Journal of Child Custody

ISSN: 1537-9418 (Print) 1537-940X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcc20

Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to

a Critique by Joan Meier

Leslie M. Drozd & Nancy W. Olesen

To cite this article: Leslie M. Drozd & Nancy W. Olesen (2010) Abuse and Alienation Are Each
Real: A Response to a Critique by Joan Meier, Journal of Child Custody, 7:4, 253-265, DOI:
10.1080/15379418.2010.521118

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2010.521118

Published online: 25 Nov 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 208

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjcc20

Download by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] Date: 04 July 2017, At: 19:52
Journal of Child Custody, 7:253265, 2010
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-9418 print=1537-940X online
DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2010.521118

Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A

Response to a Critique by Joan Meier

LESLIE M. DROZD
Independent Practice, Newport Beach, California

NANCY W. OLESEN
Independent Practice, San Rafael, California

This article is in response to an article in this same issue by Joan

Meier, Getting Real About Abuse and Alienation: A Critique of
Drozd and Olesens 2004 Decision Tree. The authors of the
2004 Decision Tree are the authors of this article. In this article,
the authors describe some similarities and some differences that
they have with the approach that Meier takes with child custody
cases that have multiple allegations. The main differences between
the approaches are the result of their different perspectives given the
populations they see. In the end of her article, Meier describes seven
steps for how to deal with what she sees as a primary problem with
the Drozd and Olesen 2004 Decision Tree, that is, how to deal with
allegations of alienation in a manner that those allegations do not
eclipse the abuse allegations.

KEYWORDS abuse, alienation, decision tree, multivariate

approach

In 2004, the authors of this paper, Drozd and Olesen, wrote an article
published in the Journal of Child Custody titled, Is it Abuse, Alienation
and=or Estrangement? A Decision Tree. In the current issue of JCC, Professor
Joan Meier (2010) from George Washington University Law School wrote a
critique of that article titled, Getting Real About Abuse and Alienation: A
Critique of Drozd and Olesens 2004 Decision Tree. This article is a response
to the Meier critique.

Address correspondence to Leslie M. Drozd, Newport Beach, California. E-mail:

lesliedrozd@gmail.com

253
254 L. M. Drozd and N. W. Olesen

There are some points on which we agree with Meier and some on
which we do not. The differences boil down to a matter of perspective. Meier
is a law professor and an advocate for women who are victims of male
perpetrated domestic violence. On the other hand, we are psychologists with
a combined total of over 70 years in practice; we both work with families in
treatment and are both seasoned child custody evaluators. Professor Meier
is concerned with the legal process in which innocence and guilt are
determined and where the determination of that is the end point of the inves-
tigation. We are concerned with the responsibility of forensic experts to pro-
vide valid and reliable information to the courts, and we are concerned with
long-term child and family wellbeing after the court process is over. Meiers
approach is more of an all-or-nothing one, and ours is a multivariate one.
This article will discuss some of the similarities and differences between
the Meier approach and the Drozd and Olesen approach. We respect that
Professor Meier wrote this in depth critique of the 2004 Decision Tree. Her
challenges have helped to sharpen and clarify our thinking. It is clearly with
this kind of intellectual discourse that those of us working in the field can
learn to best serve the families that we investigate, evaluate, or treat.
With the 2004 Decision Tree, we set forth a conceptual framework (a
multivariate approach) that lays out an array of variables to consider as to
what may be resulting in a childs behavior not being age and stage appro-
priate and=or what may be contributing to his or her relationship with his
or her parent. The Decision Tree is a way to determine the roots of why a
child might reject a parent. It is our belief that there could be many reasons
that children behave the way they do and that all of those ways should be
considered, including allegations of abuse and allegations of alienation.
Meier points out that we start with the child and ask: Are his or her
behaviors age and stage appropriate, and is the childs relationship with both
parents relatively equal and good? She writes that our failure to evaluate
abuse first taints the entire process (Meier, p. 222). We understand how this
could be a perception of what we wrote given that it is true that our evalua-
tions start with and end with the child. It is, however, the childs safety and
best interests that are primary; we agree with Meier on that. It is not, though
for us, a matter of all or nothing. Problems can exist in a family even when
there is no abuse. The kind of evaluation we suggest is a forensically sound
and child-centered one, which is abuse-sensitive, if done properly. Evalua-
tions done with the Decision Tree in mind include a risk assessment at the
very beginning with the childs safety considered at the beginning, middle,
and end of the process.
As Meier points out, both of us were a part of the process with the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges that led to their
Bench Book on Navigating Domestic Violence in Child Custody Cases
(Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006). Clearly stated in that guide is that safety
comes first. In the same year that the 2004 Decision Tree was published,
 Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to Meier 255

