Latest / Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour / A Counter Allegation Can Turn A Safeguarding Concern Into Suspicion

Transcript

A Counter Allegation Can Turn A Safeguarding Concern Into Suspicion · Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Hello and welcome back.
• 0:01
  SPEAKER_00: I'm Kim Lee, child and adolescent psychotherapist.
• 0:05
  SPEAKER_00: And this series is entitled When a Child Says No to Contact.
• 0:11
  SPEAKER_00: And this is episode five called The Counter Allegation.
• 0:16
  SPEAKER_00: In the last episode, I looked at what happens when a parent's attempt to protect a child is recast as alienation.
• 0:26
  SPEAKER_00: In this episode, I want to look more closely at something which frequently follows the counterallegation.
• 0:34
  SPEAKER_00: So a parent raises concerns about domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual harm, or frightening behaviors towards or around a child.
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_00: The other parent denies these concerns and responds by alleging parental alienation.
• 0:54
  SPEAKER_00: Now, the case can then change direction remarkably quickly.
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_00: So instead of asking the question, what might have happened or be happening to this child, parents may begin asking, What has the parent done to make the child say that something has happened?
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_00: These aren't the same questions, they're quite different, of course.
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_00: And also, there are parents who make false or exaggerated allegations to damage a child's relationship with the other parent.
• 1:27
  SPEAKER_00: Now, when I say this, I'm saying it for the purpose of balance.
• 1:32
  SPEAKER_00: But I also have to qualify that by saying in my experience of working with such cases, it is incredibly rare to see that this has happened.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: But there are also parents who genuinely believe that their child is at risk when the evidence doesn't necessarily support that belief.
• 1:52
  SPEAKER_00: But it has to be said that an allegation of abuse is not proof of abuse.
• 1:59
  SPEAKER_00: But an allegation is not shown to be false simply because the other parent calls it alienation, but also when there is no tangible, clear evidence.
• 2:12
  SPEAKER_00: Sometimes these things are very subtle, nonetheless, they're still powerful.
• 2:17
  SPEAKER_00: So really what this comes down to is it requires proper investigation.
• 2:23
  SPEAKER_00: It's not a kind of he said, she said, and one's right, the other's wrong.
• 2:28
  SPEAKER_00: It requires a more forensic understanding and investigation.
• 2:34
  SPEAKER_00: The current guidance from the Family Justice Council recognizes that allegations of alienating behavior are sometimes made in response to allegations of domestic abuse.
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_00: It's like, you know, a game of cards.
• 2:49
  SPEAKER_00: Well, you're saying domestic abuse.
• 2:51
  SPEAKER_00: Well, I'll trump your domestic abuse and raise it with parental alienation.
• 2:56
  SPEAKER_00: But the guidance warns that the concept may be used to divert attention from abuse or continue controlling behavior through the family court.
• 3:07
  SPEAKER_00: And this happens.
• 3:09
  SPEAKER_00: The domestic abuse commissioner has expressed similar concerns, and particularly where allegations of alienation are used to avoid accountability or minimize the experiences of an abused parent and child.
• 3:27
  SPEAKER_00: Now, this doesn't mean that every allegation of alienation is tactical, it means that the possibility must be considered.
• 3:39
  SPEAKER_00: The particular danger of the counter allegation is that it can reverse the apparent roles within the case.
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_00: So the parent who first raised the safeguarding concern becomes the person under suspicion.
• 3:53
  SPEAKER_00: And the parent about whom the concern was raised becomes the apparent victim.
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_00: And the child's reluctance to have contact becomes evidence, not of what the child may have experienced, but of what the other parent is presumed to have done.
• 4:11
  SPEAKER_00: The original concern hasn't been investigated.
• 4:14
  SPEAKER_00: It's simply been displaced.
• 4:17
  SPEAKER_00: So let's imagine that a child begins to resist contact.
• 4:21
  SPEAKER_00: The child says that one parent frightens them.
• 4:24
  SPEAKER_00: Perhaps they describe shouting, threats, intimidation.
• 4:29
  SPEAKER_00: Perhaps they've witnessed violence towards the other parent.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: Or perhaps they disclose something more serious.
• 4:36
  SPEAKER_00: The parent with whom the child lives reports these concerns.
• 4:40
  SPEAKER_00: The other parent denies them.
• 4:43
  SPEAKER_00: They say that the child was never fronted before, that the language doesn't sound like the child's own, that the other parent has always opposed contact.
• 4:53
  SPEAKER_00: They then allege parental alienation.
• 4:57
  SPEAKER_00: Now, at this point, there are two principal explanations.
• 5:01
  SPEAKER_00: The child may be resisting contact because something harmful or frightening has happened, or the child may have been influenced to reject a parent who has not harmed them.
