The Alienating Parent

Some of the people reading this article will have;

a) lost access (possibly completely) to your children due to “hostile aggressive parenting” by your ex-partner, or

b) Someone has sent you this link because you are working hard to destroy your ex-partner’s relationship with your child.

Either way, please set aside your prejudices and self-confidence for five minutes, and consider the following.

What is HAP? Basically, it is parenting a child in a way that undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent. It is often done by a parent who describes themselves as ‘protective.’ “Protective” is a concept that has a lot of grey areas.

It is clearly protective when one parent’s drug addictions, alcoholism and general propensity for violence is harming the children, and the ‘protective parent’ flees, doing everything in their power to protect the child from harm.

It is less clearly ‘protective’ when one parent is unhappy with the relationship with the other, and starts magnifying every fault of the other parent, to the point of relationship breakdown. The other parent is not a threat like in the first example, but mountains are made of molehills and this is expressed to the child.

“Daddy yells a lot” or “Mummy used to smack you a lot, remember?” are given as a reasons for relationship breakdown, in a tide of blamestorming. Involving the child in this is the beginning of HAP. Once it has begun, it becomes a spiral where is hard to pull back and concede that one might have been unreasonable in the first place.

There is a scale now for quantifying ‘hostile aggressive parenting’ (HAP). Over 500 points is a ‘high risk’ to children’s well-being. I have seen one score over 3000. This is a modern tragedy.

For example, once the child has been told that the ‘targeted parent’ is a liar, the parent engaging in HAP becomes the child’s only source of ‘truth.’ However, this ‘truth’ is mere propaganda, and the child’s ability to distinguish truth from falsity is undermined along with their relationship with the targeted parent. If you are a targeted parent this is as plain as the nose on your face. If you are doing the targeting, you may be living in a world of denial about the harm you are doing to the child.

This harm is not limited to distinguishing falsehoods. It is is easy to create a state of anxiety in the child if, while he or she is in the care of the other parent, police welfare checks are called in, especially after bedtime. Children being woken by police “making sure they are ok” creates a sense that somehow they are in danger at the targeted parent’s house. Constant monitoring of calls with the other parent on speakerphone, and visibly recording it “to protect them” exacerbates this effect and puts them off wanting to talk. Eventually, “they don’t want to talk to you” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The terms and conditions of a domestic violence order also affect the children. If the targeted parent is banned entirely from seeing them, it is easy to tell them that the other parent doesn’t love them anymore, because the other parent cannot provide living examples of love for them to experience. So instead they experience rejection and heartbreak, all of which solidifies over time into hatred and a pathological alliance with the hostile-aggressive parent. HAP, in the little echo-chamber of someone calling themselves, incorrectly, a “protective parent” produces a layer of denial that prevents that parent from seeing the effects on the children. Indeed, it is yet another thing to blame on the targeted parent.

Later, letters, if written, are “Dear Harry” instead of “Dear Dad.” The new step-parent is “Dad,” and are not to express love but express hatred. Moves can be made to erase the other parent by changing a surname. The effect on the children’s sense of personal identity and their place in the other half of the family tree matter less than winning in court.

Constant litigation can erode the other parent’s resources to the point where they cannot fight anymore and simply vanish from the children’s lives, many to suicide. Constantly breaching orders by refusing access, compelling the targeted parent to file contraventions, is a simple passive-aggressive tool for this. Then, not only are financial resources the children could have benefitted from destroyed and handed to lawyers, but the valuable input the other parent could have made to their lives is gone forever.

From this it is easy to create a scenario used readily in court, where a family report writer who does not acknowledge this dynamic takes at face value the children’s stated fear of the target, with no consideration of the ‘brainwashing’ that has happened along the way.

If you think abstractly about the kind of actions described above, and the harm they produce for children, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with a person who would do that. And yet, the layers of denial that such people place over their actions, describing themselves as ‘protective’ against a parent who was a great parent prior to separation, and was only demonized afterwards, is hard to see through from the outside. The myth that domestic violence is a one-way street reinforces mothers who do this to fathers, because they are presumed guilty, and so social support is readily available even when DV claims have been obviously faked, as I have seen in some cases.

Behind the mask is what is known about memory. It is reconstructive. If we picture something that might have happened, and are biased towards interpreting it badly, it gets worse every time we bring it to mind, and it still feels like a memory. Even when it is not. It is a highly elaborated reconstruction. This is how “he pushed me out of the way when I wouldn’t let him pick up the child,” becomes “he slammed me into a door for no reason.” It is an insidious process, but well-understood in the scientific literature. Things that never happened can be “remembered,” and this is especially true for children. The famous “Lost In A Mall” research by Elizabeth Loftus is a classic illustration.

So if you’ve managed to make mountains out of molehills, or indeed, anthills or even a flat beach, the children will remember it the way you have put it in your head. And they will elaborate on it. Siblings may, in the quiet of their room, swap stories and start to “remember” things that the other one reported, simply because they can visualize it after a few tries. Once it can be visualized, “it must have been real.” This fits with the myth that “children don’t lie about such things.”

