Laws and conflictive divorce

The law on violence ^{20.066 (2005)} in Chile, tries to regulate and sanction the acts of violence within the family; it is defined as:

“Any mistreatment that affects life, physical or psychological integrity of the person who has or has had the status of spouse of the aggressor or a live-in partnership with him; or who is a relative by consanguinity or affinity in a direct line or a collateral line up to the third degree, inclusive of the aggressor or the spouse or the current live-in partner. There will also be intra-family violence when the conduct aforementioned occurs between the parents of a common child, or falls on a minor, an elderly or a disabled person who is under the care or dependence of any of the family group members (Section 5. Law 20.066)”.

Some modifications were made on this law (law No 20.480) including femicide as a punishable violent act (²⁰¹⁰) and the increase of sanctions; nevertheless, there are still areas of attention that have not been addressed in the field of intra-family violence, especially the one performed as relationship obstruction between children and parents after the couple´s divorce.

During 2013, the Law No 20.680 was approved, known as Dad´s Love Law, which introduces the principle of shared responsibility, by which both parents, living together or separately, will participate actively, equally and permanently in the parenting and education of their children (section 224 subsection 1º of the Civil Code); adding that the shared personal care stimulates the shared responsibility of both parents living separately, in the parenting and education of the children in common (section 225 subsection 2º of the Civil Code); decreasing the asymmetries in custody for children of separate parents and limiting the impediment of contact in high-conflict divorces; taking into account that when this kind of divorce takes place we observe the obstruction of one of the parents towards the other to relate with physical proximity and emotionally with their children, repeated disputes between the former spouses, usually witnessed by the children and at least one member of the parental couple presents the imminent need of winning and denigrating the other (^{Folberg & Milne, 2005}; ^{Zicavo, Celis, González, & Mercado, 2016}).

The exercise of parenting and its obstruction during conflictive divorce situation (limitation, impediment or obstruction of contact of one of the parents with their children) are strongly conditioned by power relations, as an essential part of human interaction (Ponce, Arrieta, Jalile, & Guini, in ^{Zicavo, 2016}). Parental Alienation appears as the extreme result of these interaction conflicts. In this regard, R. Gardner proposes the concept of parental alienation syndrome (SAP). SAP appears as a disorder characterized by the set of symptoms that result from the process by which a parent transforms the consciousness of the children with the aim of preventing, hindering or destroying the ties to the other parent (^{Gardner, 1998}). It occurs within the context of disputes related to the custody of children and its first manifestation is a smear campaign against one of the parents, consciously structured by the custodial parent and supported by the child, a campaign that lacks justification (^{Gardner, 1998}). For the author, the intensity of the alienation process evidenced in children can be typologically differentiated into three gradually increasing levels: Mild, Moderate and Severe (this classification will be discussed later).

Critical perspectives related to Parental Alienation (PA)

The SAP is not fully accepted by the academic and scientific world, although it is widely referred in legal environments due to parental disputes in highly conflictive divorce processes. Besides, the use of “syndrome” concept does not elicit broad agreements since authors such as ^{Bernet and Baker (2013}), even sharing the background of Gardner's proposal, distance themselves from this definition.

The authors state:

“Our definition of AP is a mental condition in which a child, usually whose parents are involved in a high-conflict separation or divorce, strongly allies with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification. PA presents abnormal and maladaptive behavior (refusal to have a relationship with a loving parent) that is driven by an abnormal mental state consisting in a false belief that the rejected parent is evil, dangerous, or unlovable (^{Bernet & Baker, 2013}, p. 99).

The aforementioned authors suggest the reformulation of the Gardner’s alienation model, distancing themselves from the denomination of syndrome and proposing to assume the terms AP as a relational process, in which there would be strong setbacks, conflicts, between parents and children in the course of care and guardianship as they grow. They see with close conceptual identity the enunciations of ^{Kelly and Johnston (2001}) who define the alienation model with a scheme of infantile behaviors characterized by hatred, fear and unjustified and disproportionate rejection against the estranged father (Kelly & Jonhston, in ^{Bernet & Baker, 2013}). Such behaviors would not be a mental illness, rather they are evidence of a relational problem or dysfunctional family interaction (^{Bernet & Baker, 2013}; ^{Siracusano, Barone, Lisi, & Niolu, 2015}).