• 5:14
  SPEAKER_00: There may also be elements of both.
• 5:18
  SPEAKER_00: But a child can have legitimate reasons for refusing contact whilst also being affected by the anxiety or hostility of the parent with whom they live.
• 5:32
  SPEAKER_00: Family situations don't always divide neatly into one blameless parent and one harmful parent.
• 5:40
  SPEAKER_00: But the task here is to examine the evidence rather than to make assumptions.
• 5:48
  SPEAKER_00: One allegation doesn't cancel out the other, nor should the counter allegation automatically become the explanation for the first.
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_00: And this is where chronology becomes extremely important.
• 6:02
  SPEAKER_00: When did the distress begin?
• 6:05
  SPEAKER_00: When did they first resist contact?
• 6:08
  SPEAKER_00: What was happening at the time?
• 6:11
  SPEAKER_00: When were concerns first reported and to whom?
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_00: Were professionals involved?
• 6:18
  SPEAKER_00: When was the alienation first alleged?
• 6:21
  SPEAKER_00: And this timing doesn't provide a clear answer to what's happened, but what it does do is give us a broader picture.
• 6:33
  SPEAKER_00: Please excuse me, sniffing and have a cold.
• 6:36
  SPEAKER_00: We must also separate what was observed from how it was interpreted.
• 6:42
  SPEAKER_00: The observation might be that the child cried and refused to get into the car, for example.
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_00: Now, one interpretation is the child was frightened of the parent.
• 6:52
  SPEAKER_00: Another is the child had been manipulating, manipulated into refusing contact.
• 6:58
  SPEAKER_00: And another one might be that the child was fearful of leaving the other parent for all kinds of reasons.
• 7:06
  SPEAKER_00: But the event is real, but its meaning remains unclear.
• 7:12
  SPEAKER_00: But the distinction is essential because once the label of alienation has been accepted, almost everything the child does can be made to support that allegation.
• 7:26
  SPEAKER_00: So if the child refuses contact, that's alienation.
• 7:30
  SPEAKER_00: If the child explains why the explanation is said to have been planted, if the child uses mature language, it's assumed to have come from an adult.
• 7:41
  SPEAKER_00: If the child becomes distressed before contact, the distress is attributed to the influence of the other parent.
• 7:49
  SPEAKER_00: So then the theory, which is often fanciful, becomes impossible to disprove.
• 7:56
  SPEAKER_00: Well, I say impossible.
• 7:59
  SPEAKER_00: It's not actually, but it does require a particular kind of approach.
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_00: So none of this is sound clinical reasoning.
• 8:16
  SPEAKER_00: And it's to be honest, it's not especially intelligent because it doesn't examine causation.
• 8:26
  SPEAKER_00: So an explanation must be must be capable of being tested.
• 8:31
  SPEAKER_00: What's the evidence that supports it?
• 8:33
  SPEAKER_00: What contradicts it?
• 8:35
  SPEAKER_00: What other explanations have been considered or need to be considered?
• 8:40
  SPEAKER_00: And what would cause us to change our view?
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_00: The same care is needed when a child's account is considered.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_00: Children may disclose things gradually.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_00: They may confuse dates or sequences, they may retract something because they're frightened of the consequences.
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_00: Their language may change depending upon who is asking the questions.
• 9:04
  SPEAKER_00: And I can say from this is not this isn't theory, this is reality.
• 9:08
  SPEAKER_00: This is my lived clinical reality because I've encountered these things many, many times.
• 9:14
  SPEAKER_00: But the thing is, inconsistency doesn't automatically mean that a child is traumatized and telling the truth, but nor does it mean that they've been coached or are lying.
• 9:27
  SPEAKER_00: It has to be understood.
• 9:28
  SPEAKER_00: Which parts of the account remained inconsistent?
• 9:32
  SPEAKER_00: How are the questions asked?
• 9:34
  SPEAKER_00: How many adults have spoken to the child?
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_00: Was the child repeatedly asked to explain or defend what they had said?
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: Did the information emerge spontaneously or through persistent questioning?
• 9:47
  SPEAKER_00: And this is important.
• 9:49
  SPEAKER_00: These are forensic questions, and they're more useful than simply deciding whether the child sounds convincing.
• 9:57
  SPEAKER_00: We need to apply the same discipline to adults.
• 10:02
  SPEAKER_00: Now a parent who has experienced prolonged fear or coercion may give a confused and poorly organized account.
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_00: Another parent may appear calm, measured, and persuasive, but neither presentation establishes what has happened or is happening.
• 10:23
  SPEAKER_00: Distress is not proof of abuse, but calmness is not proof of safety.
• 10:28
  SPEAKER_00: An interview tells us how a person presented during that interview.