Drozd wrote an article with Kuehnle and Walker by that very name: Safety
First: Understanding the Impact of Domestic Violence in Child Custody
Disputes. It is possible that the way the 2004 Decision Tree is laid out
confuses the issue of what comes first. In fact, in the past several years, both
of us have used a revised version of the Decision Tree in which some of the
points that Meier has raised have been addressed. An article regarding our
revised Decision Tree analysis is in press at this writing (Drozd & Olesen,
in press).
It is what happens next, after the critically important risk assessment that
is important to the goal of the Decision Tree. We turn from the initial safety or
risk assessment to the consideration of multiple hypotheses as we attempt
to find the roots of the problems that a given family might bring to us. The
Decision Tree is a road map. It is a multivariate tool to assist the evaluator.
Meier does not agree with the use of this multivariate tool. She wrote,
The multivariate tool is more of a tool for denial than truth (Meier,
p. 246). She opines that in considering multiple hypotheses, we are mini-
mizing the effect of abuse. As will be clarified in this article, we respectfully
disagree.
One of the reasons that we use this multivariate tool is that we have
found that all domestic violence does not come in the same package (Kelly
& Johnson, 2008). The main categories of domestic violence that are being
written about and researched today are those involving coercive control
(otherwise called real battering or intimate terrorism and involving intrusive
and authoritarian acts), conflict instigated abuse (including some situation-
specific violence), separation-instigated abuse, major mental disorder
associated abuse, and substance abuse associated abuse. There is abuse that
involves physical aggression; and=or there is abuse that involves psychologi-
cal aggression and relationship control. The father or the mother may insti-
gate abuse and=or some is mutual, defensive, or reactive. A retrospective
analysis of abuse in some cases may reveal a previous history of violence,
substance abuse, major mental disorder, developmental antecedents (e.g.,
early onset violence and=or conduct problems), and some violence has
involved things that would be found in a threat assessment (e.g., the making
of a threat, obsessive following or stalking, and=or use of weapons) (Austin,
Drozd, & Flens, manuscript submitted for publication).
The research shows that in highly contested divorce cases, which are the
population with whom we work, the highest percentage of abuse fits in the
conflict-instigated or separation-associated categories and not in the more
insidious category of coercive control (Kelly & Johnson, 2008; Austin, Drozd,
& Flens, manuscript submitted for publication). Thus, one of the reasons that
the multivariate approach works best is that it can help the evaluator and,
hence, the court differentiate between the kinds of abuse, given that the
harm to children and prognosis for healing differ per kind. The coercive
control kind, which involves a pattern of power and control, oppression, fear
256 L. M. Drozd and N. W. Olesen

and isolation over time, would predictably be more likely to cause more
harm and require more resources to treat.
It appears that the population that Professor Meier is talking about
throughout her critique of our article is that which best fits in the coercive
control, the real battering category with or without some components of
major mental disorder and=or substance abuse. Whereas, we see these cases,
we see others as well, most commonly the conflict-instigated and=or
separation-induced kinds of violence. Although these families often need
treatment, the treatment requires less time and resources.
In sum, it is possible that the major differences between the Meier and
the Drozd and Olesen approaches may not only be one of perspective, but
additionally that the populations they are working with may differ.

