Coercive Control, Parental Alienation and Institutional Gaslighting
Spendenbutton / Faire un don
Gender Law Newsletter FRI 2024#4, 01.12.2024 - Newsletter abonnieren
CANADA: FAMILY LAW
online since 19 June 2024
Frances CHAPMAN, Coercive Control, Parental Alienation & Institutional Gaslighting: Hyper-Vigilant Mothers, Unregulated Wives and Court Imposed ‘Feminized Irrationality', Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society 38/2023 (hereinafter "the article").
Intimate partner violence is defined by the World Health Organization «a behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours. [...]» (https://apps.who.int). Coercitive control is therefore a form of intimate partner violence.
Coercive control can be defined as «a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate partner relationships, as well as familial relationships, and serves to “entrap” victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship» (https://www.justice.gc.ca). With «intimidating, degrading and regulatory practices», abusers «instill fear and threat into the everyday lives of their victims». Its occurence is the most dangerous for women in the time of their separation with the abuser. During this time, coercitive control can, inter alia, be performed by discrediting the victim, threatening to harm her children, her pets and her belongings, and by using cyber violence. Coercitive violence happens (Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Canada, The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercitive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships, April 2021, pp. 6-9).
The parental alienation syndrome is, according to Dr. Richard Gardner, a childs campaign against one of its parents without justification, resulting from brainwashing and the child's own contributions, when the alinenated parent has done nothing to bring on this situation. However, the author of this article points out that psychologists have considered this syndrome as overly simplistic, not diagnosable and frequently misapplied by the courts. Without that the courts could use a «bright line rule» (an objective rule), the concept of parental alienation has been applied to children expressing, «freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs toward a parent that [were] significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent». The author stresses that legal reasonings based on mistaken conceptions of parental alienation seriously harm families (pp. 155-156 of the article).
The author of this contribution defines institutional gaslighting as «a social and/or psychological phenomenon» which has its roots especially in inequalities. When it takes places, «Women are made to feel “crazy” or “hysterical”, particularly in matters that involve their children, and many feel caged in a process they trusted to help them at the most vulnerable periods of their lives» (p. 139 of the article). Institutional gaslighting occurs in Canada when victims of coercitive violence and of intimate partner violence try and share their experience: «When they do, their children are removed from their care, and evidentiary and procedural rules are set aside» (p. 177 of the article).
In her article, the author examines the intersection between these phenomenons as follows:
«Although there have been attempts to understand and curtail coercive control and to understand parental alienation, many parents are still being gaslit by a system designed to protect them. There have been considerable changes in Canada to the federal Divorce Act and the definition of family violence [cf. Art. 2], but the “friendly parent” and “maximum contact” principles remain, despite lip service given towards the best interests of the child. This paper attempts to examine if enough is being done to understand the intersection of coercive control and parental alienation, and the “feminized irrationality” which deems protective mothers hysterical and not worthy of credibility.
The intersection of coercive control and parental alienation has had such divergent research because of an antiquated conclusion that women use false allegations of abuse to secure custody of their children. Even though this has been roundly dismissed, many courts still grapple with whether there is deceit amidst domestic violence accusations. Mental health support systems, children’s aid associations, and the police are being used as weapons of oppression for many women. The result is that courts dealing with the custody of children have great difficulty awarding decision-making authority to someone who is unregulated and deemed pathologically (and somehow inappropriately) concerned for her children. These organizations may be, perhaps unwittingly, using their power to debilitate further women who are simply trying to protect their children.
The case study of [the judgement of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario of 4 June 2020 (IS v. TC)] is informative about how these principles were weaponized against an Indigenous mother who was characterized, without evidence, as lacking credibility and suffering from various mental disorders. Ultimately, the court ordered reunification with the father, who had alleged parental alienation, and the child was prevented from contacting his mother for a significant period. The paper finishes with an exploration of what might be done to help this problem, emphasizing the mediation model and further screening for domestic violence. Perhaps if all lawyers are screening for the signs of intimate partner violence, they can be part of the solution rather than perpetuating harmful stereotypes of mothers which abound in the family law system in Canada.»