Other authors, such as ^{Moses and Townsend (2011}), ^{O'Donohue, Benuto and Bennett (2016}), ^{Pepiton, Alvis, Allen and Logid (2012}), and ^{Zirogiannis (2001}), point out that there would not be enough empirical evidence for PAS to be a psychiatric diagnosis. Therefore, the situation characterized as parental alienation should not be included in the DSM and ICD classification manuals. On the other hand, Gardner's publications are questioned, since most were not published in peer-referenced journals and would be from his own publisher. Thus, his articles were not subjected to peer review, and, therefore, the works lack of scientific support in terms of their contribution (^{Moses & Townsend, 2011}; ^{Pepiton et al., 2012}).

On the other hand, Walker, Brantley and Rigsbee, 2004 (in ^{O'Donohue et al., 2016}) argued that some children have separation anxiety when their parents are divorcing. Therefore, such "symptoms" of the child may also demonstrate his attempts to manage the stress of the family situation, regardless of the existence of mistreatment or child abuse promoted by one of his/her parents. In addition, they point out that such symptoms may also be the result of physical or sexual abuse (or neglect) that occurred before, which may have been one of the precipitating reasons for the conflictive divorce. This situation in itself generates unavoidable confusion and lack of scientific rigor in the diagnosis. To sum up, authors present a very detail set of arguments tending to demonstrate that there are no evidences that the characteristics involved in PAS constitute a valid syndrome (O'Donohue et al., 2016). Even so, they suggest that, even when PAS is not an acceptable diagnosis, it is necessary to understand that on many occasions some parents engage in specific behaviors in order to damage the child's relationship with the other parent.

The DSM and CIE classifications manuals not only have the due endorsement of the scientific community but are also guides in professional and academic work. However, they do not constitute in themselves a definitive and immutable truth. A look at the history related to what happened with homosexuality, ADHD, Autism, Schizophrenia, Neurosis, among others, contributes to understand this affirmation. These manuals are in constant revision, as they only suppose a certain consensus linked to a history moment and context. Therefore, the inclusion or exclusion of a term in the following edition has been part of a permanent debate that enriches the process since its evolution is obviously constant.

In this direction, in 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO), suggests the inclusion of Parental Alienation in the ICD-11. This inclusion does not constitute an independent diagnosis in itself but should be considered as a synonym or an index term for other specific diagnosis. This other diagnosis describes relationship problems between caregiver and child, and it is identified with the code QE52.0 (ICD-11, 2018), under the concept of Parenting. It involves problems associated with interpersonal relationships in childhood. The diagnosis describes substantial and sustained dissatisfaction in the relationship between the caregiver and the child, associated with significant disturbance in functioning. The index of terms specifies problems in the relationship between caregiver and child; problems between parents and children; problems between caregiver and child, between a parent and the previous caregiver; Parental Alienation; Parental estrangement (ICD-11, 2018). The mentions facts referred to parental alienation scientific consideration comes to settle an important part of the debate about its existence. However, its definition is perfectible, and the manuals must continue to change and adapt to new situations.

Finally, ^{Aguilar (2006}), ^{Baker and Eichler (2016}), Baker and Verrocchio, (2016), ^{Bernet and Baker (2013}), ^{Bernet, Baker and Verocchio, (2015)}, ^{Ferrari (1999}), ^{Gardner (1998}), ^{Ramírez (2011}), ^{Tejedor (2006}) and ^{Zicavo (2006}), among others, affirm that there exist series of components that help to identify the process of parental alienation within the course of the conflictive breakup of the couple. These components are those that have guided the present research. We have named this elements Components for the identification of PA, and they consititue the theoretical basis in the construction of the ZICAP II Scale.

PA identification components

Evidences of the beginning of manipulative behaviour and malicious suggestion. This item includes behaviors of initial obstruction - direct or indirect - of the child contact with the non-custodial parent, carried out by the custodial parent. It usually occurs through clear and manifest manipulation of child's affects and loyalties. It is an initial suggestive process that attempts to turn children's loyalty to the father perceived as a victim of the misadjusted conjugality function of the other parent (^{Aguilar, 2006}; ^{Zicavo, 2010}).