• 10:33
  SPEAKER_00: It doesn't necessarily tell us how they behave within the family.
• 10:38
  SPEAKER_00: I'm also cautious when cases are described as involving mutual allegations or high conflict.
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_00: Sometimes both parents behave badly.
• 10:50
  SPEAKER_00: But describing all allegations as mutual can create a very misleading impression.
• 10:58
  SPEAKER_00: They're equal in nature and supported by equivalent evidence.
• 11:03
  SPEAKER_00: They may not be similarity, conflict, and coercive control are not the same thing.
• 11:12
  SPEAKER_00: Conflict involves disagreement, coercive control involves a pattern of domination in which one person's freedom is progressively restricted through fear, surveillance, threats, humiliation, or punishment.
• 11:27
  SPEAKER_00: If coercive control is simply described as conflict, the imbalance of power that's there disappears.
• 11:35
  SPEAKER_00: So does the child's experience of living within it.
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_00: Children may hear arguments from another room.
• 11:43
  SPEAKER_00: They may hear one parent talking to the other on the phone.
• 11:46
  SPEAKER_00: They may notice one parent monitoring the other.
• 11:57
  SPEAKER_00: Even after separation, contact for that child may represent a return to the emotional atmosphere which the child has experienced as frightening.
• 12:09
  SPEAKER_00: So, in a sense, you know, just because the parents no longer live together, the child has already internalized a considerable amount of conflict.
• 12:18
  SPEAKER_00: A return to the parent to was a significant part of that, re-arouses those things.
• 12:27
  SPEAKER_00: So we have to have a much wider understanding of the history of the relationships.
• 12:32
  SPEAKER_00: And another difficulty arises when a previous investigation has not substantiated an allegation.
• 12:43
  SPEAKER_00: Not substantiated does not necessarily mean false.
• 12:48
  SPEAKER_00: It means lack of evidence or lack of intelligent questioning, lack of intelligent investigation.
• 12:56
  SPEAKER_00: And I think that that is a very important distinction.
• 13:00
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, a police investigation that doesn't result in a charge is not the same as the finding that the allegation was fabricated.
• 13:10
  SPEAKER_00: A social care assessment that ends without further action doesn't necessarily establish that nothing happened.
• 13:17
  SPEAKER_00: But the opposite is also true.
• 13:19
  SPEAKER_00: An allegation shouldn't be treated as established simply because it was never disproved.
• 13:26
  SPEAKER_00: We must be precise.
• 13:28
  SPEAKER_00: Was something alleged?
• 13:30
  SPEAKER_00: Was it independently observed?
• 13:32
  SPEAKER_00: Was it recorded?
• 13:33
  SPEAKER_00: Was it disputed?
• 13:34
  SPEAKER_00: And did the court make a finding about it?
• 13:37
  SPEAKER_00: But this matters because allegations can harden as they pass from one professional document to another.
• 13:45
  SPEAKER_00: One report may say that a parent has alleged alienating behavior.
• 13:51
  SPEAKER_00: The next refers to concerns about alienations.
• 13:54
  SPEAKER_00: A later report states that alienation has occurred.
• 13:58
  SPEAKER_00: You know, it's amazing.
• 13:59
  SPEAKER_00: This can happen without people talking to each other.
• 14:02
  SPEAKER_00: You know, something that something that was written becomes a truth.
• 14:07
  SPEAKER_00: And this this is very concerning because it has to do with assumption rather than investigation.
• 14:16
  SPEAKER_00: Now, it may be that no court has ever made the finding, and no assessment may have established that there was evidence.
• 14:25
  SPEAKER_00: But the same can happen with allegations of abuse, and we must therefore know the source and status of this important information.
• 14:36
  SPEAKER_00: Now, experts must remain particularly clear about this.
• 14:41
  SPEAKER_00: Clinicians can offer an opinion about a child's psychological presentation, family relationships, and the possible explanations for the behavior.
• 14:52
  SPEAKER_00: But findings of fact belong to the court.
• 14:56
  SPEAKER_00: So we should not and cannot, as clinicians, diagnose alienation and then use that as a diagnosis to decide that the child's allegations are unreliable.
• 15:12
  SPEAKER_00: That creates circular reasoning because the child refuses contact because they have been alienated.
• 15:19
  SPEAKER_00: We know that they have been alienated because they refuse contact, and we know that the account cannot be trusted because alienated children repeat false allegations.
• 15:31
  SPEAKER_00: It's a self-maintaining and self-fulfilling illusion, essentially, because it doesn't ask the questions, it doesn't look beneath the surface, it doesn't look at the patterns, it doesn't look at those things which we as clinicians would say are evidence, but evidence of what?