THE PROCESS: WHEN ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE ARE RAISED

In some ways, the process that Meier takes is similar to the one that we take;
and in some ways, the processes differ. Both start with an assessment of the
safety of the children and agree that no matter what, safety comes first. We
also agree with Meier when she writes that the childs safety now and in
the future is paramount and that what is in a childs best interest is that he
or she is safe. Additionally, we agree with Meier that the evaluator must
consider abuse allegations carefully and thoroughly, and most assuredly
abuse allegations should be given significant weight.
Whereas, we recommend an abuse-sensitive evaluation, Meier asserts
that that is not enough. She opines that once abuse allegations are brought
up, the rest of the evaluation should be looked at through an abuse lens.
Whereas the abuse lens is critical and abuse allegations must be investigated
and evaluated, we urge the evaluator to also carefully consider the abuse
allegations first in addition to and not instead of the other allegations set forth
by the parties. Additionally, whereas Meier considers the abuse hypothesis as
paramount, we consider it to be important and primary and as possibly one
of several causes of the problems in the familycertainly one to be given
reasonable weight but not the only weight. In our work, we have found that
sometimes when there are abuse allegations, there are other allegations as
well. This neither means that we devalue the abuse allegations, nor does it
mean that we elevate the importance of other variables. Simply put, we
consider all variables.
It appears that the three of us agree that not only does the childs safety
come first, but also if there has been a finding of abuse by the court and if the
child has been severely traumatized, treatment for the trauma comes first. If a
parent has been traumatized by the abuse, the trauma to that parent also
needs to stop and it needs to be treated sooner rather than later. Concurrently
the abusive parent must receive treatment for and take ownership of and
 Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to Meier 257

responsibility for his or her abusive behavior. Ultimately the child, the childs
safety, and the best interest of the child are primary. And, it is only when the
child is ready that any kind of conjoint work should or can be done.

AFTER THE RISK ASSESSMENT

As previously described, Meier opines that the evaluation of other variables

should stop when abuse is alleged. The Decision Tree is simply a series of
hypotheses, which the evaluator should investigate and evaluate. In perform-
ing a risk assessment, evaluators can provide the court data to help in the
determination of what might increase or decrease the risk of harm to a spe-
cific child. The evaluator can provide the court with both risk and resiliency
factors for the child. Those things cannot be done if the evaluation stops after
a finding of abuse.
Our cases seem to be becoming more and more complex; they are not
as simple as abuse or no abuse. Sometimes, the information one parent
shares with the evaluator is but the tip of the iceberg of an underlying pattern
of either physically or emotionally abusive behavior. Sometimes one parent
may be engaging in partner abuse, and the other may be abusing the child.
Sometimes one or both are abusing substances (e.g., alcohol or drugs).
Sometimes one parent or the other is a restrictive gatekeeperas in not
facilitating the childs relationship with the other parent. Sometimes that
may be because that parent sees the other parent as a danger to the child;
and sometimes in reality the parent is a danger and the child indeed needs
to be protected. That might be called protective parenting (Drozd, Kuehnle,
& Austin, manuscript submitted for publication). Sometimes it is one parents
anger at the other that is behind the restrictive gate keeping. Sometimes
abuse is alleged, but in reality there has been no abuse. Sometimes children
identify with an aggressive parent, and sometimes they are scared of him or
her. Sometimes things other than abusive behavior may be causing a child to
reject a parent. If the evaluation stops when abuse is alleged, these aspects of
the larger picture of the family may be missed. The Decision Tree approach
calls for an analysis of these multiple variables to determine what is best for a
childnot by the evaluator but by the court and for the child and his or her
family.
Meier opines that finding other roots of the problems in the family will
serve to dilute the importance of the abuse. She asserts that other alleged
roots of family problems may very well disappear once the abuse is treated.
Occasionally this happens, but this is not always our experience. We do not
necessarily disagree about the importance of abuse; where we differ is in
what appears to be the assumption that if there are abuse allegations, the
evaluator should consider them as credible, reliable, and valid. In our view,
the evaluator should not assume that all abuse allegations are credible,
258 L. M. Drozd and N. W. Olesen

reliable, and valid any more than he or she should consider the abuse
allegations to be false, until proven otherwise. Instead, the approach we sug-
gest is that one consider allegations as just thatallegationsuntil data has
been collected, evaluated, and analyzed and a court makes a finding as to
whether there is or is not abuse. We suggest that the evaluator remain neu-
tral, approach the allegations as a scientist, collect and examine the data,
form multiple hypotheses, and refuse to have contempt (for any data) prior
to investigation.
It seems that if an evaluator takes Meiers approach and stops the evalu-
ation once there are allegations of abuse, it is as if one is assuming abuse
until proven otherwise; that would be putting the cart before the horse. If
one stops an evaluation and concentrates only on the abuse aspects of the
case when there have been only allegations and no findings of abuse by a
court, the evaluation becomes subject to confirmatory bias and distortion.