Use of time as an alienation strategy. When one of the parents is forced to be absent from the family dynamic for long periods of time, the other parent acquires great power in the formation and direction of child’s ideas, beliefs, affections and socialization processes. Systematic manipulation sustained over time is an effective and strong weapon in the hands of the alienator parent, turning the child to an active member of the smear campaign (^{Tejedor, 2006}).

Difficulties in exercising right of access, visit or contact with the child. The custodial parent premeditatedly prevents or hinders the contact of the other parent with the child, scheduling other attractive or unavoidable activities at the very moment the contacted was accorded. Thus, the programmed contact is frustrated (^{Zicavo, 2010}).

Judicial immersion processes. Alienating parents tend to use and abuse of judicial processes and the supervision of parent/child contacts. Additionally, they interrogate their children about what they have done, seen or heard during the contact with the other parent. Going further, AP describes them judicial episodes with the intention of influencing children’s ideas and beliefs, with the intention of manipulating them (^{Ramírez, 2011}; ^{Zicavo, 2006}).

Insults and disapproval campaign. The child usually contributes to the alienating process actively with insults and contempt against the contact parent, as a result of the systematic action of the custodial parent to convert him into an ally in the battle raised to make the contact parent the solely responsible for the marital rupture (^{Aguilar, 2004}; ^{Baker & Verrocchio, 2016}; ^{Gardner, 1998}). The child feels that he must take sides in the defense of the alienating parent as an act of alleged justice (^{Aguilar, 2004}).

Spread hatred to the alienated parent’s environment. The alienated child not only shows antipathy and rejection of the absent parent (without any real justification for it) but to everything referred to he/she or any member of his/her family: grandparents, uncles, cousins, among others. It is important to note that before the beginning of the conflictive divorce, they had close and pleasant relationships that suddenly became dangerous and should be bewared or avoided (^{Aguilar, 2004}).

Lack of feelings of guilt. The child refers to feel no guilt for the hatred experienced by his contact parent, because he/she deserves it. It constitutes an act of loyalty demanded by the custodial parent and subsequently incorporated as freely assumed conduct. This situation divides the world into good and bad, describing irreconcilable opposites without any remorse (^{Aguilar, 2004}; ^{Baker & Verrocchio, 2016}).

Independent thinker phenomenon. The child affirms that the idea of rejecting the absent parent is exclusively his/her own and no one has influenced him/her, in clear allusion to a strong identification with the alienating parent (^{Gardner, 1998}). It is indicative that the relational obstruction is installed and contributing to the uprooting of emotional ties (^{Baker & Verrocchio, 2016}; ^{Ferrari, 1999}; ^{Zicavo, 2006}).

The presence of these components indicates a new form of child abuse that will have strong psychosocial effects on children's development. It reveals highly conflictive family processes that promote, as a result, the formation of dysfunctional relational patterns in people who later will reproduce - as a tendency - dysfunctional family ties or at least highly pathogenic conflict resolution mechanisms (see, for example ^{Baker 2005}). Even considering the aforementioned, since R. Gardner proposed the concept of parental alienation, cannot be set aside the discussions and controversies that it -as a syndrome- has generated in the scientific literature and clinical practice. In this sense, as we mentioned before, both the denomination of the phenomenon and its directionality and the involvement of each actor, among other dimensions, are currently being discussed (^{Kelly & Johnston, 2001} y ^{Zander, 2012}). Beyond the controversy, the description and characterization of the dysfunctional and alienating links during a difficult divorce acquire scientific and clinical relevance in terms of preventing harmful consequences of this relational conflictive situation (^{Cunha Gomide, Bedin Camargo, & Gonzales Fernandes, 2016}).