I have seen adults who believe they grew up “remembering” awful things daddy did to them in the cradle. Except it’s false. “Infantile amnesia” prevents it from being true. It is a pseudomemory from something suggested many years later as a so-called “repressed memory.” And isn’t creating a traumatic memory, that is inherently upsetting when recalled, not sort of equivalent to actually doing to the person what they have become convinced happened to them?

There is enough trauma in separation for the children that are involved without using tactical psychological child abuse as part of your campaign strategy. If you make it adversarial, your ex has no choice but to fight back on behalf of the children. That the court systems are only starting to open their eyes to this as a tactic, rather than a reflection of a reality, does not bode well for your children.

If you are using hostile-aggressive parenting, please see a psychologist about your anger issues, and any personality disorders they may want to investigate. If you and your children are victims of it, please ensure that your lawyer follows through on making sure that any childrens’ lawyers and report writers are well-versed in it, and have access to your evidence that HAP is happening.

If you children’s lawyer refuses to provide your evidence of HAP to the report writer, make absolutely certain that you mention that evidence in your interview, and inform them that their professional ethical responsibility is to make inquiries into it, as they are more than reasonable to pursue.

And if the report goes in without mention of your evidence of HAP, talk to your lawyer to make sure that this deficiency is noted, and leave to obtain a second opinion is obtained. If this motion is denied, get a second opinion anyway, but one written in a way that can provide a critique of the failings of the report in such a way that your solicitor can discredit it with pointed questions.

If you know someone who is suffering the court-enforced loss of children, while that person is statistically very likely to be male, the following page would apply equally to women, as far as things to avoid saying when supporting them:

Lastly, for the alienating parent, there is the matter of the Internet and ready access to materials such as the present page. These pages are growing in number. Support groups for alienated children are scarce now, but are starting to be out there:

This will only grow as recognition of this problem increases. They will find out the truth. They will not appreciate what you have done to them. I have worked with children in this situation already, who left to live with the other parent, only to discover that everything that had been told was a lie. Including the bit about the other parent being the liar. Some won’t find out until they are older, if the other parent survives, but the research on them is out there.

Parent without the hostility and aggression. Love is not a zero-sum game. The more love the children experience, the more they will have to go around. HAP stifles this growth, and they learn – from you – that love is like money, more for me means less for you. That’s not how it works. If you think it is, please find a therapist.

*The above article was originally published at

Leave a comment

61 thoughts on “The Alienating Parent”

  1. I have five years of documentation of what my husband went through with his ex when we were first married. Pure hell. Back then it was called Parental Alienation Syndrome or PAS. The courts blatantly ignored it and even the guardian ad litem took the exes case pro bono. Why? I can only guess it was because he was making his statement about protecting a lesbian woman… who by the way, left her children in the custody of the father in their divorce and only became hostile when he married me. Then apparently he became a monster? It was as obvious as the nose on anyone’s face what was going on, but no one cared about justice for my husband. My husband has one son but lost his daughter. The courts bat these cases around until the lawyers are rich, you’re exhausted, sick, almost broke and almost divorced from your current partner. Sixteen years later, here we still are. The son has nothing to do with the Mom, the daughter has nothing to do with either parent and it’s all a big fat shame. It didn’t have to be like that. So much damage can be prevented when people grow up, and put their egos to bed, and truly put the kids best interest at the forefront of their minds.

    1. It’s done for the money. Remove the corrupt courts access to fathers money and this problem (and tons of others associated with divorce) evaporate overnight.
      Men refuse to do that so nothing is going to change.

      All we can do now to prevention for the next generation of innocent men, starve out the corruption via MGTOW.
      It is the only hope available since nobody will do a God-damn thing to stop this insanity in our generation.

      1. Yep, article after article after article about this stuff, year after year after year and men do nothing nothing nothing.
        It’s all about the 12-pack and the tv.
        Most men don’t WANT any “rights”.

          1. Men don’t care about ‘other’ men simply because of biology. Men have an out group preference, when women are concerned. Whereas, women have an in group preference, so they support each other.

            The only time a man is even aware of a man’s plight in being discriminated against, is when it’s happening to him! There are even a significant portion of men whom are actually rooting for the men they don’t know personally to get the shaft. Because of male competition for female favor.

            This is evidenced in the absolutely lowest form of a man when a man actually seeks married women and brags about his sexual conquests with them. That’s kind of a ‘football game’ to such men.

            The only solution is MGTOW. Whom would want to be in a relationship with a permiscuous woman with a unknown history anyway. Especially since 2/3 of all women in America today are positive for HPV.

            Women crave a man’s time, talent, and treasure (3t’s). If she can’t get one man’s 3t’s, she simply hangs out her shingle for another man’s. Until women with a ‘history’ are demonized as toxic and should be avoided at all costs, and men have honor among other men, we will simply be akin to the mating habits of the cuttlefish.

            Women aren’t evil. They haven’t changed any of their behaviors. The problem is that they have nothing to control their natural undesirable behaviors. Shit like the Duluth Model, and female listen and believe bullshit are the cause.

            This won’t end well. Feminist always double down and can’t see past the end of their noses. So the most likely result will be a economic crash resulting in a ‘reset’. Where a preferable ‘soft patriarchy’ will emerge. Women again will be considered a ‘privileged class’, just as we consider children, and they will have about as much privileges as children. Then all will be right in the world again.