• 15:51
  SPEAKER_00: It's only then when we've ex when we've examined the evidence, when we've listened to accounts, and as someone who works alongside courts and works under court order, this is precisely the task that I'm charged with, to look at all of the evidence but without conclusion in terms of yes, this is definitely alienation or no, it's not.
• 16:18
  SPEAKER_00: Instead, it is a it is a forensic understanding of what's happening, how it's happening, what the context is, and the recommendations that then go with that.
• 16:28
  SPEAKER_00: So the the whole notion of the counterallegation, in my experience and in my view, has to do not so much with proving or disproving alienation, it has to do with what does the action tell us?
• 16:50
  SPEAKER_00: What is the I use this phrase quite a lot, but what is the story that the headline points towards?
• 16:56
  SPEAKER_00: If we just accept the headline, you know, mother alienates father, well, it's almost like a done deal.
• 17:03
  SPEAKER_00: But if we don't if we look into the story, what we see is an explanation and we see context, something which tells us that maybe this mother might be protecting her child.
• 17:17
  SPEAKER_00: I know I keep talking about mothers, but that's my experience.
• 17:21
  SPEAKER_00: For the sake of balance, yes, it can be fathers too.
• 17:25
  SPEAKER_00: But the central point here is that the counter allegation is a swerve.
• 17:32
  SPEAKER_00: What it does is to is to redirect attention.
• 17:38
  SPEAKER_00: It stops being about the child, and it is far too easy to make these kinds of allegations and claims, and then to kick the whole process into a different gear and a different direction.
• 17:54
  SPEAKER_00: Meanwhile, we have a child and a parent who may be really suffering because they're not being believed or because they're being challenged, and they have become the perpetrator, when in fact they were the victim.
• 18:09
  SPEAKER_00: Whereas the other party uh assumes the mantle of victim.
• 18:14
  SPEAKER_00: Look what they've done to me.
• 18:16
  SPEAKER_00: Look what look at you know, look at the pain that I'm experiencing because it's it it's i i'm being prevented from seeing my child who I love dearly.
• 18:26
  SPEAKER_00: Well, yeah, let's look at the story, you know, again, what's the story?
• 18:30
  SPEAKER_00: What what's what's happened?
• 18:32
  SPEAKER_00: What what is it that has caused this position to come about?
• 18:37
  SPEAKER_00: Is it is it the fact that the the the child's mother is an evil witch who should be burned at the stake and that you are the poor victim?
• 18:45
  SPEAKER_00: Or is it the case that there is something happening which has caused this mother to want to protect her child that she can't quite quantify, but she is constantly concerned about the fact that the child is expressing difficulties which relate to the other parent.
• 19:04
  SPEAKER_00: And once again, we have to understand what that means because there are certain cases I've worked with where the child is expressing concerns and difficulties and reluctance, but it's not because something bad is happening, it's because the child is stuck in some way.
• 19:21
  SPEAKER_00: If I can work with the child and the parents together, we can we can normally make progress.
• 19:26
  SPEAKER_00: That's not about abuse or you know alienation, it's it's about people taking an intelligent look at what's happening.
• 19:34
  SPEAKER_00: So the this this counter-allegation is is really unhelpful.
• 19:40
  SPEAKER_00: And for those of you who may have either been the recipient of this this kind of allegation or knowing someone who does, I hope this podcast helps.
• 19:51
  SPEAKER_00: I do think that there is a fundamental question.
• 19:57
  SPEAKER_00: If you're accused of of alienating the other parent, ask the question, where's the evidence?
• 20:07
  SPEAKER_00: You won't let me see the child.
• 20:08
  SPEAKER_00: That is not evidence of alienation.
• 20:11
  SPEAKER_00: And that's also an interpretation.
• 20:13
  SPEAKER_00: My concerns are what happens and the emotional safety of my child.
• 20:19
  SPEAKER_00: And bear in mind, and this is really important, within the within the legislation and within the safeguarding policies and procedures, the notion of emotional harm is something we take seriously.
• 20:34
  SPEAKER_00: It may very well be that a child is experiencing emotional harm.
• 20:40
  SPEAKER_00: That is hard to prove.
• 20:42
  SPEAKER_00: Nonetheless, people like me see this very clearly, and we see patterns which result in behaviors like refusal to see the other parent, but also refusal to go to school, a whole range of psychological expressions of distress.
• 21:01
  SPEAKER_00: I hope this is helpful.
• 21:04
  SPEAKER_00: I know it's difficult, I really do, and but I but I hope it it gives a broader context.
• 21:12
  SPEAKER_00: In the next episode, we're going to look really right at the very centre of this.
• 21:20
  SPEAKER_00: In the very centre of this is the child.
• 21:23
  SPEAKER_00: And what I want to do is to talk about the child who becomes lost inside the case.
• 21:30
  SPEAKER_00: Thank you for listening, and I'll be back.