PA Dimensions

The preliminary analysis report elaborated by a Chilean research group headed by one of the authors of the present paper, indicates that, in a sample of 257 children of separated parents (^{Zicavo, Celis, González, & Mercado, 2016}), it was possible to organize theoretical components of PA into three dimensions. However, in successive adjustments derived from further measurements and statistical analysis, two dimensions were reached as central axes through which PA process is evidenced as a manifestation of child abuse and domestic violence. The mentioned dimensions are:

Table 1: Dimensions, Components and Items 

^Note: Own elaboration

Materials and Method

Population and sample

In the present study, Chilean children and adolescents belonging to separated parents’ families, aged between 9 and 15 years were considered as the entire population. Selected sample was informal, intentional and non-probabilistic. Sample consisted of children of separated parents belonging to educational establishments or family mediation centers in regions V to XVI of Chile. The distribution by Regions of Chile as well as age and sex, can be seen below in Table 2, the final version of the scale was applied to the sample.

Table 2: Descriptive statistic of the sample 

^Note: Own elaboration

Results

To conduct Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) and subsequent Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA), the entire sample was randomly divided, considering 274 cases for the EFA and the remaining 907 cases for the CFA. To analyze whether the data met the requirements to apply this procedure, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Sample Adequacy measure was estimated, giving a value of 0.866, in addition, Bartlett's Sphericity test showed a result of χ² (df = 528) = 3596.87, p < .0001. On the other hand, to analyze normal distribution of the data, asymmetry and kurtosis values were estimated for each of the items. Only 7 of them approach the normal distribution and 26 items show a distribution that moves away from the normal curve.

Because data show conditions to allow a factor analysis, but no univariate or multivariate normality is observed, the unweighted least squares (ULS) procedure was used to perform the Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. As the factors were expected to be correlated in the AFE, the Oblimin Rotation Method was used. As an additional procedure, the anti-image correlation was estimated. Items with values below 0.8 were eliminated, obtaining a final instrument of 29 items. Following analyzes were performed considering this 29-items scale.

Theoretical two-dimensions solution was observed in the 29-itmes scale after the EFA application to the sample of 274 subjects (see table 3). Subsequently, the CFA was performed with the sample of 907 children whose results are shown in Figure 1. A good fit of the model is considered when χ² value is not significant; however, this test is sensitive to the sample size, tending to be significant in large sample size studies, similar to the present research (907 cases considered). Given this consideration, other goodness fit measures were considered. In these terms, χ² measure divided by degrees of freedom was considered acceptable when its results tend to be below to 5. Furthermore, GFI, AGFI y CFI indexes were obtained, considering that all of them must be greater than 0.95. RMSEA must be nearby or below to 0.05 (^{Escobedo, Hernández, Estebané & Martínez, 2016}; ^{Pérez & Medrano, 2010}).

Confirmatory Factorial Analysis showed a significant result; χ² (df=376)= 979.06; p < .0001; χ²/df= 2.6; GFI= 0.969; AGFI= 0.964; CFI= 0.901; and RMSEA= 0.042. Therefore, it is possible to affirm that the tested model shows acceptable adjustment values with the data obtained from a sample of children of separated parents. Table 6

Table 3: Structure matrix, n=274 

Figure 1: Confirmatory factor analysis. n = 907 

Reliability of each of the dimensions was analyzed using Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient. It is observed that, in Dimension I, Alienating Behaviors: Capture or Emotional Hijacking, the twelve items that compose it reached an alpha value of .777. This value would decrease when eliminating any of the items. Regarding Dimension II, Alienated Behaviors: Avoidance, Disdain and Irrational Over-implication, it indicates an alpha value of .884 for the seventeen items that compose it and this value would decrease when eliminating any of the items. Finally, the scales of the ZICAP II Scale, and of each of the dimensions, were constructed considering the averages and standard deviations observed in the sample, to estimate the standardized scores.

To obtain the standardized values, comparisons were made according to total values of the scale and of each of the dimensions according to sex and age and no significant differences are observed. Standardized values are calculated from the data of the entire sample. Finally, the scales of the ZICAP II Scale and of each dimension were constructed, considering the averages and standard deviations observed in the sample to estimate the standardized scores (average of 50; deviation 20).

Standardized scores lower than 90 are considered Absence of PA; scores equal to or greater than 90 and lower than 110 are considered Mild PA; standardized scores equal to or greater than 110 and lower than 130 are considered Moderate PA; and standardized scores equal to or greater than 130 are considered as Severe PA. Further discussion related to the above-mentioned grades classification will be found in the following section (Discussion and Conclusion).