            Keep your pimp hand strong gentlemen!

          2. I can’t help but think that what you see as the future, will actually come to pass. It is it seems to be the only likely outcome.

            Regardless of how hard we try, we are not going to change biology, not in a million years. Women will never change and neither will men.

            I do disagree with you on one part. Yes almost all these behaviours of women tend to be ingrained or almost at a cellular level, but far too much of it is purely evil by intent. If it there was no evil intent, men would not be reacting the way they are today.

            What is concerning is now the reaction of men. Yes there will be a correction eventually and a lot of women will die miserable, barren and lonely, because of it. It won’t be some war on women or some organised campaign. It will simply be a world where only a small number of men and women will get together and have families, whilst the rest remain alone. These people will die out with no issue, thus their genetic line will also die out without replacement.

            At some point there will only be the children of those families who persisted. That is the likely outcome if your scenario is going to occur.

            I also disagree that men are to blame. Sure men don’t do anything to help and as you say, many of them encourage women to do these things and they revel in the outcome like it is some sort of sport. Sickening to watch and in my opinion, is equally as evil as what women do.

            Men have no more power or authority in this world to effect changes than women do. We can talk about it until we are blue in the face, but there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell of any number of men changing a bloody thing, without AT LEAST an equal number of women fighting for it too.

            As for touching women who have been spreading their legs for all and sundry, they should be avoided like the plague and they should be publicly named and shamed. They are indeed a filthy thing. The average sheila today has probably had well over a dozen males. Could you imagine having sex with that? Heave!!!! Makes me want to vomit right now!

            I have the same attitude toward men who screw around too.

            What shits me though, is this idiotic belief that the majority of men have played around prior to marriage or in their lifetime, when this is absolutely not true. It never has been true.
            The majority of men, and this is a very large majority, would be lucky (or unlucky) to bed a single female before marriage. And I am being quite generous here, because I think it would be less than that.

            Women hold all the power when it comes to sexual intercourse. Historically they have only given it out to men they think they can get those 3T’s (you speak of) from, or like today if they have had a few drinks, or they are wanting to set some poor man up on a rape charge, which is quite a common thing today.

            It is my opinion that nothing will change in the future, until enough women get sick of what femtards have done to them. This will happen when enough men refuse to engage with women and remain MGTOW.

            Once women in the general community realise that more than half of them will never marry, remain barren and die old and lonely, they will then turn on feminists like a savage Tiger Snake and bite the shit out of them till they are all dead. And yes, I believe it could actually come to that. Women are so much more violent than men are and they will kill to get what they want, which will be a return to some form of traditional family living.

            I don’t think I’ll be here to witness any of these outcomes. It would be good to be a fly on the wall though, just to see what happens.

            EDIT: The above scenario is not the sort of future I would like to see happen, but if left up to us humans, then it is pretty much all that will happen.
            As a Catholic though, I believe something else will occur at some point in the future. It will not be good for many, but even that may bring about a similar sort of traditional family arrangement.

            There’s no escaping human biology!

          3. Well, who was it that voted for women to get the right to vote?

            As far as a ‘reset’, I too am Catholic, and the OT is full of stories where the Israelites turned their backs on God, and he allowed them the natural consequences.. We are on the cusp of exactly that time… Especially with the rampant STD’s, near pandemic levels, and so far medical science can’t keep up. Antibiotics can only do so much, before resistant strains of deadly diseases will wipe out many whom do not heed the time tested warnings.

            Sorry about getting off topic, but regarding the alienating parent phenomena… May I suggest that we give Dr. Craig Childress as much support as possible…He seems to be one of the very few in the psychology industry that is fighting the gynocentric narrative, as is Elam, Golden, Palmontier, Etc.

            Childress has been virtually run out of the industry for his groundbreaking steps towards PA, as well as creating and informing patients a standard of performance on the psychologis… And those charlatans in the industry don’t like it one bit. No one wants to he held accountable.

            He is attempting to integrate PA standards into family courts, which would destroy the gynocentric narrative that currently prevails.

            Also, it’s high time someone (maybe me, if I find the time) research the SSA Title IV-D (Deadbeat Dads) state welfare fund… As of 2012 (latest date I can locate), the SSA spent $16.5B in enforcement and grants for states to provide ‘services’. And we can’t seem to understand why the SSA is broke… It’s all about creating ‘make work’ jobs for gender studies grads, and fat cat retirement programs for judges.

