When Is a Child's Rejection Normal?

Imperfect parent-child relationships are not necessarily problematic. Watching for alienators’ bad logic and distorted realities is essential

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

When a child rejects a parent in the wake of a challenging divorce, the emotional tsunami that swirls can make it difficult to interpret their heart and mind. After all, imagine it from the child’s point of view: Daily life has been turned upside-down, strangers are asking strange questions, and trusted parents suddenly don’t seem as trustworthy.

            All of this shifting sand makes it difficult for the legal and mental health professionals charged with clarifying the situation. There is much for an assessor to consider. The rejection might be a function of normal development; a child might have a natural preference for their mother or father depending on how old they are or how their personality jibes with one or the other. Or the rejection might be influenced by something negative; a child might have experienced abuse at the hands of a parent, or been pressured to reject them by the other.

            There are five factors that can help assessors disentangle whether the child’s predisposition to favor one parent over another is natural or nefarious, whether it’s a case of normal human preference or parental alienation.

1.     Is there resistance or rejection of a parent by the child?

2.     Did the child and the rejected parent previously have a good relationship?

3.     Is there an absence of abuse or neglect?

4.     Is the preferred parent conducting alienating behaviors?

5.     Is the child manifesting symptoms of parental alienation?

These factors, which are based on a growing body of  scientific research, provide a useful and reliable framework for professionals evaluating a family to determine the issues and the best path forward. When all five factors are present, the child is most likely a victim of parental alienation perpetrated by the preferred parent. Conversely, the absence of some or most of the factors means there could be other reasons for the child’s rejection.

But any assessment is only as good as the logic at its core, and I find professionals often jump to faulty conclusions when looking of the second factor—the relationship between the child and the “rejected” parent. For example, often an assessor will find the rejected parent has been historically “absent,” having spent less time with the child relative to the other parent, and conclude that this is evidence of a “bad” relationship. But the whole picture has not been adequately explored.

Consider this real case: A custody evaluator finds that the father of a recently separated family has been the primary breadwinner, working many hours a week to support the family so that the mother could be the primary caregiver. The mother then claims that because the children spent so much less time with their father before the separation, they are afraid and nervous to spend time with him moving forward. This custody evaluator decides the father’s work history has caused a strained and distant relationship between he and his children, and concludes that there isn’t support for Factor 2.

I’m sure you can see the faulty logic. Of course, there are many families where a parent works long hours or is away from the home for many months or even years (e.g., military service). These arrangements don’t automatically mean the children don’t love and long to spend time with that parent and vice versa.

The anxiety a child might express at the prospect of diving into a new dynamic with that hardworking parent is normal. After all, young children often form strong attachments to their primary school teacher after being nervous and anxious before meeting them on the first day of school. Do those early emotions mean their relationship with the teacher will turn out bad? Of course not. Same goes for the parent who hasn’t been able to spend as much time with their children due to circumstance.

Here’s another real example: An attorney at a custody hearing argues that a child has had many arguments with their mother that got worse as the child grew into adolescence. The family therapist notes that there were times that the mother and child argued so much about the rules in the house that the child would sneak out to sleep at a neighbor’s house. The attorney argues that this historical conflict means there is not support for Factor 2.

But the attorney and therapist are twisting logic to their ends here. Some degree of conflict and disagreement is normal, and it is how the situation is managed over time that matters. As children develop independence, it’s normal for them to test boundaries, leading to arguments as a parent struggles to enforce reasonable household rules for the sake of structure and safety. Does this mean the child does not have a good relationship with the parent? No. These growing pains can be quite normal and not a sign of a bad relationship overall.

Fortunately for the family in the first example, the evaluator spoke with me and considered the other explanations I provided, and ended up adjusting her opinion. This kind of consultation with other professionals who might help tease out distorted interpretations of reality that have been foisted on a child by an alienating parent is essential to getting to the best results. Professionals working with families in conflict have an ethical responsibility to stay up-to-date on the latest research into family dynamics that might make normal conflict look problematic. They must not jump to conclusions about rejection and must consistently entertain alternative reasons for less-than-perfect relationships. They must look at the big picture, maintain a sense of proportionality, and allow common sense to rule over knee-jerk reactions.