When hyper alignment with a parent is combined with contemptuous rejection of the other, investigation of the hyper alignment is necessary. Hyper alignment hides coercive control strategies and enmeshment. 1
Enmeshment is a pathological
Relationship in which the child’s needs are seen as indivisible from that of a parent (usually a mother). Coercive control is a pathological pattern of relationship in which a child is forced to adhere to parental wishes. 2
These are the two most common psycho-pathological patterns of parental behaviour seen in alienation and both are serious child protection issues. 3
When a child is captured in a double bind - ie: reject the other parent to placate or please me, they are in the care of a parent who is causing harm. In this circumstance the child expresses the pathological views of the abusing parent - because they have no other option.4
I’m alienation situations a child depends on a parent who is threatening the attachment bond either overtly or covertly. In such circumstances hyper alignment is a natural thing for a child to do, it is harmful as it causes maladaptive relational responses such as rejection 5
In such circumstances, therapy must a) constrain the harm, b) project the child, c) treat the splitting response. Treating splitting requires the arrest of coercive control & enmeshment whilst using proximity to split off parts of self (rejected parent). 6
Alienation is emotional and psychological abuse - if it were physical harm we would have no problem separating the child from an abuser but because the scars are invisible, controversy reigns. Listening to once alienated children however tells a different story. 7
Recovered children from residence transfer over the post decade tell their stories in FSC evaluation-there is no doubt that this abuse is deeply harmful and that intervention brings healing and hope for a healthier future. Much more to come in the autumn. 8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
three red flags of emotional abuse 1. The child hyper aligns & rejects with contempt. 2. The aligned parent supports this as confirming their own experience of the rejected parent. 3. The child displays omnipotent belief that they are in control of the family system. 1
When observed the child displays omnipotent behaviours which give way to anxiety if challenged, this can cause escalation of allegations against the rejected parents and anyone seeking to intervene. 2
The cause of this is fear of the aligned parent’s reactions to the child not being able to uphold the imposed narratives. Having rejected a parent the child must find a way to explain that. 3
Treating induced psychological splitting requires proximity to the split off part of self (rejected parent) and the therapist’s capacity to understand the double bind the child is in. 1
Therapy in these circumstances is not about talking, the child does not have the capacity for reflection at this stage, it is about holding the boundary and creating protected space for the child to encounter the split off part of self which is held by the rejected parent. 2
This work is done post judgment, sometimes it can be done as part of a clinical trial but it must always involve the encounter with the rejected parent as early as possible. The therapist holds responsibility for making that happen. 3
Inducing psychological splitting in a child via attachment threat is child abuse because it puts the adult needs before the child - ie: if you want me to love you, you must think like me and act like me. 1/2
This is different to the splitting response seen when an adult is abused, when rejection of the abuser is a rational thing to do in response to being abused 2/3
The difference is that a child is INDUCED into the defence of splitting in order to please or placate or retain the love of a parent, this is coercive control/enmeshment of the child.3/4