          4. Dr. Childress’ work is also valuable because it links PA into existing “attachment theory” and gives a sound foundation to the model. Alienating behaviour goes back a very long way. A 1950 case from Australia (Lovell v. Lovell) identifies the relevant components in a complaint from a father, that was not upheld as he didn’t have the evidence to sustain it. The language brings to mind Warshak’s “Divorce Poison” but pre-dates it by literally decades:

            Lovell v Lovell [1950] HCA 52; (1950) 81 CLR
            513 (27 November 1950) at para. 23 (emphasis added), but the principle that if it were at work, it should be condemned is apparent: In the Full Court in the judgment of Gavan Duffy and O’Bryan JJ. it was said that a matter urged on behalf of the father would have had very great weight, if they could have been satisfied of the facts, “namely that the applicant’s sister who would have a considerable part in the case of the child was unfriendly to and prejudiced against the respondent. It is bad enough” (their Honours continued) “that a child should grow up in an atmosphere of broken marriage relations, but where both parents are to have access to the child it is intolerable that the one who had custody should poison the child’s mind, or allow the child’s mind to be poisoned against the other. We find it hard to think of any better reason for refusing custody than a
            belief that that will happen. In the present case it is only necessary to say that the Judge made no finding that the applicant or her sister would do any such thing and to our minds there is nothing in the evidence to justify a finding that either was likely to do so”.

          5. Mate, idiot men gave women the right to vote. One of the worst mistakes of modern history. I don’t have a problem with women voting as such. I do have a problem with women having the privilege to vote without the responsibility to sacrifice their lives for the good of the country, just as men are forced to do.

            If women, all 100% of them, cannot shoulder this burden, then they should never be given the right to vote or work in certain govt jobs, like parliament or politics, or in any area where laws are made and put into practice. They should never be allowed to work in the justice system or in law enforcement. And most importantly of all, they should never work in any field where they will be put in charge of men.

            As for Childress. No one would be here today talking about Parental Alienation if it were not for Dr. Richard A. Gardner. To me the man is a saint and should be recognised as such. He was well before his time.

            Gardner was so far advanced in this field that he was head hunted by not just feminists, but mostly by people within the pseudo-science psychology field. They tried to have him torn down with accusations of pedophilia and all manner of other foul false allegations. The pressure on Gardner became so great that he took his own life.

            There is one thing Gardner was against and I totally support his stance, and that was mandatory reporting of child abuse. There should never be any such thing.
            This has led to all the life sucking parasites in the social work/psychology industries to spend a huge amount of time and money reporting innocent fathers and trashing the relationships they once had with their children.

            Now we have doctors, nurses, teachers and all manner of people, well over 80+% of whom are women, all reporting men for child abuse, just because the kid has a bruise or points out that the doll has a pee pee or a front bottom.

            Women today, have minds that are over filled with filth. All they can see in their disgusting minds when they see a man with a child, is filthy sex deviancy. There are hundreds of thousands of cases like this where men are crucified by women in the community, NOT FEMINISTS, just everyday bloody women.

            For example: In Sydney a couple of years ago a granddad took his very young granddaughter to the beach because he was baby sitting for the day. She wanted to paddle in the shallows, but had no bathing suit. All she had on was a summer frock and her knickers. So like all granddads would, he suggested she just take her dress off and play in her knickers. I think the girl was only about 3 or 4 years of age. And she played in the water on the shore right in front of him so he could keep her safe.

            Well, some filthy minded bitch some distance away took photos and then phoned the police. Next thing a pair of wankers in blue, one male the other female, came up to the old man and little child and intervened in this most heinous sex crime.

            The bitch in blue took the child away some distance for questioning and the child was distraught. The arsehole in blue then questioned the old man. This went on for some time traumatising both the man and the child, all because some filthy minded bitch likes to entertain filthy thoughts of sexually abusing children. In truth, she probably wanted to sexually abuse the girl if truth be known.

            After all that, they let the man and girl go. This good man and innocent little girl were abused for no reason. And now the little girl has had forced and burnt onto her brain that there are men out there who would do harm to her.

            There is indeed a special place in hell for all of these jackals!

            I once worked with a woman who knew Gardner personally. She used to leave her children at his home for baby sitting on the odd occasion and they were well looked after.

            Although Warshack and Childress did not agree with all that Gardner had espoused, they have continued on with his initial work. Yes they branched out into different directions, but essentially the subject matter is the same, even if they have given some behaviours different names.

            No matter how you label this crime, it is the most heinous form of child abuse. Making children hate one parent, is forcing them to hate half of themselves and it is an abuse they will never get over, if there is no reunification. And unfortunately in the vast majority of alienation cases, there will never be any reunification.

          6. Well Shrek there is one biological impulse that is even stronger than gynocentrism, and that is…survival.

            If enough men are fucked over enough by the courts and society in general…THEN something along the lines of dramatic change will happen. We are seeing the beginnings with MGTOW.

            I do think though that things may have to get much worse than they are now for enough men to say “fuck this shit”. I hope not though.

          7. When men are being hung out to dry in such massive numbers that even the most in denial clueless blue piller will fear for his safety and freedom…and the only men that will still be pussy begging and licking asses will be SJW/feminist manginas waiting for their pat on the head like a good house n*****.

          8. Oh I agree. Not sure if we will ever see enough men to fight this battle. Men, even seriously angry men, will never fight women. And by that I mean, even politically!

            We simply cannot believe that this is just a fight against blue pill manginas. Women actually have control of govt, govt depts, ngos, the media, education and the spending of most of the money, not to mention the consumption of the majority of resources this poor old Earth is being raped for on a daily basis.

            So men have little power, even as a collective. Unless of course this collective decides upon open war and aims to kill off all the blue pill manginas and all the women who are feminists and who supported feminism. There are only a small number of feminists in each country, but to kill off the supporters of feminism, would mean killing off nearly 90+% of the female population.

