biases that still have them automatically awarding primary custody to “mothers,” they are not acting in the best interests of the child.
Stop discriminating against fathers, say dads and grandparents everywhere.
We are advocating for equality in divorce court as well as equal treatment for fathers. Every father seeking custody of his children should be treated fairly and impartially by the court.
All divorces must now award fathers primary custody 50% of the time for fathers seeking sole or primary custody. Remove the sex from the courtroom and give custody to the best parent. When it’s equal, every court must now be accountable and demonstrate that they don’t favor one parent’s sex over the other – true equality, and 50% of the time, every court in the United States must award custody equally, to parents of both sexes.
Join a chapter of Dads Against Discrimination near you. Elect representatives who will address the bias and anti-father sentiment that persists in “family” courts.
by Ira Daniel Turket, Ph.D.