Case Study: Parental Alienation

Father works full time: (Named A)

Mother & Stepmother works part time: (Named B)

Daughter from previous marriage Starting Uni 18 yr: (Name No1)

Daughter from previous marriage in FT education 15 yr: (Name No2)

Son with second wife in FT school 4 yrs: (Named C)

A & B self referred to PartnershipProjects in 2021 for NVR to seek guidance around their estranged relationship with No. 1 and managing their ex-wife's behaviour, control, and expectations. This case reflected heavily on parental alienation via A and his ex-wife and their two daughters.     

We spent several sessions focusing on:

• Understanding the logic of control

• Raising parental presence

• Reconciliatory gestures 

• Connecting to parental strengths 

• Exploring what resistance looks and feels like

• Writing and delivering an announcement 

Before the NVR intervention, several years had passed during which A & B were trying to manage their blended family relationships.  No. 1 & No. 2 spend 50/50 time at both their parents’ homes.  No. 1 had developed an ingrained dislike of stepmother B and was intent on blaming/punishing/resisting anything and everything she did, regardless of the intention and offers of kindness and connection.  No. 1, presented with high levels of controlling behaviours, both verbal and physical aggression were presented, mainly towards B.  No.1 was intent to drive a wedge between A & B and report back to her mother.  No. 2 daughter, at this stage, was compliant and accommodating towards A & B when she stayed.   

The NVR referral was processed as a self-funded referral, and the remit of the work was to explore how A & B managed the alienation from No. 1, manage A & B’s expectations of relationships moving forward, their responses, interactions and reactions towards ex-wife, and their responses to No. 1& No. 2 when they resisted their care, love and support within the blended family setting.    

Initially, we unpicked the past relationship with A and his ex-wife.  How A experienced the ex-wife's rationale.  The impact of the ex-wife’s behaviour within the blended family setting.  The scope of co-parenting No. 1 & No. 2 within the blended family.  How A & B grow parental agency in setting reasonable limits and boundaries with No. 1 & No. 2. 

What behaviours can they prioritise.  Growing a peaceful resistance around the controlling behaviours from the ex-wife and No. 1.  

A & B were committed to improving and maintaining a positive relationship with No. 1 and were eager to explore new methods and principles of non-violence.

Raising parental presence: 

A & B were laying down the foundations of how they wanted their home to feel when No. 1 & No. 2 came to stay.  The growing hostility was impacting family relationships, including C.  In the sessions, A & B were coached in how to persist and continue their efforts to peacefully engage with No. 1 & No. 2. Practising vigilant care and delivering relational gestures whilst No. 1 & No. 2 were with their mother.  Father raised his presence by showing No. 1 that she mattered by increasing his physical presence in the family home, e.g entering her room to say goodnight as opposed to talking behind the closed door.   

Reconciliatory gestures: 

In the sessions, we explored how A maintained his relationship with No.1 while she was staying with her mother.  This supported his parental agency and positive connection with No. 1.  He was able to use specific ways to engage with No. 1 by sending music via text, offering lifts to school and meet-ups in a local café.   He also increased his embodied presence in the home when No. 1 came to stay by being verbally engaged and showing an interest in her aspects of life.   

Logic of control:

A & B began practising and utilising a present and connected silence when No. 1 & No. 2 visited.  Without relying on their approval and acceptance.  This supported A & B’s understanding of only having control over their responses and their refusal to be drawn into escalations.  They understood this action as deferring a response and planning what they might choose to respond to, without feeling controlled and manipulated by No. 1 or the ex-wife.  

A & B began to refuse to engage with the ex-wife’s invitations to draw them into conflicting, harmful and unhelpful discussions and chose only to communicate with her about No 1 & No 2 welfare/education via email.   A & B had decided to inform the ex-wife of their decision and set this limit immediately, with insight into learning to withstand the ex-wife’s resistance.   They understood this as resistance.  

Announcement : 

A & B were able to prioritise what behaviours they would respond to; namely, controlling and violent behaviours, which they would not accept in their home.  This was communicated to No. 1 via an announcement.  A & B accepted this form of communication, which supported their values and beliefs in being peaceful parents and adopted new ways to work towards a happier home environment.  

Connecting to parental strength: 

Several sessions included: How can A grow a greater sense of self in his daughter’s mind?  Exploring what parent A wanted to be? How can A communicate that No. 1 mattered to him?  How he communicated to No. 1 that peaceful resistance was key to supporting the growth and change that their family needed, and that A & B were a couple and made decisions for their family together.   These efforts took a lot of energy and time, and A & B understood that their self-care needs were important.  

Resistance: 

A & B were met with lots of resistance by No. 1, who increased her hostility and levels of controlling behaviours towards B when staying in the home.  This made home life impossible.   During this time, A recognised the harm being caused to B and he struggled to align himself and communicate to No. 1 their shared responsibility and to keep their home a peaceful one.  B felt left out on a limb and scapegoated by A.  A was feeling lots of shame and guilt for not being able to stand against the harm being caused to B by No. 1.  These responses contributed to miscommunication between A & B and impacted their relationship.   

The NVR intervention was met by these parents wholeheartedly, and some shifts had taken place such as: 

• Ex-wife continued to alienate her daughters towards A & B (which was out of their control)

• Ex-wife reduced her immediate verbal and physical contact with A (&B) and accepted email communication.   

• No. 1 was requested by A & B to cease visitations unless she was able to practice peaceful interactions with A, B & C.  No.1 refused to do this and home visits stopped.   

• No. 1 continued to have contact with A outside the family home, and relational gestures were carried out throughout the week.  

• B continued to be blamed and scapegoated by No. 1 & now No. 2

• A continues to maintain positive contact with No. 1 & No. 2

• He continues to grow his parental agency and parental strength to try to keep his family safe 

Conclusion: 

5 years on, A & B no longer have contact with No.1 due to her levels of controlling behaviours. 

The relationship has now broken down between A & B ad No. 2.  She has been asked not to remain in the family home unless she can support the change needed to live peacefully.   

The influence of the ex-wife and No.1 has impacted No.2, who escalated and practised control whilst staying with A & B & C. B had to prioritise C and asked A to temporarily leave the family home.  A & B continue to hold hope that their blended family will reunite one day.  

NVR helped the parents align with their values and remain peaceful, it supported parental agency and deepened their understanding that resisting harm is crucial in their family system.