            Knowing that open war will probably never happen and that men even as a collective will not take on women politically, what else is left?

            MGTOW or Bachelorhood!

            That is our only recourse. And it will only ever work, when we get enough very young men becoming MGTOW and refusing to engage with women. The numbers would have to be high enough to scare the crap out of the female collective, where they can actually see a large number of them not having access to the male resources of slavery and children.

            They will bring in laws to punish first, but if the men stay strong, they will have to change tact. Only then will the tradcon women finally turn on the femtards.

            That will be the moment in time when the men will have to be strong enough to know what they want and to be able to demand certain levels of behaviour from women and full equality before the law, including the punishment of women to the full extent of the law like men are.

            And I’m afraid all of us old farts will not be here to see this day!

          9. “What shits me though, is this idiotic belief that the majority of men have played around prior to marriage or in their lifetime, when this is absolutely not true. It never has been true.”

            That’s right. A lot of women defend their own promiscuity by saying they are behaving “as a man would”. Really? I must live in some parallel universe that I can’t account for then. Men who play around have always had to have loose women to play around with. If all women were blushing maidens, as they would have us believe, men simply couldn’t play around. Aw, ladies, do keep up: It’s not that difficult, even for you!

            I don’t know any men with a history that matches the stereotype. It’s an individual thing, no more gender-based than domestic violence is. It’s an absurd thing, actually, to say “half the population are this” and “half the population are that”. There isn’t really a great deal in terms of behaviour that is gender-based, other than in the really obvious areas, and those areas where gynocentric brainwashing has come into play for people who can’t or won’t think for themselves. All good or bad traits are just that – traits, with both men and women equally capable of carrying them out (and they do). It’s as dumb as their belief in astrology, where they say, “Oh, you’re a Cancer, so that makes you this, that or the other…” How were feminists ever taken seriously in the first place?

          10. What would you expect women to be when practically every retail store in the United States has shoved pornographic magazine covers into the faces of young teens going through checkouts?
            This has gone on for over 20 years.

          11. It’s actually the fact that the culture and the legal system are set up to reward shitty gynocentric behavior. This has gone on for far longer than 20 years.

          12. I’m talking about an actual, physical ACT.
            Glossy porno shoved in the faces of kids in virtually all retail store checkouts….”Orgasm” this and “Orgasm” that.

          13. THis is another tactic that feminism has used……
            who were the first humans to team up > Men. We hunted the mammoth, we built the the pyramids FFS…… we do care about our wellbeing….. somewhere in the last century or two feminism convinced us otherwise……

            WE need to care again for our sons…

          14. Oh, I disagree.
            There are all kinds of things to be done that don’t involve people that take advantage of you.

          15. well, i have the kid bug, all laws are stacked against me, i cant wait for artificial wombs…… what can i do?

          16. Get a dog. They are more loyal, won’t steal your children or falsely accuse you of anything.
            Dogs, not women, are ‘Mans best friend’

      2. Men just do not care? Bullshit. This is pure shaming language – to suggest that the men ripped out of their children’s lives “just do not care”.

        Maybe read #7 in the embedded link in the article, that pretty much covers this:

        Nine years of my life to date, well into six figures of legal costs, my life and health destroyed by the system. And it’s because “we like football…”

        If you have a helpful list handy, of all the things men “should” be doing, please post it.

        1. Yes. Men do not care. If it were otherwise, we would band together and take back our stolen rights by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY!
          Just like the feminists did to steal our rights in the first place. I don’t give a shit how much money you spent, what about the thousands of generations that come after??? The system is stacked against anyone with a penis and men, that’s right MALES allow this to continue. It doesn’t matter how much you try to divert the attention; everything I have said is fact. Men know more about football scores and teams than what’s going on in the ‘Anti-family’ courts. How do you explain this? I’ll answer for you, men don’t care.

          1. Well, good sir? advise us, how do we team up to go to together? im up for some bitch-slapping….. 🙂

          2. Men have to decide first that they actually care about this insanity which hitherto has not been the case. Until this is properly addressed, NOTHING is going to change save for things getting worse as we see every day. In the mean time, MGTOW is the only viable alternative. It has been a ‘cake-walk’ for feminists to viciously steal men’s rights principly because men not only allow it, but actually condone it. Stupid yes, but there it is-

        2. He’s talking about men collectively not caring enough to do anything about it.

          Of course the dad that has his children stripped from him is devastated; that is the whole point. If men as a demographic really wanted to end this shit we could.

          What if there actually was a gender war and men actually showed up?

          You are not really trying to argue this point are you?

      3. Its not that, the media and all this female oppression BS is forced down the average persons throat, this is why men, rather, do not ‘realise’ whats going on…..

  2. There is a huge amount to unpackage in this article, but I will only make a few comments here, but probably say more in reply to other commenters.

    First of all, I would like to qualify my position to you Dr. Gee.

    I am a targeted parent and have lost 2 children to Parental Alienation Syndrome which exists in my children. I lost them over 30 years ago and will probably never see them again. I have been told by my younger children that I am a grandfather and I have accepted that I will probably never see those children either before I die.

