Posted in Alienated children psychopathic parent, Are there psychopathic children?, Attachment, Security, Separation and Psychological Differentiation, Autopsy of the Narcissistic Parental Alienator, British Psychological Society's Division of Counselling Psychology in London, Carl Jung - psychological theorists, Parental Alienation PA


Taken from:-

Charles PragnelltoPsychopathy


The most notable behaviors and attitudes manifested by vengeful fathers and which indicate Vengeful Father’s Syndrome.

1. CONTROL AND DOMINATION – The outstanding feature of Vengeful Father Syndrome is an obsessive and relentless drive for continuing control and domination over their former spouse and their children, who they view in terms of their personal ownership. In these cases, there is usually a history of spousal assault, rape, and a range of emotional, psychological, and physical maltreatment of their spouse and of their children, either directly or indirectly as a consequence of the spousal abuse. These are usually the factors which have led to the separation and ultimately to the divorce. Many such clinical examples case illustrations can be found in the Case Judgments in Family Law cases in all countries, as such Vengeful Fathers frequently use the law and the legal system as a means of enforcing their rights and demands and for continuing to persecute their victims, both mothers and children. They can also be found abundantly in the cases referred to voluntary organisations involved in Domestic Violence support services and child advocacy work
2. LACK OF EMOTION AND ‘AFFECTIVE’ RESPONSES – Vengeful Fathers are notable for their absence of genuine emotions and feelings although some have developed relatively sophisticated methods of mimicking such attitudes and behaviors in order to appear `normal’;

3. LACK OF EMPATHY, COMPASSION, AND REMORSE – these are very significant features of the Vengeful Father who frequently obtain a schadenfreudic delight in observing the consequences of their behaviors in their victims’ responses and sufferings;

4. OBSESSIVELY DETERMINED TO `WIN’’ IN ANY FORM OF CONTEST, PARTICULARLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS – THE VENGEFUL FATHER ALWAYS REQUIRES THAT HE IS PROVEN TO BE `RIGHT’ IN HIS VIEW OF THE WORLD, EVENTS, AND HIS PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS – Vengeful fathers found considerable support in the conjectures and contentions of R.A. Gardner regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome during its period of being favored in some Family Courts. PAS provided an immediate vehicle by which the Vengeful Father could transfer blame onto the mother, when his children rejected and despised him for his cruel and uncaring behaviors towards them in the past and the children resisted any attempts to force them into contact or residency with him. It has become increasingly obvious that in many cases where Vengeful Fathers have alleged PAS, that in fact it was a clear and convincing case of Self-Alienation;

5. DECEIT, CUNNING, AND MANIPULATION – Vengeful Fathers often present and portray themselves to relatives, family friends, and significant others as the `Perfect father’. The purpose of this is to encourage others to believe that their former spouse is the defective partner and parent, or is `to blame’ for the relationship breakdown and to thereby isolate them from their social groups and communities. This again is a part of the Vengeful Father’s `control and dominate’ strategy. With little or no support, it is easier for them to continue to persecute and torment their victims;

6. GROOMING AND MANIPULATION OF AUTHORITY FIGURES AND PROFESSIONALS – Vengeful Fathers quickly recognize that lawyers, Court Reporters/Consultants, and judges have key roles in the Family Law system, They quickly learn the tactics and ploys to defend themselves in Courtrooms or receive advice from the many Father’s Rights groups and websites formed by other Vengeful Fathers. Such tactics and ploys involve : Denial or minimization of any allegations of assault or abuse, despite evidence to the contrary and including criminal convictions; Blaming the victims; Counter allegations to weaken the victim’s position; Provocation by the victims;

7. BLAME THE VICTIM – probably the most highly significant feature of the behavior and actions of the Vengeful Father, is a pathological aversion to accepting any form of responsibility for their actions. They readily blame the police, authority figures, the Courts, lawyers and even mothers, when proceedings do not go in the way they expect and anticipate. When thwarted in such ways and denied a “winning’’ outcome, this is when they become at their most dangerous.

From 1998-January 2014 there were 19 events were separated fathers killed their children. A total of 52 people have died in these events. 38 of the dead were children. All were murdered. Two women were murdered and 2 men were murdered. The remaining 10 men’s deaths were suicides by the perpetrators.

Posted in A GUIDE TO THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME, Are You An Alienating Parent?, Attachment and Parental Alienation, Attachment, Security, Separation and Psychological Differentiation, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation & Narcissistic Personality Disorder



Note: The diagnosis of PAS is based upon the level of symptoms in the child, not on the symptom level of the alienator

click here to download:-pas

Posted in Attachment, Security, Separation and Psychological Differentiation, Parental Alienation PA

Attachment, Security, Separation and Psychological Differentiation

Data from developmental studies show that, in the earliest period of development, the primary mechanism for transmitting a sense of security and coherence, or insecurity and disorganization, together with a characteristic style of regulating emotion, is the quality of the infant-caregiver relationship. In this context, Bowlby (1969, 1973) suggests that a parent who seeks care and emotional security from a child, thereby inverting the child-parent relationship, is likely to be psychologically disordered, and thus to generate attachment disorder in the child. For example, in instances in which the mother recruits the child into caring for herself and helping to care for younger siblings, often in a context of relational problems and lack of support from the husband/father, the child, and later the adult, may experience latent yearning for love and care, and dysregulated anger with the parents for not having provided it, as well as anxiety, guilt and shame about expressing such desires (Bowlby, 1979). Commenting on Winnicott’s (1960) theory of emotional development, Bowlby (1979) suggests that a relational matrix of this kind is what generates a False Self organization. Moreover, he argues that the discovery of the True Self entails helping the person to recognize and own their yearning for love and care, and to express the anger felt towards those who earlier failed to provide it: in essence, to mourn the loss (Bowlby 1960.

In a similar way, Balint (1979) argues that a serious discrepancy between the pre-oedipal needs of the infant and the care and nurturance available in early development creates a “deficiency state” in the child, which, in phenomenological terms, is later experienced as a “basic fault” (p. 18). The individual tends to develop tenuous object relations, compensating for the absence of a sense of inner wellbeing and harmony by engaging in self-destructive forms of behaviour in respect of alcohol, illicit drugs or food.

We see, then, that the child’s sense of “felt security” in relation to the main attachment figure vitally affects the degree to which he or she is comfortable with separation, and thus free to explore the environment and elaborate and express his or her emotional states without becoming overly fearful (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). It is the provision by the caregiver of a secure base and safe haven which facilitates the child’s separation and exploration. Implicit in attachment theory, therefore, is the ability to separate while remaining attached. Bowlby’s (1969) work emphasises the ambivalent conflict between emotional connection and separateness, which he construes as attachment and the dance with independence.

From a different developmental perspective, that of ego psychology, Mahler and Furer (1969) found that when the mother is unable to accept the child’s separation and individuation, and, instead, relates to the child in a way that is “too exclusive and too parasitic” (p. 745), the child may experience an extreme separation reaction reminiscent, clinically, of the annihilation dread of adult psychotics. Subsequent research by Mahler and her colleagues (1985) shows that psychological differentiation, conceptualized as a process of separation-individuation, is forestalled when the mother keeps the infant in a dependent position so as to meet her own needs; or, alternatively, ushers the infant precipitously into autonomy. Mahler et al. (1985) found that the unfolding of the infant’s autonomy and mastery of the environment, and the experience of self and other as distinct subjects, requires the mother’s continuing emotional availability to meet the child’s needs to separate and form a unique individual identity.