This letter is intended to be a call for moderation. A call for recognition and empathy towards all human realities and not only those supported by a powerful lobby. If activism proves necessary to defend the rights of some, it must not be to the detriment of the rights and suffering of others.
In recent weeks, Yasmine Abdelfadel, from Quebecor Media, and Stéphanie Marin, in The dutydocumented a reality of unspeakable cruelty by representing the voices of numerous women victims of domestic violence whose custody of their children was taken away from them for the benefit of their ex-spouse following evaluations by the Protection Directorate of Youth (DPJ) having erroneously concluded that these mothers would be alienating.
This situation, more than deplorable, should never happen. It highlights the failures of a system cruelly lacking in resources to accomplish its mission with humanity and diligence, as well as the fact that domestic violence and its effects on all members of the family are too often trivialized.
It is not uncommon, among other things, to see manifestations of violence analyzed in a compartmentalized manner. This hinders the ability to see the big picture and too often leads to the trivialization of the violence experienced.
The victims’ experiences being trivialized, their emotional manifestations are then perceived as excessive by certain stakeholders who not only are no longer able to be sensitive and empathetic, but too often even end up re-victimizing women, in particular by blaming them.
After this situation was published, a coalition of women’s rights organizations called for a ban on the use of the concept of parental alienation. When questioned, Minister Lionel Carmant simply replied that he is against the use of the concept of parental alienation. This statement invalidates the experiences of many parents and children, in addition to serving as a smokescreen to divert attention from the real problem.
Their reality exists
Mr. Minister, human reality is much more complex than a simple ideological debate. While it is true that the concept of parental alienation is criticized by some and is the subject of debate on an ideological and theoretical level, it is little so on a clinical level.
In the field, those who work every day with families from all backgrounds know that domestic and family violence exists, they know that alienation exists, they know that the justified or unjustified removal of a child from respect of one of his parents are observable realities. It even happens that these two realities coexist. Indeed, it happens that men who have subjected their ex-partner to domestic violence then use alienation to continue post-separation violence. This is obviously violence, but what is the tool?
What do you say, Minister, to these women who confide to me that, if they had known that their child would reject them, they would never have left their violent spouse? That their reality does not exist?
What do you say, Mr. Minister, to all these parents, whose ex-spouse is not a victim but certainly hurt by the deterioration of the couple’s relationship or the separation comes from it, through different behaviors and various words, to modify the perception that the child has towards the other parent, leading to his rejection? That their reality does not exist?
What do you say, Mr. Minister, to all these children who understand much later (sometimes never), often as adults and with great suffering, what they have experienced? That their reality does not exist?
I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that workers working with all kinds of families (and not just those where violence is present) are also aware that the concept of parental alienation is used excessively by certain non-violent workers. sufficiently trained and lacking prudence in evaluating human realities of infinite complexity and who, in doing so, create a lot of damage to these families.
The heart of the problem is not the existence or not of a concept, but rather the weakness of the evaluation process.
Alienation is not a syndrome, it is a systemic multifactorial dynamic within which the child becomes polarized by allying himself with one parent and rejecting the other, without the parent rejected or disqualified himself by adopting inappropriate attitudes or behavior. In this sense, the use of this concept as a diagnosis, with the aim of blaming or disqualifying a parent, represents a deviation with potentially harmful consequences for the entire family system.
Life is not dichotomous
We do not diagnose a dynamic, we describe it taking into account all the variables associated with the family. Moreover, before considering this hypothesis, the assessment of the situation must first have made it possible to rule out all the other possible causes of the child’s estrangement from his parent. To do this, the evaluation process must be rigorous. It must be carried out by a seasoned professional with the necessary experience and knowledge, who will collect extensive and objective data which will then be analyzed in depth. Each hypothesis put forward by family members or third parties must be considered and tested for validity through increased research into corroborating data. The word or lack of word of each person does not alone support the reliability of a hypothesis.
Due to numerous factors, it is common to see, at the evaluation and orientation stage at the DYP, clinical opinions formed on the basis of a single meeting with each parent as well as a impromptu visit to school with the child, all often done by inexperienced workers, poorly trained and with little clinical support. If the child does not confide during this first meeting with a stranger, the alleged facts are then very often considered unfounded. This makes no sense and greatly encourages errors that have significant negative impacts on the family.
Once the first opinion is made, it is very rare to see it change subsequently. I can no longer count the number of times those involved in the application of the measures have expressed to me their helplessness and their frustration in connection with the impossibility of modifying the reason for compromise (change refused by the reviewers) while the time has passed with the family had made it possible to collect more data and led them to understand that the first reason chosen was an error.
I do not wish here to place the blame on humans working in a context of almost assured failure. What must be highlighted is the need, for a society wishing to take care of its population, to provide itself with the means to accomplish its task with rigor and competence.
The assertions and demands made in recent weeks present a significant risk of sacrificing the suffering of some for the benefit of the suffering of others. Life is not dichotomous, it is tinged with all shades of the color gray. Do we really have to choose who we give recognition and empathy to? Can’t we grant them to everyone while ensuring that we are diligent and rigorous in order to understand and adequately differentiate between situations that put family members at risk and offer them the legal and psychological services they need?