    Okay, so that is my position. Now my experience:

    Since the very early 2000s up until approx 10 years ago, I was a member of and then eventually a moderator of two online Parental Alienation support groups. The second group had as a member Dr. Amy Baker whose book you have promoted and she actually collected some of her information from that group to be used as anecdotal fill with regard some of the content. It could not be used as evidence, because there were no studies. She could only use it as hearsay evidence of experiences sufferers were having to endure. I have nothing to back this claim up, except vague memory of email conversations between Dr. Baker and us moderators.

    All was going well with regards a large number of fathers who were suffering terribly from this evil, until that is one group owner decided to allow a woman on as a moderator. She ended up as a mod of both groups. The second one she ended up as the owner. This woman later on admitted to being a previous N.O.W. member, but says she wasn’t anymore. She was still a feminist as I found out in the end.

    Well, you can guess what happened after that. It was forced that female ‘targeted parents’ be allowed to join these groups I was a moderator in. That was the end of those groups.
    Once the women came in, the men could no longer speak frankly or openly and honestly. They were attacked by the other women and then the female moderator.
    The men left in droves. Then the women attacked me, so I walked also.

    I seriously doubt that any of those women were actually targeted parents. They seemed to me to be more feminist women who were the architects of their own alienation, because their attitudes and behaviour toward men AND children, strongly pointed to that end.

    So that establishes my experience in this area!

    After hearing all those stories over the years, where men had seen their lives destroyed and the relationships they once had with their children totally annihilated, there appeared to be a very large number of villains come to the fore who could be easily accused of this most heinous form of child abuse alongside the conniving and rotten to the core mothers.

    And those people were all Psychologists!!!

    Before I say another word. No! This is not an attack on you at all. I would never do that to someone who clearly is trying to assist in this area and I do know there are ‘some’ decent psychologists around, but like good women, they are indeed very scarce.

    I am instead attacking your industry, the universities that teach this mostly feminist bent pseudo-science and then of course the evil that these lowest forms of human beings perpetrate in family courts around the Western World.

    And no, psychs never had anything to do with my case at all! My kids mother did it all on her own.

    The only thing I am going to say on this further is, because these most foul of human beings have involved themselves in this area of family breakdown, they have invented much bullshit information, which is typical of feminist dogma and they have tried to say that science has proven this or that, especially the one point that I totally reject, which is that if men were given the same opportunities women have today, that they would alienate children at a similar rate.

    Bullshit to all of that, because we already have a very looooooong period of time to collect statistics from all the evidence that it existed once upon a time. Like the hundreds of years when fathers were the default parent post separation. Oh wait, there is no evidence to collect, because it virtually never happened!

    Nowhere in history is there any evidence that fathers did perpetrated such a heinous form of child abuse and ex-spousal abuse on any level bar scattered cases. If they did, the feminists from the late 1700s downwards would have been screaming it from the rooftops and it would have been one of the first crimes dealt with on a large scale and done so retrospectively.
    Just like we see today these lying women coming forward claiming rape from almost half century ago, we would have had millions of cases around the globe of children or their mothers, filing law suits against fathers who caused all that pain and child abuse.

    It never occurred, because Parental Alienation never or very rarely ever happened. This most heinous form of child abuse is indeed a ‘female specific’ crime and we must address it as such.

    My last contention with all the so-called scientific evidence which I deem as total bullshit, is that this is a crime of a mentally ill person, or should I say women.

    These women are not sick in the head so that they are unaware of how their behaviour is harming children or men. No!!
    They are completely sane and are making premeditated and calculated decisions, knowing full well what harm they are intending on inflicting. They are prepared to sacrifice their children, which is something the majority of fathers would never do.

    They are not insane. They are indeed purely evil!

    1. MichaelZWilliamson

      The spectrum of narcissistic and sociopathic disorders isn’t properly “insane” because they know exactly what they’re doing and feel fully justified. It is, however, “Defective” as far as human personalities go.

      It’s also my experience that women do so at least as often as men get accused. And I certainly understand why your subjective experience would push you to feel it far more of a female thing.

      But I have seen men do it, too.

      Women, though, can much more easily play the victim while doing so, which makes them more dangerous.

      1. Since the corrupt anti-family court sees fit to kidnap the children away from fit fathers in some 80 -90% of all divorces it naturally becomes a female dominated crime which the corrupt anti-family court allows without proscution. That is because of the repeat business this almost exclusive female crime brings in.
        And we men stupidly allow this to continue.

        1. MichaelZWilliamson

          In my case, despite being the custodial parent, there was actually a demand that I pay child support for the 3 days a month she bothers to see her son (daughter being an adult now). I declined.

          But they seriously made the proposal.

          And of course that I give her half my pension and a chunk of my IP income as well.

          I declined that offer as well.

          Notice that she managed to not pay me child support in this process.

          How many men get such a deal?

          1. I know of one who nearly committed suicide after his ex walked back into the property case they were dealing with and after he’d offered 100% to get her to let him see the kids, she demanded 101%. Why the officers of the court don’t see, and deal with that as extortion is beyond me.

