Parental alienation: My final word (for now)

My wife claims that in any argument, I always want the last word. Perhaps that is so as I find it almost impossible to leave the final word on Bill C-223 to my adversary (in this argument only) Rina Groeneveld. Please pardon the harshness of this response, but often I cannot help myself.

The series of articles I have published on parental alienation over the last several months have evoked more negative responses than any over the years I have been writing and publishing. The fact that I now write for perhaps a shrinking audience (for approval) only fuels my view that we are losing the battle in this country to forces that do not share my value set. Nevertheless, I urge the reader to review this series of articles by myself and Ms. Groeneveld (see links below) with an open mind.

Ms. Groeneveld attacks my views on parental alienation suggesting they are restricted to my courtroom experience. As a family lawyer with just under 50 years of experience, I find that is a preposterous suggestion. We family lawyers live the lives of some of our clients for years, certainly not restricted to the courtroom. In high-conflict parenting matters, we (professionally) share the trauma of parental child estrangement in multiple ways. We work closely with our clients, the mental health professionals, the assessors, the therapists, the reunification therapists, the teachers and the school administration. We have a bird’s-eye view of the problem. Often, we are the “quarterback” of the team addressing the problem.

Ms. Groeneveld points to her nine years of work with survivors and their children. We know that her practice is largely restricted to women. As family lawyers, we work with “survivors” who are both men and women. Our practices include those who have survived abusive marriages and those who have survived losing their child(ren) to unreasonable and unjustified child estrangement. Ms. Groeneveld, are they not all survivors? She talks of the “protective parent” who in her practice is most often a “she.” Ms. Groeneveld, my practice is most definitively split between the sexes. I, like most family lawyers, see the problem from all perspectives — not limited, as yours, to “most often she.”

Ms. Groeneveld is critical of me for missing the jargon. I failed to mention “coercive control” nor the “double bind.” Like many who write from her perspective, she hides the flaws in her argument in jargon, the repetition of which they believe lends credibility to same. I am obviously familiar with both terms, have argued many cases involving both but fail to see how my argument is weakened by their absence in my article.

Finally, she repeats the claim raised in her first article suggesting that lawyers regularly advise clients not to report “credible abuse” disclosures. Really? How do my colleagues in the family law bar react to that claim? That claim does not apply to the family lawyers I know. Please note, Ms. Groeneveld that lawyers among others have a legal duty to report suspected child abuse or neglect (see the provisions of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act). Yes, there are carve-outs to recognize information obtained in the context of solicitor-client relationships (privilege may apply), but a further carve-out exists when disclosure of information is necessary to prevent imminent harm to a child.

Bill C-223 as written should not become law. Ms. Groeneveld greatly underestimates the ability of our family courts to ferret out the underlying causes of parent-child estrangement and deliver decisions in the best interests of children. Do not restrict the tools available to them to do so.