WHAT DOES THE EVALUATOR DO IF THERE ARE

ALLEGATIONS OF ALIENATION?

One of the largest areas of disagreement that we have with Meier has to do
with allegations of alienation in child custody cases. It is her view that alien-
ation should not be considered until abuse is ruled outtotally ruled out. This
is because, as she sees it, alienation is usually not real; it is something that is
only born out of and in reaction to abuse allegations, and it is rare. She
believes that if it exists it is most likely that the alienating behavior is done
as part of the power and control used by the abuser against the victim parent.
In the last decade or so, an alienated child has been described as one
who persistently expresses strong, negative feelings (such as anger, hatred,
contempt, and fear) and beliefs about his or her parent that are unreasonable
and significantly disproportionate to the childs actual experience with that
rejected parent. The beliefs are typically irrational, distorted, or exaggerated.
Many alienated children reject a parent and resist contact or refuse to have
any contact with that parent. Their feelings, beliefs, and angry behaviors
may range from mild to extreme. Alienation can arise from, follow, or occur
during a high conflict separation or after divorce. Alienated children are most
commonly between the ages of 8 and 18, may be of either gender, and may
reject either parent. Alienated children are distinguished from children and
adolescents who experienced child abuse or violence in the family toward
the other parent or themselves, and have become emotionally estranged
from that parent and=or traumatized and do not want continued contact
(J.B. Kelly, April 23, 2009).
Per this definition, alienation cannot be found in cases in which there
was abuse. This is consistent with what we wrote in 2004. We realize the
politics in the use of the term alienation in cases where there has been a
 Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to Meier 259

finding of abuse. That is why we proposed that in abuse cases, when there is
an alienating kind of behavior, that it should be called sabotage, not alien-
ation. The reality is, though, that despite our attempts and those of Kelly
& Johnson (2008), Kelly & Johnston (2001), Lee & Olesen (2001), and other
articles, from the study group that came up with the new conceptualization
of alienation in 2001, the word alienation is still used in cases where there
has been abuse. The foundation laid by Gardner (1987, 1992) has been dif-
ficult to overcome in part because he offered what seemed like a simple sol-
ution to what turned out to be, from our perspective, very complex cases.
The reality is that Gardner was simply wrong. In the real world, children
reject parents for many reasons, with alienating behavior on the parents part
being but one of many, and certainly abuse being another. The point is that
Gardners all-or-nothing thinking (alienation or abuse) is not what we see in
the real world of child custody cases and the point is that these cases call for
a multivariate approach, not one that involves all-or-nothing thinking.
In 2004, we wrote about protective parents; that is, those who are sim-
ply trying to protect their children from what they perceive as the abuse the
children (and=or they) have endured. In these instances what may be labeled
by others as alienation, we called protective parenting. We have in our prac-
tices seen instances where the parent who is trying to be protective does just
that, in usually what amounts to an incredibly heroic manner. Other protec-
tive parents seem less aware of how their protective behavior bypasses
protective and becomes problematic. In these cases, there is a conflation
of concern for the childs safety and the parents own reactions to their own
experience of trauma, whether historical or current, and their fear of the
aggressive or abusive parent gets in the way of their parenting. We have care-
fully stated and are stating again, we are not blaming the protective parents
but, rather, we are pointing out how they might better accomplish their goal
of protecting their child or children if they did not let their own fear govern
their parenting. We acknowledge that this is a lot to ask of abused parents
who truly fear for their childrens safety; and we acknowledge that many pro-
tective mothers, somewhat unbelievably, are able to bifurcate their feelings
about the abuser from their childrens feelings. Another way of saying what
we said in 2004 is that parents who have been abused or who have witnessed
their children being abused function best when they receive the support they
need and deserve. It remains true that the best thing that you can do to help a
child heal who was exposed to, a witness of, or the primary victim of abuse is
to help the protective parent heal (Chemtod, Carlson, & Perrone, 2000).
With all of the aforementioned discussion put into context, one of the
most interesting points presented in a preliminary study by Johnston,
Walters, and Olesen (2005a) was that it is the domestic violence perpetrator,
at least as often if not more often than the victim, who engages in alienating
behaviors. It is the abuser, with all of his or her power, who sets out to say
and do things that may result in the child rejecting the victim parent. It is the
260 L. M. Drozd and N. W. Olesen

abuser who is as likely, if not more likely, to engage in restrictive gatekeep-

ing. We agree with Meier that when it is the abuser who is engaging in alien-
ating behavior, it is part and parcel of the dynamics of abuse, which include
power and control, oppression, fear, and isolation; these being behaviors
that are much more likely found in the abusive parent than the victim parent.
Meier also asserts that we are calling for an analysis of a family that is
framed by alienation concerns, resulting in the marginalization of abuse=
safety concerns. That is, in fact, not what we wrote, not what we believe,
and not what we practice. Instead, we said, as Meier has, that safety comes
first. As stated earlier, our approach is a multivariate one and is supported
by the research that has been done to date on children who reject a parent.
Those studies have found that there are multiple reasons in a given family
that a child might reject a parent (Johnston, 2003; Johnston, & Goldman,
2010; Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle,
2009; Johnston et al., 2005a; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, 2005b).
Further, Meier criticizes the Decision Tree, which she says invites critiques
of protective parents and blames the victim for the consequences of abuse and
undermine child safety. And finally, Meier writes that The Decision Trees lack
of guidance on weight or priority to different factors invites a continued focus
on alienation at the expense of abuse concerns. This is not true. In the 2004
article we assert, If there is one hypothesis that should be tested first, it is
the Abuse Hypothesis (p. 73). We most certainly do not blame victims,
though parents who are victims are responsible for their parenting and, like
most parentseven superb onesthere is always room for improvement.
We see this as more of an issue of a parent taking responsibility for his or
her actions as opposed to blaming a parent for his or her actions.
In our 2004 article, we referenced Johnstons (2002) list of goals that
should be considered for families in which there are findings of abuse. At
the top of that list is protection of the children, and included in that list
is holding the perpetrator of domestic violence accountable for their abus-
ive behaviors. Stated clearly in that list of priorities is that one needs to
begin with the goal of achieving all five priorities; yet, we acknowledge that
if that is not possible, the first ones are more critical to achieve than the last
ones. Interestingly, these priorities have survived the test of time and have
been morphed into Johnstons 5 Ps (Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, & Bala, 2008).

1. Protect children directly from violent, abusive, and neglectful

environments;
2. Provide for the safety and support the well-being of parents who are
victims of abuse (with the assumption that they will then be better able
to protect their child);
3. Respect and empower victim parents to make their own decisions and
direct their own lives (thereby recognizing the states limitations in the
role of loco parentis);
 Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to Meier 261

4. Hold perpetrators accountable for their past and future actions (i.e., in the
context of family proceedings, have them acknowledge the problem and
take measures to correct abusive behavior); and
5. Allow and promote the least restrictive plan for parentchild access that
benefits the child, along with parents reciprocal rights (pages 142144).

We believe that a careful read of the 2004 Decision Tree article shows
that we do not focus on alienation except as one of a myriad of types of
problematic parenting. In that article, we sought to provide information
to nave evaluators who might miss abuse while overly focusing on alien-
ation. It is not our experience, in the evaluations that we have done or in
the cases we have reviewed, that allegations of alienation dominate the pic-
ture. Certainly there have been and continue to be cases of false allegations
of alienationwhere the false allegation of alienation is a counter to an
allegation of abuse. It is also true, though, that there are false allegations
of abuse. Unfortunately, the research data on the prevalence of false allega-
tions is old (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), nonexistent, or unreliable. This is
precisely why we take the multivariate approach set forth in the 2004
Decision Tree. All factorsnot any one single factorshould be investigated
and evaluated with the Abuse Hypothesis holding a significant amount of
weight precisely because of the harm that can come to children exposed
to abuse, or who are a witness of and=or the primary victim of abuse
themselves.

MEIERS PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: PUTTING THE

TEMPEST BACK INTO THE TEAPOT

Professor Meier thoughtfully proposes a seven-step approach to solving what

she identifies as the problem with our 2004 Decision Tree. As she sees it, the
tempest is the allegations of alienation that she believes mostly exist in the
real world as a defense against allegations of abuse. The problem she seeks
to solve is the court systems focus on alleged alienation, which she asserts is
distorted and misplaced (Meier, p. 241).
We support some of Meiers approach, and we at least take partial
exception to some of the other parts of it. Steps One, Two, and Seven
are things that we said in 2004, albeit perhaps not as clearly as Meier does
here. We take some exception with the others steps (Three, Four, Five, and
Seven).
Whereas in theory Step Three (Once abuse is found, alienation claims
by the accused abuser are not considered) (Meier, 2010, pp. this issue)
sounds good, in practice, it is a bit more complicated. From our perspective,
Meiers Step Four (Where abuse allegations are not confirmed, the allega-
tions themselves may not be treated as evidence of alienation) (Meier,
262 L. M. Drozd and N. W. Olesen

p. 243) could be a bit problematic. Take the case where abuse that, in fact,
never occurred is alleged, and the court accurately finds no abuse. A series
of rhetorical questions come to mind: Would that not be something that
might be considered to be a conscious effort on one parents part to sabotage
the other parents relationship with the child or children? Should not that par-
ent be held accountable? And if that parents efforts are indeed successful,
resulting in the child or childrens rejection of the falsely accused parent,
might that not by definition be alienation?
The reality is that at this time we do not have research that shows if alien-
ation allegations are more or less prevalent, credible, reliable, and=or valid
in cases where the abuse has been conflict-instigated versus ones
dominated by coercive control. We should know that before we implement
the policy that Meier suggests of banning the use of allegations of abuse as
evidence of alienation. In our view, Step One is useful and Step Four may
not be.
One of the steps about which we have some questions is Step Five
(Alienation claims are independently evaluated only under limited
conditions and only if i) all possible natural reasons for the childs extreme
hostility to the other parent (such as affinity, development, or the disfavored
parents own conduct) have been ruled out, and (ii) there is identifiable
intentional alienating behavior by the aligned parent) (Meier, p. 243). This
step logically follows Step One in which abuse is assessed first, though we
still question the following: Is it not true that alienating behavior is in and
of itself not monolithic? Is it not true that alienating behavior can be inten-
tional or unintentional, overt or covert, and=or mild or severe and is it not
true that all of these can be harmful to a given child? And is it not true that
Step Five, Part ii, would rule out all but intentional alienating behaviors leav-
ing many kinds of behaviors harmful to children uninvestigated?
We raise at least one question about Step Seven (Remedies for
confirmed alienation are limited to healing the childs relationship with the
alienated parent) (Meier, 2010, p. 245). In practice, neither of us is in favor
of a 180-degree change in custody except in absolutely extreme situations
after every other intervention and remedy has been tried. In the rare instance
when abuse has been ruled out, as have the other variables listed previously,
and when the in parent continues to consistently alienate the child from the
other parent, maybe, just maybe, a change of custody is called for. In the
70 or so years we have worked in the field, we can think of only three cases
out of thousands where such an extreme measure was clinically indicated.
These cases met the standard for removing a child from a parent under
dependency court standards, based on mental or emotional illness in the par-
ent. In two additional cases where the alienation allegations were found to
be false, the falsely accused mother was awarded sole legal and physical cus-
tody. In sum, whereas we agree with Professor Meir in spirit, we are not able
to say never.
 Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to Meier 263

Meiers seven-steps have some merit; although, in our view, they are not
a panacea. If anything, Meiers critique has nudged us to prioritize our
Decision Tree in a somewhat different way to clarify what could be
misunderstood and change areas that we think were not as effective as we
intended.

A COMPETENT ASSESSMENT IS THE BASIS FOR

SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT

There is no doubt that a competent assessment is the basis for successful

treatment and that which comes first in any assessment is a risk assessment.
The question about whether the child or children are safe is critical. Without
that, children are not best served. We all agree on these points. What we dif-
fer on is what to do next. Again, we think that this circles back to the differ-
ence between Meiers and our approach is one of perspective. Meier comes
from the perspective of being an attorney and a law professor, and our
perspective is as an evaluator with the responsibility of presenting all of
the possible variables and data to the court. When representing a victim of
domestic violence, for Meier the choice is a binary one. Either the court finds
abuse or it does not. There is, or there is not, abuse.
In the families we work with, though, the problems presented are
multivariate in nature. Multivariate problems call for multivariate solutions.
Treatment is complex in the families that we see. The many variables con-
sidered and found as roots to the childs rejection of a parent should be
dealt with to help the family heal. If abuse is one of those variables, safety
considerations are critical throughout the evaluation, abuse should be
assessed and treated firstbefore other variables are investigated and=or
evaluated. We emphasize, though, that it is not the evaluator, but rather
the court that determines whether there has been abuse or not. We, as eva-
luators, most assuredly must provide the court with the data upon which it
can make a finding of abuse or not. We are simply suggesting that the
Decision Tree is a tool that an evaluator can use to organize his or her
thinking so that a full and complete picture of the family is presented to
the court.
In some families the hypotheses set forth by the Decision Tree may
lead us to data about abuse, and when there is no abuse, sometimes we
find that a childs behavior falls within the normal limits of his or her stage
of development; still other times, the data show us that some sort of parent-
ing problems have led to the childs rejection of a parentwith but one of
those problems possibly being alienation. Research shows that abuse is
more common in disputed child custody cases than is alienation; any
way you look at it, both are real. Simply ask the families plagued by one
and=or the other.
264 L. M. Drozd and N. W. Olesen

REFERENCES

Austin, W., Drozd, L., & Flens, J. (submitted for publication). Intimate partner vio-
lence and forensic child custody evaluation I: Theoretical framework, forensic
model, and assessment issues. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Chemtod, C. N., Carlson, J. G., & Perrone, P. A. (2000). Domestic violence in Hawaii:
Impact on mothers and their children. Pacific Behavioral Health Services Corpor-
ation, Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, & Crime Prevention and
Justice Assistance Division, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii.
Dalton, C., Drozd, L., & Wong, F. (2004, rev. 2006). Navigating custody and visi-
tation evaluations in cases with domestic violence: A judges guide. Reno, NV:
National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges & State Justice Institute.
Drozd, L., Kuehnle, K., & Walker, L. E. A. (2004). Safety First: Understanding the
impact of domestic violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody,
1(2), 75103.
Drozd, L., & Olesen, N. W. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation or estrangement? A decision
tree. Journal of Child Custody, 1(3), 65106.
Drozd, L., & Olesen, N. (submitted for publication). Why do children reject a parent:
A revised Decision Tree. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Drozd, L., Kuehnle, K., & Austin, W. (submitted for publication). Protective parent-
ing in child custody cases. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gardner, R. A. (1987). Parental Alienation Syndrome and the differentiation
between fabricated and genuine child sex abuse allegations. Creskill, NJ:
Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R. A. (1992). The Parental Alienation Syndrome. Creskill, NJ: Creative
Therapeutics.
Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crookes, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes
involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach
to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3), 500522.
Johnston, J., Personal communication, June 5, 2002.
Johnston, J. R. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An empirical study of
alienation in children of divorce. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, 31, 158170.
Johnston, J. R., & Goldman, J. R. (2010). Outcomes of family counseling interven-
tions with children who resist visitation: An addendum to Friedlander and
Walters (2010). Family Court Review, 48(1), 112115.
Johnston, J. R., Lee, S. M., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and
substantiations of abuse in custody disputing families. Family Court Review,
43, 283294.
Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). Parental alignments and alienation:
Differential assessment and therapeutic interventions. In J. R. Johnston, V.
Roseby, & K. Kuehnle (Eds.), In the name of the child: A developmental
approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent
divorce (2nd ed.) (pp. 361389). New York: Springer.
Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005a). Is it alienating parenting,
role reversal, or child abuse? A study of childrens rejection of a parent in
custody disputes. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 191218.
 Abuse and Alienation Are Each Real: A Response to Meier 265

Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005b). The psychological function-
ing of alienated children in custody disputes: An exploratory study. American
Journal of Forensic Psychology, 39(3), 3964.
Kelly, J. B., Personal communication with L. Drozd, April 23, 2009.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner
violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court
Review, 46(3), 476499.
Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of Parental
Alienation Syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 249266.
Lee, M., & Olesen, N. (2005). Assessing for alienation in child custody and access
evaluation. Family Court Review, 39(3), 282298.
Meier, J. (2010). Getting real about abuse and alienation: A critique of Drozd and
Olesens Decision Tree. Journal of Child Custody, 7(4).
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and
consequences of violence against women. Washington, D.C.: US DOJ=NCJ
183781.