      2. Michael, this is where I was going to go with this one. The personality disorder point is well-taken. In my own experience women are more likely than men to do it, if only because the odds against men getting the level of access to the child that would be needed are pretty high (about 7:1 in Australia). That said, my first alienation case, 15 years ago, was a father targeting a mother, and I’ve seen a couple of others over the years. In the alienation groups, it’s sad that the groups Shrek6 moderated were hijacked by agenda-driven ideologues, that is an unfortunate risk of social media groups and speaks to the idea that just as one would expect (in a fair world) male and female DV shelters to be segregated, perhaps gendered alienation groups are necessary. Shrek6 might want to have a look at for example.

    2. QUOTE: “which is that if men were given the same opportunities women have today, that they would alienate children at a similar rate.”

      This HAP thing happened in my marriage, I won’t go into deep detail, but I will say: My ex during our marriage and after we split hated me deeply for two reasons:

      1.) She was a bad parent and knew it, for which she blamed me.
      2.) I was the better parent and she knew it, which she despised .

      ^^^ That’s eff’d up I tell you. ^^^

      1. karl
        funny enough I was an at home dad and the two points you make were also part of my own marriage breakdown ( among her violent behavior as well).

        its almost as if mothers who complain that dads dont do enough child care feel threatened when dad do , do enough or more than enough

  3. PA (or PAS or HAP) is a dangerous phenomenon for children, and courts are almost completely impotent to address it unless it is extremely obvious.

    A new tactic has flown in under the typical radar discussed in the article above. That is, the “favored” parent will coax the child to state a preference to live with the favored parent WITHOUT so much as EVER denying visitation, or doing any of the well-known things that courts might be able to detect as red flags.

    I have found that the PA/PAS/HAP field is poorly structured to address this new weapon. It is almost as if the field is fighting yesterday’s battles and has not yet adapted to the new weaponry.

    1. ‘Coaching’ is something that any astute report writer should pick up on, however, all methods have error rates that will invariably leave some things undetected, eg., the child is convincing in denials etc. It’s not as strong a ‘brainwashing’ tactic as many of the ones in the standard armamentarium and allows the targeted parent room to counter it. The best thing for all concerned would be a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, where that tactic would be pointless without engaging in active, overt and more-readily-detected alienation that would be more likely to annoy a judge working in such a legislative framework. A false rebuttal would be far more likely to backfire, which is why working towards legislative change is vital, see

  4. MichaelZWilliamson

    I’ve been there as a child. In my case it was “I don’t want to you hate them, I just want you to know The Truth about them.” By which they mean “I want you to hate them.” This manifested as 0300 lectures about how horrible the other person was, while I was trying to sleep for school.

    I was made to be a spy in the enemy camp, reporting back on lifestyle, dating habits, events. And if I didn’t furnish an “accurate” report, I was obviously “siding” with the other parent. which meant I needed to hear more Truth about them.

    My room was raided by the police for various reasons including “To make sure I wasn’t using drugs, for my own good.” (I wasn’t.) And “in case I’d joined a Satanic cult, because there’s a cult that uses red candles and mirrors in rituals.” (I had red candles and mirrors. I had never heard of said cult. Apparently my parent knew more about the subject than I did.)

    The other parent largely didn’t engage in this behavior, but we HAD had previous problems. Eventually, you realize you can’t trust EITHER parent’s statements about the other or themselves. There’s certainly bias, and each “side” contradicts the other. So at this point, I’ve largely read both of them out of my life.

    My younger sister was first made to hate the one, even to the point of being a meat puppet repeating the parent’s comments to me over the phone while I could hear the manipulating parent in the background. Eventually, she also realized the manipulation, and she refuses to contact either parent, and hasn’t for at least 20 years.

    I eventually made enough inroads to hold courteous, occasional conversation with them.

    I’ll never know how much of the “truth” about either one is accurate.

    I made my ex-wife swear that if we ever got divorced we’d leave the children out of it. Nothing good ever comes of it. I’ve done my best to never mention her to them and to make sure they spend time with her (I am the custodial parent).

    A good parent may not always win, but the bad parent will almost always lose. Though it may take decades.

    In many ways, divorce is like death, with the ghost a perpetual presence.

        1. Worth at least getting out of the library, she’s done a study of adults who were alienated as children.. Very good stuff. And good on you for helping that poor bloke, I’ve seen a few myself along the way. Not an easy row to hoe.

          1. MichaelZWilliamson

            I can’t give details because he’d be easy to identify. But she’s a real piece of work. Such a piece, that the court and CPS sided with HIM.

  5. the ex had a bunch of, he never changed a diaper, or paid child support, doesnt want to see you, this is your new dad, stuff going on.

    I told my child the unvarnished truth about her mothers selfishness and lies.

    I don’t regret it. Was I wrong?

    1. It’s a tough call because she might have primed the child to expect you to say that, and in doing so, you “confirmed” that mum was right. If you have access, living in a way that contradicts the lies allows you to take a more Socratic approach,eg., going through the photo albums with the kids, and seeing the pics of you doing the things you’re said not to have done, joking about the worst diaper change you had to do one one of them, without calling mum directly on the lies, lets the kids work it out for themselves.

  6. Excellent article. I saw this first hand at one of my previous jobs. Long story short, one of my female coworkers (who presented herself as a party girl all the time – lots of stories there, but won’t go into them now) was going through a nasty divorce. Her way of introducing herself to me – first day on the job at a conference – was to tell me that she was in a divorce and that her ex husband had molested their two daughters. That was how she led into our work relationship.

    After awhile, we no longer spoke (more to that story) on the job. But I followed up years later on her case. She had repeated accused her ex-husband of continuing to harm their youngest daughter. All of it was in the case report online as it was public law. I think she accused him of hurting her 6 times after the initial seaparation, and it was clear that she did it to ruin him & keep control of the daughter. The final case listing I saw had lifted restrictions on her ex-husband because the court never found any indication that he had ever done anything that she had accused him of doing. There was literally no proof. But it took years to get to that point. And, during that time, he was never allowed to be in the same room as his daughter without a psychologist. I can’t imagine the horror that man faced without any evidence against him.

    What concerns me even more is how people in society respond to that story. The guy’s life was ruined. But nobody cares. I’m especially disappointed in how my family responded to the situation, because as a co-worker, this woman ruined my life as well.

    1. Thanks, Orion. False allegations of sexual abuse have been the ‘silver bullet’ in custody cases for many years. The day care cases and ‘repressed memory’ mania of the 80’s and the 90’s really fuelled the ‘must believe’ attitude that replaced ‘investigate the facts’ in police work by the end of the 90’s. We seem to live in a post-modern “post-evidence” era when it comes to these matters, and the attitude of many of the crusaders is that throwing innocent men in jail is acceptable as long as we’re getting sex offenders too. My own PhD comp on the topic is archived at the National Centre for Reason in Justice with other resources on the topic:

      1. Orion_TheHunter

        Thanks, Travis. I wish there was a way to do something about this more directly. I know raising awareness is the first step to fixing the problem. But, this woman was a train wreck. While I was at that institution she:

        1. Lied to me, in the presence of our mutual boss, about the availability of data that I was supposed to use to finish a task. The result was that I looked like a fool and had a bad review, when she had simply lied about not having the data.

        2. At a conference, she and her boyfriend got into a fight in a casino/hotel, with her two ‘abused’ children present. The fight was so bad that her boyfriend did (according to estimates from others, I didn’t see the bill) about $7,500 worth of damage to the hotel room. She had locked herself in the room with her kids after the fight and he broke the door down to get his stuff and leave (that’s what I was told). To my knowledge, there was no negative outcome to her for the incident at all. I think the boyfriend was sued. How many men would have gotten away with what she did? How did she even keep her job? She still works there, BTW.

        3. While I was there, some kind of HR investigation was undertaken, and all of us were called in for interviews. They read some emails when I was called in. The person reading the emails was ostensibly and ex-cop (I’d never seen him before and never saw him again afterward), who threatened to call the police on me if I didn’t say they were my emails. I flipped out and yelled back at him because they weren’t. I’d had enough of her, the rancid hose beast. I was never accused of anything and never told who they were sent to. But my ongoing negative relationship with her had to be part of the reason they did that. Honestly, it freaked me out. Who expects that? I ended up working there for an additional year, but was completely miserable. I think they wanted to fire me, but couldn’t because I hadn’t done anything. But, seriously, would they have taken the same tact with a woman? No way. There’s no way they pull her in, the ‘victim’ of an abusive husband going through a terrible divorce, and threaten to call the police to ‘put her away’.


    I hope you read those stories Dr Gee
    I did and those that involved the father painted them all in a negative light
    no mention that the child was alienated from their father. So I don’t see how those support groups for children are going to be helping with alienated children any-day soon( I suspect like many “support” groups they will be just as blind to the issue of HAP

    but thank you for the rest of the article.

    I have an alienated child who I have seen for most of her life now( all thanks to sharia law)

    1. Listening to the link video did not give me any confidence in place2be, it was just a bunch of superficial statements that said nothing about them. It seemed the key point is that they are “embedded” in the schools, ( Orwell?), possibly embedded such as a virus.

      1. thank you for speaking up
        wanted to be sure , that I wasn’t seeing those stories in a biased view.
        I hope that group are not going to be another group of do gooders patting themselves on the back like CALM.

      1. sharia law. the gift that keeps on giving …
        still five years after the event… (:

        .. and people still buy into the crap that sharia law is oppressive to women( rather than oppressive to men and women)

    2. Thanks, Rob. There are many support groups that provide partial services, based on a partial model, as has repeatedly been pointed out in the context of domestic violence by Erin Pizzey, who founded shelters decades ago only to be vilified for suggesting that male victims exist. It will be the same uphill battle getting targeted parents recognised, but still one that needs to be fought.

  8. Id like to thank you and Paul for this article and your work. I fought a brutal case of alienation and fortunately found the work of Dr. Craig Childress who helped me with early intervention in assessing and identifying the problem fast enough to beat an interstate custody battle wrought with the silver bullet false allegations and won. My son is now back in my home state and I share 50/50 custody with someome who still practices HAP. I turned my pain into something positive to help other parents and now coach others to help them navigate this nightmare.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *