week 3 db cled 380

arnita

LiteratureReviewExample21.pdf

Home >History homework help >Ancient history homework help >week 3 db cled 380

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY

ME, WE, AND THEE: A HERMENEUTIC PHENOMENOLOGICAL

STUDY OF THE TARGETED PARENT’S

LIVED EXPERIENCE

A Prospectus Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Teresa Marie Walters

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2020

ME, WE, AND THEE: A HERMENEUTIC PHENOMENOLOGICAL

STUDY OF THE TARGETED PARENT’S

LIVED EXPERIENCE

By Teresa Marie Walters

A Prospectus Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

February 18, 2020

APPROVED BY:

_________________________________________________ Name and degree, Dissertation Supervisor

_________________________________________________

Name and degree, Second Reader

ABSTRACT

Parental alienation (PA) is an extreme form of couple conflict in which one parent (the alienating

parent) attempts to damage or destroy the relationship of the child(ren) with the other parent (the

targeted parent). Current research on PA is primarily based on Gardner’s 1980s model, which

portrays PA as a syndrome or mental illness in the child known as PAS. Few studies have

explored the lived experience of the targeted parent as a basis for understanding parental

alienation and parental targeting. The purpose of this hermeneutic phenomenological study is to

understand the lived experience of parental targeting and the role, if any, intergenerational

patterns of marital conflict and social structure play in the formation of parental alienating

behaviors as well as the effect of alienating behaviors on the relational well-being of targeted

parents. This study will examine parental alienation and the lived experience of parental

targeting as a multifactor systemic phenomenon. This study will utilize a collaborative

integration of Bowen family systems theory, hermeneutic phenomenology, and the theological

concept of Shalom as a means for understanding the phenomena of parental targeting and the

implications of parental alienating behaviors for Christian leaders and educators. Using an

interpretive hermeneutic framework, this study will collect data from individuals who self-

identify as targeted parents through a two-phase interview process. Collected data will be

analyzed using Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenological model to identify relevant themes,

which will be further reviewed through the lens of Van Manen’s four “essentials” model of

reflective analysis (Van Manen, 2015).

Keywords: Parental Alienation, Targeted Parent, Marital Conflict, Bowen Family Systems

Theory, Shalom, Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Copyright © 2020, Teresa Marie Walters. All rights reserved. Liberty University has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the University, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.

Dedication

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT …….…………………………………………………………………………...……3 Copyright ...………………………………………………………………….……………………4 Dedication …………………………………………………………………………….………..…5 Acknowledgments …...……………………………………………………………………………6 List of Tables.………………………………………………………………………………...….11 List of Figures.………………………………………………...…………………………………12 List of Abbreviations …...………………………………………………………………….……13 CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH CONCERN ….…………………………………………...……14 Introduction.………………………………………………..……………………….……14 Background to the Problem.………………………………………….………………….17 Statement of the Problem. …..………………………………………………...…………29 Purpose Statement ...……………………………… …………………………….………32 Research Questions.…………...…………………………………………………………34 Assumptions and Delimitation.…………..………………………………………………34 Research Assumptions …………………………………………………….……34 Delimitations of the Research Design.………..…………………………….……35 Definition of Terms …...…………………………………………………………………36 Significance of the Study …………….……………………………………………….…37 Summary of the Design ...………….……………………………………………………38 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE …………………………………………41 Overview …………………………………………………………………….………….41 Theological Framework for the Study ……………………………………….…………41

The Heart of God ……………………………………………………..…………42 Yahweh – Shalom ……………………………………………………….………43 To Know and Be Known ……………………………………………..…………44 Covenant Relationships …………………………………………………………47 Reconciliation and Unity ………………………………………………..………48 Shalom Byit – Peace in the Home ………………………………………………49 Broken Relationships and Familial Conflict as a Loss of Shalom ………………50 Implications for Christian Leaders and Educators ………………………………52 Theoretical Framework for the Study …………………………………………...………54 Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST) ………………………………..….……55 Bowen’s Ninth Construct ………………………………………………….….…60 Chronic Anxiety – The Glue That Holds it Together ………………………..….61 The Familial System as the Unit of Inquiry ……………………………….…….62 Bowen Family Systems Theory and Parental Targeting …………………..….…64 Related Literature.………………………………………………………………….….…66 Situating Parental Targeting Within the Context of Parental Alienation …….…66 Parental Alienation as a System Breakdown ……………………………………67 Parental Alienation as a Legal Matter ………………………….…………..……72 Parental Alienation as a Syndrome ………………………………………...……75 Parental Alienation as a Form of Domestic Violence ……….….…………….…79 Major Contributors ………………………………………………………………81 Rationale for the Study and Gap in the Literature ………………………………………86 A Growing Social Problem ………………………………………...……………87

The Lived Experience of the Targeted Parent ………………………….…….…88 The Literature Gap ………………………………………………………………89 . Implications for Christian Leaders and Educators ………………………………90 Profile of the Current Study ………………………………………………………..……93 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY …………………………………...……95 Research Design Synopsis ………………………………………………………………96 The Problem ………………………………………….….………………………96 Purpose Statement ………………………………………….……………………99 Research Questions ……………………………..……………………………...100 Research Design and Methodology …………………………..………………..100 Setting …………………………………………………………………………….……105 Participants ………………………………………………………………………….…106 Role of the Researcher …………………………………………………………………108 Ethical Considerations …………………………………………………………………111 Data Collection Methods and Instruments ………………………………………….…112 Collections Methods …………………………………....…………………...…113 Instruments and Protocols ………………………………………………...……113 Procedures …………………………………………………………………...…117 Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………..……118 Analysis Methods ………………………………………………………………119 Trustworthiness ……………………………………………………………...…123 Chapter Summary ….……………………………………….…………………….……125 CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ………….……………………………..……126

Compilation Protocol and Measures ……………………………………………...……126 Demographic and Sample Data …………………………………………………..……126 Data Analysis and Findings ……………………………………………………………126 Evaluation of the Research Design …………………………………………….………126 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………..……127 Research Purpose ………………………………………………………………………127 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………….……127 Research Conclusions, Implications, and Applications ……………………………..…127 Research Limitations ……………………………………………………………..……127 Further Research …………………………………………………………………….…127 REFERENCES …...……………………….……………………………………………...……128 APPENDICES ………………….……………………………………………………………...150

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Abbreviations

Alienating Parent (AP)

Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST)

Differentiation of Self (DOS)

Family of Origin (FOO)

General Systems Theory (GST)

Interpretive Hermeneutic Phenomenology (IHP)

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT)

Parental Alienation (PA)

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAs)

Parental Targeting (PT)

Targeted Parent (TP)

Thematic Analysis (TA)

CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH CONCERN

Introduction

“Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” ~ Matthew 19:6

The marital bond and the intact family unit are foundational aspects of American culture

and social structure (Fagan & Rector, 2000; Kynes, 2007). For decades the road to couplehood

and marriage has been defined by a set of sequential steps that begin with attraction, dating, and

engagement and culminate with marriage and children (Rhoades & Stanley, 2014). However,

cultural shifts in beliefs, perceptions, and ideologies about marriage, couplehood, and the family

unit have resulted in a redefining or shifting in social norms about relational and familial systems

(Axinn & Barber, 1997; Eickmeyer & Manning, 2018; Manning & Cohen, 2012; Rhoades &

Stanley, 2014; Smock, 2000).

The systematic normalization of divorce, remarriage, and blended families punctuate the

impact relational discord has on shaping the familial system and its cultural expression. Research

inquiry into how these shifts in values and social norms develop, the beliefs and perceptions that

undergird these dynamics, and the relational impact of familial reorganization have become

increasingly commonplace. (Axinn & Barber, 1997; Collardeau & Ehrenberg, 2016; Eickmeyer

& Manning, 2018; Guzzo, 2014; Manning & Smock, 2002; Rhoades & Stanley, 2014; Smock,

2000). Research on dyadic conflict has confirmed that discord between bonded partners

increases the probability of distress in all members of the family unit (Amato & Patterson, 2017;

Fagan & Rector, 2000; Raley & Wildsmith, 2004). This distress is especially impactful on

children (Fagan & Rector, 2000; Raley & Wildsmith, 2004).

Preliminary research has noted that children who experience parental instability, divorce,

and familial restructuring are more likely to repeat the patterns to which they are exposed

(Amato & Patterson, 2017; Fagan, & Rector, 2000; Ongaro & Mazzuco, 2009; Rhoades &

Stanley, 2014; Wolfinger, 2000). These children are also more likely to experience relational,

emotional, behavioral, and spiritual difficulties than children who experience stable, intact family

units (Fagan & Rector, 2000; Raley & Wildsmith, 2004; Rhoades & Stanley, 2014; Marquardt,

2005). As a result, children and young adults exposed to behaviors associated with marital

conflict, separation, divorce, and familial restructuring tend to perpetuate these familial patterns

and ideologies across intergenerational lines (Marquardt, 2005; Wolfinger, 2000). In short,

behavior, mindsets, and experiences beget similar behavior, mindsets, and experiences

(Willoughby, Carroll, Vitas & Hill, 2012).

A particularly troubling aspect of familial discord is the phenomenon known as parental

alienation (PA). While there is no universally accepted definition for parental alienation, the

most salient factor is the intentional effort of one parent (known as the alienating parent) to

systemically damage or destroy the relationship of the child(ren) with the other parent (known as

the targeted or rejected parent) (Balmer, Matthewson, & Haines, 2017; Saini, Johnston, Fidler, &

Bala, 2016). Historically the phenomenon has been documented in a number of research

inquiries dating back to the early to mid-1950s (Harman, Bernet, & Harman, 2019; Meier, 2009;

Polak & Saini, 2015). However, based on the work of a clinical psychiatrist named Richard

Gardner, the phenomenon has taken a more dominant cultural role due to its perceived

applicability to high conflict divorce proceedings (Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016).

Framed by the diagnostic criteria Gardner developed in the mid to late 1980s, parental

alienation became a subject of great interest to legal professionals and subsequently the court and

social services systems (Ellis, 2005; Polak & Saini, 2015; Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016). This uptick

in interest resulted in a number of research studies based on Gardner’s work and observational

data. As a result, much of the research on the phenomenon of parental alienation has been based

on Gardner’s preferred child-focused model (Ellis & Boyan, 2010; Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016).

Few if any research studies have attempted to understand the phenomenon as an extreme

form of couple conflict. Even fewer studies have attempted to understand the phenomenon of

parental alienation by soliciting the lived experience of either the alienating parent or the targeted

parent (Balmer et al., 2017; Lehr & MacMillan, 2001; Finzi-Dottan, Goldblatt & Cohen-Masica,

2011; Poustie, Matthewson, & Balmer, 2018). A deeper understanding of the meaning men and

women give to parental alienation and targeted parenting would provide needed insights about

the role intergenerational patterns of marital discord play in relational well-being and influence

shifting social perceptions of marriage, divorce, and family systems (Balmer et al., 2017;

Maturana, Matthewson, Dwan, & Norris, 2018).

Such research would be especially relevant to Christian leaders and educators who wish

to better understand the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting. Insight into

the perceptions and beliefs of both the alienating and targeted parent could lead to and support

the development of effective pro-marriage and pro-family programs, educational curriculum,

counseling, and family-focused services (Balmer et al., 2017; Maturana et al., 2018).

This opening chapter will provide a contextual background for the phenomena of parental

alienation and targeted parenting. Included will be a historical overview of how marital conflict,

divorce, and family restructuring have become normalized aspects of our current social structure

and the role, if any, intergenerational familial patterns of marital conflict play in the phenomenon

of parental alienation and targeted parenting. The theological concept of Shalom will be explored

as a frame for understanding the impact parental alienation has on the relational well-being of the

targeted parent. Theoretically, this qualitative inquiry will be an interpretive hermeneutic design

supported by Bowen family systems theory, which will help provide an additional level of

insight about the phenomenon.

A statement of the specific problem this study will be provided followed by a purpose

statement and specific research questions that will further frame and expand the parameters of

the study. Assumptions representing the presumed facts that will guide the study and the

delimitations or parameters that will further shape the study will be clearly outlined. This chapter

will identify a gap in the literature and provide an expanded explanation of how this study will

contribute to the current knowledge base. A detailed outline of the study design will follow.

Background to the Problem

It is no secret that divorce is a common occurrence in American culture. According to the

American Psychological Association, (APA), of the 90% of Americans who marry, between 40

and 50 percent will end their marital relationship by divorce (American Psychological

Association, 2020). In a similar manner, the pew research group estimates that one in five

children will experience the breakup of the parental unit through divorce (Livingston, 2018).

Supported by the institution of no-fault divorce laws, conflicted couples can, in some states,

dissolve their marital bonds in as little as sixty days.

For couples with children, however, the presence of a child acts as a caveat to marital

dissolution due to the court’s responsibility to provide for the best interest of the child(ren).

While the majority of divorcing couples are able to process through the divorce protocol,

develop a suitable custody arrangement, and effectively co-parent post-divorce, a percentage of

couples will find this protocol difficult due to the nature of their highly conflicted relationship

(Jaffe, Thakkar, & Piron, 2017; Polak & Saini, 2015). Efforts to manage this conflict can result

in one parent forming an alliance with the couple’s child(ren), which subsequently relegates the

rejected or targeted parent to an outside or alienated position (Donley, 2003; Rauseo, 2012).

Thus, the resulting restructuring of the familial unit, known as parental alienation, shifts the

alienating parent into a favored position while placing the rejected or targeted parent in the more

vulnerable or rejected position (Ellis & Boyan, 2010; Rauseo, 2012).

In the absence of a universally accepted definition of parental alienation, this study will

define parental alienation (PA) as a child-focused form of marital conflict in which one parent,

referred to as the alienating parent (AP), intentionally attempts to damage or destroy the

relationship of the child(ren) with the other parent, referred to as the targeted (TP) or rejected

parent (Balmer et al., 2017; Jaffe, Thakkar, & Piron, 2017; Kruk, 2011; Saini et al., 2016).

While PA is not a new dynamic, the phenomenon of parental alienation has become an

increasingly common feature in the family court system and contemporary research studies (Ellis

& Boyan, 2010; Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016).

Current theories about PA reinforce the child-focus model and avoid exploration of the

parental dyad as a precipitating factor. Subsequently, parental alienation has historically been

defined in terms of the child(ren)’s behavior, reactions, emotional distress, and experiences.

These definitions have gone as far as to suggest the emotional trauma sustained by the child(ren)

is a form of mental illness (Childress, 2015; Lorandos, Bernet, & Sauber, 2013). Postulations

about the parental partners have similarly attempted to pathologize the behaviors of the parental

dyad (Balmer et al., 2017; Childress, 2015; Lorandos et al., 2013).

Partner dissatisfaction and discord can often lead couples to seek separation or divorce as

a means of alleviating their conflict. Emotional divorce, as well as literal divorce, can be seen as

a solution through which to resolve conflict and restore emotional stability. Unfortunately, such

measures seldom bring the type of relief desired (Donley, 2003). While divorce does restructure

the relational dynamic, the dissolution of the marriage does not automatically resolve the conflict

or fusion between the couple. It is not uncommon for the stress of the divorce process to

exacerbate an already conflictual situation (Meier, 2009; Johnston, 2005). A conflicted couple

can quickly escalate into a state of extreme conflict once the rigors of custody and financial

agreements are added to the already tense system (Johnston, 2005).

It is within the context of extreme parental/couple conflict that the dynamic of parental

alimentation is birthed. Highly fused marital couples (with children) who seek divorce as a

means for distancing themselves from the conflict are often surprised to discover that the divorce

process tends to exaggerate anxieties and conflict as opposed to providing resolution. Add the

dynamic of extreme child-focus to the mix, and the propensity for parental alienation is even

more likely.

Historical Significance

Parental alienation came to the attention of the mental health field during the 1980s when

child psychiatrist Richard Gardner developed criteria for a phenomenon, he dubbed parental

alienation syndrome (PAs) (Gardner, 1987). While the attempted alienation of one parent by the

other (PA), is not a new dynamic, Gardener’s work re-conceptualized the phenomena of PA as

the child-focused dynamic he named PAs (Gardner, 1987, 2002). This shift in focus provided a

platform or voice to the growing number of conflicted/divorcing couples experiencing the

phenomena within the context of the legal and social services community (Johnston, 2005,

Meier, 2009).

As an observational investigator, Garner developed a number of postulations about his

newly developed PA syndrome (PAs) that quickly became a type of manuscript or lens through

which to interpret the behaviors, actions, and outcomes associated with child-focused marital

conflict. (Gardner, 1987; 1991; 2002). As a result, Gardner’s PAs model successfully shifted the

focus of the PA phenomenon away from the conflicted parents and onto the symptomatic child.

(Gardner, 1991, 2002).

In its more contemporary form, Gardner’s PAs model contends that the child should be

the focus of clinical intervention (Gardner, 2002). Subsequently, Gardner’s PAs model identifies

the child’s behavior as the key to understanding the phenomena of parental alienation and

parental targeting and provides eight specific criteria for “diagnostic” purposes (Gardner, 1987,

2002). Based on these eight criteria, Gardner’s model frames the child’s reactionary behaviors as

a manifestation of mental incapacity, illness or syndrome in the child (Gardner, 2002; Maturana

et al., 2018).

Because the legal and mental health communities have strongly embraced Gardner’s

concepts, the PAs model has become a foundational aspect of a plethora of research studies

about how children are impacted by the behaviors of highly conflicted parents. (Lorandos et al.,

2013; Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016; Saini et al., 2016). This body of research has mushroomed over

the past several years and has become the basis for a number of assertions about the

characteristics and mental status of the entire familial unit, including not only the child but the

mother and father as well.

It is important to note that despite the growing number of research studies about parental

alienation syndrome (PAs), such research is predicated upon accepting an unsubstantiated and

invalidated theory as an empirical fact (Meier, 2009; Johnston, 2005; Shaw, 2016; Saini et al.,

2016; Walker & Shapiro, 2010). While there is a significant amount of observational data linking

patterns of dyadic conflict, fusion, triangulation, and other behaviors with alienation, to assert

such a dynamic as scientifically validated is an overreach based on assumptions rather than

empirical inquiry (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018; Johnston, 2005; Meier, 2009; Saini, Drozd, &

Olesen, 2017).

The rush to frame the PAs model as a mental disorder and embrace Gardner’s

observational data as a criterion for “diagnosis”, has limited research on the phenomenon of

parental alienation as a multidimensional systemic issue brought about by multiple factors

(Johnston, 2005; Saini et al., 2017). Few, if any, studies have explored the phenomena of

parental alienation as a family system dynamic influenced by multigenerational family patterns

or as an emotional trauma response (Johnson, 2005; Saini et al., 2016). The urgency to

pathologize and categorize parental alienation as a form of deviance, mental illness, or disorder-

driven dynamic has resulted in a lack of reflection about the role of relational dysfunction,

emotional and mental trauma, and embedded multigenerational patterns (Dallam & Silberg,

2016; Johnston, 2005; Polak, & Saini, 2015; Saini et al., 2016). Research studies seeking data

from family members, including face-to-face interviews or focus group inquiry, is virtually non-

existent. In the swirl of legal, psychiatric, and research opinions, the voices of the family have

gone unheard. Current research studies that inquire about the impact parental alienation have on

the relational, emotional, and spiritual health and well-being of the child, the mother, and the

father are few at best (Balmer et al., 2017; Kruk, 2011).

Because current research is highly focused on defining and utilizing the PAs dynamic as

a diagnostic tool and has been largely relegated to the legal, social services, and mental health

communities, there is a definitive need for input from the children and couples with lived

experience (Maturana et al, 2018; Poustie et al., 2018). As a relational issue, the phenomena of

parental alienation is both a relevant and poorly understood dynamic that requires additional

inquiry (Saini et al., 2016). The lived experience of the parental figures is a necessary element in

better understanding the multidimensional issues that facilitate and maintain parental alienation

(Balmer et al., 2017; Maturana et al., 2018; Saini et al., 2016).

Sociological Significance

All family systems are broken to some extent. As the most basic relational system, the

family emotional unit, and the intergenerational patterns that flow through the family, provide

the backdrop against which all human function is developed (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen,

1988; Friedman, 1991; Kerr, 2019; Thomas, 2002). Children that are exposed to open conflict,

divorce, and marital discord tend to perpetuate these dynamics in their relational connections and

function according to the familial processes to which they are accustomed (Amato, 1996, 2009;

Amato & Patterson, 2017; Larson, & Wilson, 1998; Manning & Cohen, 2012).

The degree to which the brokenness in the family unit impacts the relational and

emotional health of the family members can be mitigated by increasing the functionality of the

marital dyad. Marital partners who can mediate their collective conflict functionally improve the

outcomes for themselves and their children (Johnston, 2005; Larson, Benson, Wilson, & Medora,

1998; Mahrer, O’Hara, Sandler, & Wolchik, 2018; Saini et al., 2017).

In some cases, however, marital conflict becomes the catalyst for an especially

distressing form of familial discord known as parental alienation in which one parent attempts to

damage or destroy the relationship of the child(ren) with the other parent (Balmer et al., 2017;

Maturana et al., 2018; Saini et al., 2016). This phenomenon can and often does evolve over time

and subsequently manifest as emotional distress in the child(ren) (Johnston, 2005; Polak & Saini,

2015).

Current interventions tend to be child-focused and attempt to frame the child as the

primary problem going as far as to suggest that the reaction of the emotionally traumatized child

is a form of mental illness or disorder (Gardner, 1987, 1992, 2002; Lorandos et al., 2013).

Interventions that include the parental figures tend, in a similar fashion, to frame the conflicted

couple in terms of pathological behaviors and disorders (Lorandos et al., 2013). While it is

undoubtedly relevant to explore the outcomes of parental conflict and discord, including the

impact such a dynamic has on the child(ren), adverse outcomes are seldom reversed without a

thorough understanding of the dynamics that acted as the catalyst for the discord (Harman et al.,

2018).

Current interventions are largely framed by the work of Gardner, who asserted that court

enforced unification of the alienated child with the rejected parent is the most effective method

for resolving the familial conflict (Lorandos et al., 2013; Johnston, 2005; Saini et al., 2017). This

tendency to focus on the child and define the child’s reaction to the emotional trauma of parental

alienation as a form of mental illness continues to be a dominant narrative among legal and

mental health professionals (Lorandos et al., 2013; Gardner, 2002; Saini et al., 2017). Efforts to

explain the parental role in the PA dynamic also tend to define the parents as defective parents

struggling with mental health issues or personality disorders (Balmer et al., 2017).

Recent research has postulated that the most effective intervention for parental alienation

is prevention and programs that support strong couplehoods and resilient, intact family systems

(Harman et al., 2018). Children raised in stable, calm, and supportive homes with stable, calm

and loving parents tend to enter adulthood better equipped to manage the demands of life and

less likely to pass destructive multigenerational patterns into the next generation (Amato, 1996;

Amato & Patterson, 2017; Bowen, 1978). Families already impacted by parental alienation

benefit from therapeutic interventions that work with all members of the family and are designed

to address the multiple problems that lead to couple conflict, marital discord, and exaggerated

child-focus (Harman et al., 2018; Johnston 2005; Saini et al., 2016; Saini et al., 2017).

Theological Significance

The desire to belong, to be connected and acknowledged by others, is a normal and

natural human need. As relational beings created by a relational God, the human drive to bond

with another undergirds the interpersonal interactions that define our individual and collective

need for an “other.” This sense of connectedness and relational bonding is the epitome of God’s

original and perfect design for humankind. Within the context of God’s love, the human heart

experiences a sense of acceptance, rightness, and expansive peace known as God’s Shalom

(Jones, 2014).

The theology of Shalom is the most perfect expression of this inward sense of

completeness or wholeness. It contends that God’s nature is most accurately reflected in God’s

desire for an intimate and relational bond between God and God’s creation (Brueggemann,

1976). Conceptionally, Shalom encompasses a sense of completeness or wholeness with one’s

self, with others, in community, in health, in financial matters, and most importantly, with God

(Jones, 2014).

As expressed by the Christian philosopher, Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Shalom is the

human being dwelling at peace in all his or her relationships: with God, with self, with fellows,

with nature” (Wolterstorff, 1983, p. 69). It is a process that begins in the reconciliatory power of

Christ and brings close those things which have been afar off. “But now in Christ Jesus, you who

once were [so] far away, through (by, in) the blood of Christ have been brought near” (Ephesians

2:13, Amp.).

In the absence of God’s Shalom peace, however, the human heart can experience

disconnection, division, and a deep, unfulfilled longing to belong. Nowhere is the pain and

trauma of emotional detachment and conflict more acute than when it develops in a marital

union. When husband and wife become conflicted and disconnected, the resulting emotional and

mental pain reverberates throughout the relational systems of which they are a part. Current

research studies confirm that intimate partner conflict has a direct impact on the relational,

emotional, and mental well-being of the entire family system, which is not erased through

spousal separation or divorce (Amato, 1996; Amato & Patterson, 2017; Collardeau & Ehrenberg,

2016; Donley, 2003). Conflicted marital partners and parents carry the unresolved issues of their

relationship into their post-divorce, co-parenting relationships, as well as the stepfamily systems

that often follow (Dennison et al., 2014; Kerr, 2019; Manning & Cohen, 2012).

However, when a home is framed as a reflective entity of God’s image and through

which each successive generation is discipled as students and reciprocating teachers of God’s

word and God’s Shalom peace, it becomes a transformational force for growing mature, Christ-

like disciples, leaders and educators (Thomas, 2002). Through the power of God’s Shalom

peace, the marital union and home become, as expressed by Plantinga (1995), “the way it was

supposed to be” (Plantinga, 1995).

Theoretical Framework

According to Dr. Murray Bowen, the familial system provides a comprehensive backdrop

for understanding the interlocking, interdependent, and transgenerational characteristics or

patterns of human functioning (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Gilbert, 2004). Coupled

with general systems theory, which is based on the premise that the collective whole is greater

than the sum of the parts, Bowen family systems theory (BFST) provides an effective languaging

for understanding the systemic makeup of the family unit and the role each individual member

plays in the collective whole (Von Bertalanffy, 1972).

An especially relevant aspect of BFST, for this research study, is the study of the

mutigenerational or intergenerational transmission of behavioral patterns in the familial unit

through the use of genograms. These intergenerational “trends” develop over the course of

several generations and act as markers or patterns of behavior that transfer to future generations

(Freidman, 1991; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Examination of these patterns can help researchers

understand how these intergenerational patterns or trends influence subsequent generations and

predict likely relational outcomes (Freidman, 1991).

Research studies designed to make meaning of specific societal phenomena, such as this

qualitative study, often employ a phenomenological template. For the purposes of this study,

this phenomenological template will be further enhanced by utilizing an interpretive hermeneutic

philosophy that recognizes the cyclic, non-linear, and revisionary process of making meaning

within the context of experienced reality and the relational influence of the parts on the whole

and the whole on the parts (Dreyfus, 1991; Gadamer, 1989; Heidegger, 1962). This perpetuating

process of constant revision, in which the researcher revises his/her understanding of the whole

while simultaneously grasping the individual parts of the whole, allows movement from the

phenomena to personal understanding and back to the phenomena (Dreyfus, 1991; Gadamer,

1989; Heidegger, 1962).

By integrating general system theory, Bowen family systems theory, and a hermeneutic

phenomenological perspective, this researcher will attempt to clarify and add new meaning to the

current literate on parental alienation and parental targeting. Thus, the narrative of Bowen’s

therapy provides a relative backdrop for understanding the interconnected and interdependent

nature of the family unit and the role the individual and collective members of the system play in

relational and emotional well-being.

Researcher’s Relationship to the Problem

This researcher’s interest in the topic of parental alienation and parental targeting is a

combination of both lived and clinical experience. As a licensed marriage and family therapist

(LMFT), licensed addiction counselor (LAC), certified domestic mediator, and parenting

coordinator, the researcher’s clinical work has been largely focused on the relational, emotional,

behavioral, and spiritual implications of human interactions. These experiences and interactions

with the individuals, couples, partners, and parents who make up these familial systems has

increasingly developed into curiosities about how intergenerational patterns influence the family

structure, act as catalysts for social change, and impact relational well-being.

The frequency with which the phenomena of parental alienation and parental targeting

present in the therapy room has fueled this researcher’s desire to better understand parental

alienation as a multidimensional form of marital and familial discord. As a survivor of parental

targeting, 25 years post-divorce, it is this researcher’s current position that the lived experience

of the targeted parent is an often misunderstood and under-researched aspect of the parental

alienation dynamic. The apparent lack of research on the lived experience of the targeted parent,

along with this researcher’s professional and personal knowledge of the need to be heard, seen

and validated provides a unique backdrop for inquiry into the phenomenon of parental alienation.

As both a peer and a profession, this research study provides an opportunity to reflectively

consider the lived experience of parental targeting through the lens of both the participant and

the researcher.

The duality of the researcher’s relationship with the subject of parental alienation and

targeted parenting meshes well with an interpretive hermeneutic framework. Through this lens,

the researcher’s pre-understandings become part of the synergetic interplay between what is

known and what is yet to be known. As asserted by Heidegger, the interpretive hermeneutic

phenomenological process embraces the researcher’s prior knowledge as a valuable aspect of the

analytic process that cannot or should not be bracketed off (Heidegger, 1962; Lauterbach, 2018).

Underwritten by an affinity for a systemic orientation to relational issues and informed

by a foundational background in Bowen family systems theory and general systems theory, this

researcher continues to seek out and explore new ways of understanding the complexities of

human relationships. Such information provides support for the researcher’s efforts to build

strong marital, familial, and relational systems that enhance life and maintain emotional, mental,

behavioral, and spiritual well-being for individuals, couples, and families in both secular and

spiritual communities and systems.

Research Gap

Current research studies on parental alienation are largely constructed in light of a

Gardnerian PAs perspective (Harman et al., 2019; Lorandos et al., 2013; Saini et al., 2017).

Because much of the current research on the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental

targeting is framed within the context of Gardner’s purported PAs model, the impetus for inquiry

into the phenomenon of parental alienation has been dominated by legal and mental health

professionals as well as social service providers who base their understanding on Gardner’s

suppositions and observational experiences (Dallam & Silberg, 2016; Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016;

Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001; Saini et al., 2016). Few studies attempt to make meaning of the

phenomenon of parental alienation or targeted parenting as a result of inquiry into the lived

experience of the mothers, fathers and children at the heart of the phenomena (Balmer et al.,

2017; Lehr & MacMillan, 2001; Maturana et al., 2018).

While some research studies have sought out adult children who historically report

childhood experiences of parental alienation, the vast majority of current research studies are

framed against the PAs criteria developed by Gardner (Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001). To date,

few, if any, studies have sought out the lived experience of the mothers and fathers with first-

hand knowledge and understanding (Balmer et al., 2017; Harman, Leder-Elder, & Biringen,

2016; Lehr, & MacMillan, 2001). Thus, within the context of the current literature, there is a

significant lack of inquiry into the lived experience of targeted parenting and the role marital

discord and intergenerational family patterns play in the phenomenon of parental alienation.

Statement of the Problem

Marital conflict, separation, and divorce have become increasingly common aspects of

family life. Conflicted couples attempting to redefine their parental roles, post-divorce, often

carry their conflict into their co-parenting relationships (Ellis & Boyan, 2010; Jaffe et al., 2017;

Polack, & Saini, 2015). A percentage of highly conflicted couples will attempt to manage their

collective anxiety by redirecting their emotional couple distress onto the child(ren) (Jaffe et al.,

2017; Polak & Saini, 2015). The phenomenon of parental alienation and the resultant targeting of

the rejected parent is a contemporary form of unresolved marital conflict that has taken on a

child-focus.

Contemporary research studies have been largely defined by the work of child

psychiatrist Richard Gardner, and the framing of the parental alienation phenomenon as a mental

condition of the child Gardner dubbed parental alienation syndrome (PAs) (Lorandos et al.,

2013; Saini et al., 2017; Shaw, 2016). Expanded versions of Gardner’s postulation have framed

all the members of the distressed family unit as mentally ill or disordered ( Because much of the

research on the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting is based on the

observations and experiences of legal, mental health, and social service professionals few studies

have attempted to understand the dynamic by exploring the lived experience of the mother,

father, and child (Poustie et al., 2018; Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001). Research on the lived

experience of the targeted parent is especially scarce (Harman et al., 2016). Increased knowledge

and understanding about the phenomenon of parental alienation and targeted parenting, as

experienced by mothers and fathers, is a needed and necessary aspect of increasing the

knowledge base on parental alienation and parental targeting.

Current Research Studies

Current research on parental alienation and parental targeting highlight the interest legal

and social service professionals have in this subject (Saini et al., 2016). As a result, the

phenomenon has been framed within the context of the family court system, as a child custody

issue (Meier, 2009; Shaw, 2016; Saini et al., 2016). Research has focused on legal interventions

that promote the court system’s child custody agenda. Supported by the efforts of research

professionals who embrace Gardner’s PAs model, these studies have postulated a series of

assumptions that frame all of the members of the family unit as emotionally distressed and

possibly mentally disordered.

Few studies have attempted to explore the phenomenon as a multidimensional or multi-

factor family system problem manifesting as a relational issue between parent-parent, child-

parent, and parent-child. There is a definitive gap in the literature concerning the lived

experience of all members of the family unit, including the mother, father, and child. However,

research into the lived experience of the targeted parent, both men and women, is exceptionally

limited and incomplete (Saini et al., 2016).

Insufficiencies in the Current Research

Current research has been limited with regard to its direct engagement with the conflicted

couples at the heart of the parental alienation dynamic. Inquiry into the dynamics that precipitate

parental alienation and parental targeting, including studies that explore the intergenerational

patterns of the family system and the dynamics through which these couples develop the beliefs

and perceptions that guide their decisions and form their ideologies about couplehood, marriage,

divorce, and parenting are infrequent (Johnston, 2005).

Because current research studies have historically relied on data collected by means of

national surveys and longitudinal methods, data collected using personal interview and direct

survey would provide new insights into the phenomena of parental alienation and parental

targeting (Balmer et al., 2017; Saini et al., 2016). Research into the lived experience of all of the

familial members, including the mothers, fathers, and children who constitute the familial unit,

would provide much-needed insights. Such studies would increase knowledge and understanding

about the processes through which marital couples develop their dominant ideologies about

marriage, the marital bond, divorce, remarriage, and co-parenting.

Relevance

While research on the prevalence of parental alienation and parental targeting and the

impact of PA and PT on the construction of social structure and cultural norms, as they pertain to

the familial system, is both relevant and necessary, the implications for Christian leaders and

educators are especially poignant. Because marriage and family unity is a foundational aspect of

the Christian faith and because marriage and the familial unit provide a logistical and metaphoric

example of God’s concern for the well-being of God’s creation, preserving and reestablishing

marriage and the familial unit as a dominant theme in the body of Christ is a vital aspect of

Christian leadership and education (Kynes, 2007; Ortlund, 2016).

Current research has confirmed that lower levels of dyadic conflict, increased

interdependent relationships, and relational warmth and intimacy between parental figures

increase the likelihood that children will develop into relationally healthy individuals and

spouses (Mahrer et al., 2018; Saini et al., 2017;). Such research suggests a link between

satisfying marital relations and sound parenting, while marital conflict, separation, and divorce

tend to result in high levels of emotional distress and pain for all members of the family unit

(Mahrer et al., 2018; Polak & Saini, 2015).

As the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting become increasingly

prevalent and common in American culture, it is imperative that Christian leaders and educators

better understand how targeted parents experience the phenomenon of parental alienation and the

role, if any, intergenerational patterns or marital conflict and social structure play in the

formation of parental alienating behaviors as well as the effect of alienating behaviors on the

relational well-being of targeted parents (Mahrer et al, 2018). Such understandings may help

church and para-church organizations increase their ability to provide effective and

comprehensive support to conflicted marital partners and subsequently support the development

of more effective pro-marriage and pro-family leadership programs, educational curriculum, and

family-focused services (Wolterstorff, 2002).

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this hermeneutic phenomenological study is to understand the lived

experience of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns of marital discord and

social structure play in the formation of parental alienating behaviors as well as the effect of

alienating behaviors on the relational well-being of targeted parents. This study will utilize a

collaborative integration of Bowen family systems theory as a means through which to better

understand the phenomenon of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns of

marital conflict play in the formation of alienating behavior and the implications of parental

alienating behaviors for Christian leaders and educators.

Because there is presently no universally accepted definition of parental alienation, this

research study will generally define parental alienation as a form of dyadic conflict in which one

parent (known as the alienating parent) attempts to damage or destroy the relationship of the

child with the other parent (known as the targeted parent) (Saini et al., 2016). Parental alienating

behaviors will be defined as those intentional behaviors and actions that support or result in a

relational breach between the targeted parent and the child(ren) (Darnell, 1998; Harman et al.,

2016).

This study will be framed within the context of Heidegger’s interpretive hermeneutic

phenomenological model, which espouses the ongoing revision of understanding as a means for

making sense of one’s lived or being-in-the-world experiences (Heidegger, 1962). This study

will also utilize Bowen family systems theory (Bowen 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Kerr, 2019;

Gilbert, 2004), which embraces a multigenerational transmission process in which relational

patterns and experiences in one’s family of origin influence and perpetuate along generational

lines (McGoldrick, Giordana, & Garcia-Preto, 2005; McGoldrick, Gerson, & Petry, 2008). The

research study will be undergirded by a theology of Shalom, which delineates God’s desire for

harmonious relational peace and well-being with one’s self, with others, with God and with

nature (Jones, 2014; Wolterstorff, 1983).

Research Questions

The following research questions will guide this study:

RQ1. What is the meaning ascribed to the experience of parental alienation by targeted

parents?

RQ2. What are the characteristics and dominant themes associated with parental

targeting?

RQ3. What role, if any, do intergenerational patterns of marital conflict and social

structure play in the phenomenon of parental targeting?

RQ4. What impact, if any, does parental targeting have on relational well-being?

This qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study will be designed to facilitate

learning, make meaning of and further define the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental

targeting. This study will subsequently explore and attempt to better understand the role

intergenerational patterns in one’s family of origin and social structure play in the formation of

parental alienating behaviors. Each research question is designed to provide an open and

unbiased platform through which to communicative the participant’s thoughts, ideas, insights,

beliefs, and perceptions.

Assumptions and Delimitations

The following assumptions and delimitations are noted in an effort to define the shared

understanding and parameters of this study more clearly.

Research Assumptions

1. Because this study will focus on 5-6 individuals with lived experience as a targeted parent from a region defined as the greater Indianapolis metropolitan area and will not select individual participants based on race, ethnicity, religious, sexual orientation or social status, results cannot be generalized to the larger population, to a specific ethnicity, race, gender, religious or sexual orientation or social status.

2. Participants will be interviewed using open-ended interview questions so that partners will have the greatest opportunity to convey their beliefs, perceptions, and experiences to the researcher.

3. Participants actively engaged in any type of relational therapy or family court

proceedings may be influenced by current relational difficulties. 4. It will be assumed that all couples will utilize their personal lived experiences and

memories as a basis for their beliefs and perceptions about parental alienation and parental targeting, and as such these answers will be subjective and will not be considered a factual account of events that may or may not have taken place.

Delimitations of the Research Design

Participants for this study will be selected using a non-probability, criterion sampling

technique in which the participants will be identified based on several distinct conditions and

characteristics. Participants selected for this study will meet the following set of established

criteria.

1. Divorced individuals at least 18 years of age, who were married a minimum of five years and are at least two years post-divorce.

2. Individuals who reside within the mid-western state of Indiana.

3. Individuals who are willing and able to make themselves available for two separate

interview sessions lasting between 1 hour and 1.5 hours each.

4. Individuals who are willing and able to complete both phases of the interview process within a two-week time frame.

5. Individuals who have lived experience as a targeted parent (i. e., parents who self-

identify as a targeted parent based on their personal belief and perception of having been subjected to the intentional efforts of a marital partner who engaged in alienating behaviors in order to damage or destroy the relationship of the targeted parent with children born or acquired during the marital relationship).

6. Individuals who can provide rich, descriptive and self-reflective narratives of the

lived experience of parental targeting. In addition, this study will not address individuals who experience the phenomenon of

parental targeting while maintaining a marital relationship with the alienating parent. This study

will likewise not consider experiences of parental targeting that take place in never married or

cohabitating couplehoods. This study will be further delimited by not exploring the experience

of parental targeting in blended family units and other forms of familial restructuring such as

those defined by remarriage. This study will not take into consideration the perspective of the

alienating parent or the alienated child or attempt to differentiate between the experiences of men

and women who have lived experience as a targeted parent. While such conditions and

experiences provide an impetus for future studies, this study will delimit its focus to the specific

parameters as outlined above.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions will be used to clarify further or make meaning of the terms,

procedures, and characteristics of this research study.

1. Parental alienation: A general or generic term found in the literature to describe an extreme form of marital conflict that manifests as the effort of one parent (known as the alienating parent), to damage or destroy the relationship of the child(ren) with the other parent (known as the rejected or targeted parent) The influenced rejection of one parent by the child(ren) is a key element of the majority of postulated definitions (Balmer et al., 2017; Darnell, 1998; Saini et al., 2016) .

2. Parental alienating behaviors: Those behaviors and actions that support or result in a

relational breach between the targeted parent and the child(ren). As defined by Darnell, (1998) and quoted by Harman et al., (2016) “Parental alienating behaviors describe actions that a parent takes to intentionally, or unintentionally, distance a child (or children) from the other parent, regardless of the impact that these behaviors have on the child.”

3. Targeted Parent: The marital partner and parent relegated to an outside position by the

alienating parent. Also known as the rejected, alienated, unfavored, or erased parent. As defined by Maturana et al., (2018) the targeted parent” is the parent alienated from their children without reasonable justification. (p. 2).

4. Parental Targeting: The act or phenomena of attempting to damage or destroy (target)

the parent-child bond between the rejected parent and the child(ren).

5. Child-focus: A dynamic in which a conflicted marital couple attempts to reduce or avoid the anxiety in their relationship by diverting their focus away from the dyadic conflict and onto the child(ren) (Rauseo, 2012).

6. Interpretive Hermeneutic Phenomenology: A qualitative research design in which the

researcher attempts to capture, in language, the lived experience of another. It is a process of collecting, inquiring and interpreting an aspect of human experience within the context of the whole of human experience (Van Manen, 2015)

7. Lived Experience: A reflective awareness of one’s own life and self. As expressed by

Van Manen, lived experience “involves out immediate, pre-reflective consciousness of life” (p. 36).

8. Lifeworld: The lived world as experienced in everyday situations and relations (Van

Manen, 2015, p. 101).

9. Triangulation: A three-person emotional unit; the basic building block of any emotional system. Triangles have two close individuals in the inside positions and one that is in the outside position (Titelman, 2012, p. 20).

10. Parental alienation syndrome: A specific term or phrase proposed by child psychiatrist

Richard Gardner in the 1980s. Gardner (2002) coined the phrase parental alienation syndrome to describe a “childhood disorder” comprised of a cluster of eight (8) symptoms that occur together and characterize a specific disease (p. 96).

Significance of the Study

Over the past several decades, parental alienation and parental targeting have become

increasingly prevalent aspects of marital conflict, separation, divorce, and familial restructuring

(Harman et al., 2016; Harman et al., 2019). While contemporary research efforts have considered

a variety of explanations about how and why parental alienation and parental targeting have

become a more prevalent and integrated part of our social structure, few studies have attempted

to elicit data directly from targeted parents (Balmer, 2017; Maturana et al., 2018). Such data

would provide a greater understanding of the beliefs, perceptions, experiences, and ideologies

that contribute to the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting and offer insights

into shifting social perceptions about marriage, divorce, and familial systems (Johnston, 2005;

Maturana et al., 2018). This data would be especially significant for Christian leaders and

educators who wish to support biblical concepts of marriage and family through the development

of pro-marriage and pro-family leadership programs, educational curriculum and family-focused

services (Wolterstorff, 2002).

Summary of the Design

This study will utilize a qualitative, hermeneutic phenomenological design supported and

informed by a family systems perspective and undergirded by the theological concept of Shalom.

The study will seek to understand better the lived experience of several individuals who self-

identify as a targeted parent and who are at least two years post-divorce. All participants will live

within the Indianapolis metropolitan and surrounding counties area. Participants will be willing

to provide a rich and contextually sound narrative about their lived experience as a targeted

parent.

A qualitative methodology was chosen for this study in order to gain a better

understanding of the lived experience of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns

and social structure play in the formation of parental alienating behaviors. This study will also

seek to understand the effort of alienating behaviors on the relational well-being of targeted

parents.

Data will be collected, transcribed, and coded using a content analytic method as a means

for extrapolating meaning units and themes, which will then be interpretively reflected upon

utilizing Van Manen’s lifeworld themes or “existentials,” (Van Manen, 2016, p. 101). This

study will employ a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, which asserts a revisionary form

of interpretation that moves interdependently between the essence of a lived experience and the

researcher’s own experiences (Capobianco, 2015; Heidegger, 1962; Laverty, 2003).

This study will also be supported by a Bowen family systems theory perspective that

recognizes the systemic interplay between the individual and collective members of a familial

system and the intergenerational patterns that support the proliferation of these patterns across

generations (Bowen, 1978). Special attention will be given to the creation of an intergenerational

genogram representation of each participant’s lived familial and social experiences (McGoldrick

et al., 2008).

Potential participants will be pulled from the greater Indianapolis metropolitan area and

surrounding counties. Potential participants will be solicited through a variety of outreach

methods, including informational fliers and letter solicitations widely distributed in the

Indianapolis, metropolitan area, and surrounding communities. Potential participants will be

considered without regard to social/economic background, race, gender, religious affiliation,

ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

All data will be collected during face-to-face interviews between the researcher and the

participant. The interviews will take place in a safe, comfortable, and inviting setting designed to

provide the participant with an environment conducive to the telling of their experiential or

lifeworld story. During the first interview, the participant will be asked to participate in the

creation of a multigenerational genogram. During the second interview, participants will be

asked to bring a written (previously prepared) letter to share. During this second interview,

participants will also be given an opportunity to share additional media forms such as poetry, art

work, or photos that express their lived experience as a targeted parent. Participants will also be

asked to share how they feel their lived experience has impacted their relational lifeworld and

what they believe are the most salient aspects of the lived phenomenon of parental targeting.

This research study will conclude with sections outlining the thematic patterns identified

through analysis of the collected data as they relate to the research questions. Suggestions for

possible replication and expansion of the study will be discussed, and identified areas of

oversight, and possible further studies will be considered. Special consideration will be provided

about the implications of the study for Christian leaders and educators serving in church and

para-church organizations and ministries.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

The purpose of this research study is to explore the lived experience of targeted parents

with a particular focus on how parental targeting affects the relational well-being of the targeted

parents and the subsequent implications of parental targeting for Christian leaders and educators.

This chapter provides a review of the literature on the phenomena of parental targeting within the

context of the parental alienation dynamic. This literature review will provide a history of

parental targeting, differentiate between its conceptualization as a form of systemic breakdown,

syndrome, mental illness, domestic violence and abuse, and explore the major research

contributors. This review will provide significant space for the development of both a

theological and theoretical framework. It will progress through the development of the study

rationale and the identified gap in the current literature as it pertains to the lived experience of

parental targeting and the effect of parental targeting on the relational well-being of the targeted

parent. The literature review will conclude with a section addressing the implications of parental

targeting for Christian leaders and educators.

Theological Framework

At the heart of every theological consideration is the desire to know God, God’s nature,

God’s wisdom, God’s design, and God’s will. It only makes sense for the creation to desire a

full and complete understanding of the Creator. As the apostle, Paul declared to the Philippian

church, “…my determined purpose is that I may know Him (that I may progressively become

more deeply and intimately acquainted with Him, perceiving and recognizing and understanding

the wonders of His Person more strongly and more clearly) …” (Philippians 3:10). The inherent

need to know and be known by God, to be at peace with God, one’s self, others, and the world in

which we live is most fully conceptualized in the Hebraic construct of Shalom (Freedman, 2016;

Jones, 2014; Holt, 2013; Wolterstorff, 1983).

Through the scriptural lens of Shalom, relational well-being is a concept of completeness

and wholeness that extends far beyond the basic parameters of conflict resolution and

reconciliation (Hemphill, 2001). Shalom provides a framework for understanding the love of

God for His creation and the fullness of the relational experience He intended humankind to

enjoy with God, with self, with others, and the larger systems of which all humankind is a part

(Brueggemann, 2001; Cafferky, 2014; Jones, 2014). Shalom is a reflection of the unity and

oneness God intended for the marital union and a measure by which to evaluate the emotional

and mental trauma of marital separation and loss of Shalom in the home (Slough, 2015).

The Heart of God

The Hebrew word Shalom is an expansive term that defines peace as a state of being with

self and others that goes well beyond the basic westernized understanding of peace

(Brueggemann, 2001; Hemphill, 2001; Holt, 2013). As defined in its most literal and

contemporary sense, peace is a term that denotes the absence of conflict (Peace, 2003). Those

who find themselves in a relative state of agreement or accord could be described as being at

peace with one another. Thus peace, in its most unembellished form, is defined by what it is not,

most notably conflicted.

Through the lens of Shalom, however, peace takes on a much richer and more profound

meaning that emphasizes the presence or experiential quality of completeness or wholeness

(Brueggemann, 2001; Wolterstorff, 1983). To experience Shalom peace means to experience a

sense of safety, prosperity, well-being, satisfaction, and contentment (Strong, Kohlenberger &

Swanson, 2001). It is a state of being in right relationship with God, self, others, and the

communities and larger social systems of which we are a part (Brueggemann, 2001; Corbett &

Fikkert, 2012; Hemphill, 2001).

The concept of Shalom also provides insight into the nature of God and God’s heart for

reconciliation and harmony with his creation. As delineated by Vine (2005), Shalom refers to

the general qualities of harmony and wholeness. In essence, the “harmonious state of the soul

and mind” that finds expression both externally and internally (Vine, 2005, p. 272). To

experience Shalom, one would be at peace with God, within one’s self, and with others.

Yahweh - Shalom

The book of Judges recounts the story of Gideon and the scriptural assertion of God as

“the Lord is Peace” (Judges: 6:23). Gideon’s pronouncement highlights God’s desire for the

well-being, safety, and prosperity of His creation and the extent to which God is willing to go to

facilitate relationship and connectedness (Hemphill, 2001). As the everlasting Father seeking

reconciliation and relational connection with his creation, God’s desire and purpose, as expressed

by Hemphill (2001), “has always been for us to be at peace with God, ourselves, and others” (p.

145).

Having been separated from God, by sin, and estranged from the state of peace in which

He intended humankind to live, humankind was once again brought close to God through the

sacrifice and propitiation of Christ. Having been reconciled to God through Christ, humankind

was once again privy to God’s peace and original plan for completeness.

Now may the God of peace [Who is the Author and the Giver of peace], Who brought

again from among the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepard of the sheep, by the blood

[that sealed, ratified] the everlasting agreement (covenant, testament), strengthen

(complete, perfect) and make you what you ought to be and equip you with everything

good that you may carry out His will… (Hebrews 13:20-21, Amp.).

Thus, the heart and desire of the God of peace, Yahweh-Shalom, is to heal that which is

broken, reunite that which is far apart and bring into right relationship all aspects of His creation.

…And God purposed that through (by the service, the intervention of) Him [the Son] all

things should be reconciled back to Himself, whether on earth or in heaven, as through

Him, [the Father] made peace by means of the blood of His cross” (Colossians 1:20,

Amp.).

To know and Be Known.

An equally powerful force is the inherent desire of humankind to be at peace. This desire

for security, safety, prosperity, and happiness, while deeply embedded in the heart of humankind,

can only be fully satisfied within the context of humankind being brought near to and being

known of God (Brueggemann, 2001). This need to know and be known of God speaks to

humankind’s basic need and lament to find right relationship with God, right relationship with

self, right relationship with others, and right relationship with the world and communities in

which they live (Hemphill, 2001; Fisher, 2017; Wolterstorff, 1983).

Shalom - Right relationship with God. As the crowning achievement of God’s creative

nature, humankind, at the moment of creation, represented the epitome of completeness or

wholeness (Brueggemann, 2001). In intimate relationship with God, humankind enjoyed God’s

presence and lived in a perpetual state of rest and peace. This state of rest and relationship,

however, was disrupted when humankind disobeyed God’s instructions, and as a result, sin

sullied humankind’s spiritual connection with God. In short, the spirit of humankind darkened

and lost its intimate connection with God. Sin ushered in a state of spiritual death or separation

from the Creator that could only be repaired and made right through the shedding of blood

(Smith, 2002).

Throughout the Old Testament, the atonement for sin was provided through blood

sacrifices, offerings, and obedience to the Law. As expressed by Smith (2002), “The first

response of God to the sin of man was to give them the gift of animal sacrifice, in which the

sacred lifeblood of the animal was shed in death, being poured out on behalf of the sinner… (p.

101). It was not until the establishment of a new covenant of grace and the gospel of Peace

(Christ) that humankind could fully experience the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit and the

rebirth of spiritual oneness with their Creator.

As outlined in 1 Corinthians 6:17, “…the person who is united to the Lord becomes one

spirit with Him.” This setting things right, by the sacrifice of the Prince of Peace, provided a

means through which humankind could reestablish a right relationship with God and once again

be privy to the full representation of God’s Shalom peace.

For our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin so that in and through

Him we might become [endued with, viewed as being in, and examples of] the

righteousness of God [what we ought to be approved and acceptable and in right

relationship with Him, by His goodness]. (Corinthians 5:21, Amp.)

It is from this position of right relationship with God that right relationship with self, with

others and with the world at large flows (Corbett & Fikkert, 2012). Being set right with God,

provides the fullness from which the ability to develop a positive self-regard, a heart for others,

and a deeply held concern for the collective world.

Shalom - Right relationship with self. The concept of Shalom encompasses more than

an external experience lacking in conflict or separation (Brueggemann, 2001). Shalom provides

for an internal sense of rest, safety, and well-being with one’s self (Corbett & Fikkert, 2012).

This internal, personal sense of peace or wholeness, acts as a foundation of calm and nonreactive

being that translates into a calm and nonreactive way of being with others. This oneness with

self is indicative of a heart at rest and confident of rightness with God through Christ. “For he

who has once entered [God’s] rest also has ceased from (the weariness and pain) of human

labors, just as God rested from those labors peculiarly His own” (Hebrews 4:9, Amp.).

Spiritual rest within one’s self is a by-product of being in a state of rest and peace with

God. As expressed by Freedman (2016), “God is the source of peace; the inner peace that quiets

the soul” (p. 58). From such a position, external turmoil has a limited ability to influence one’s

internal experience of well-being and serenity. Thus, an external demonstration of confidence

and positive self-regard is generally indicative of an internal sense of contentment and intimate

relationship with God through Christ.

And God’s peace [shall be yours, that tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation

through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and being content with its earthly lot of

whatever sort that is, that peace] which transcends all understanding shall garrison and

mount guard over your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:7, Amp.).

Shalom - Right relationship with others. The ability to be in right relationship with

others is the next step in the progressive flow of peace that emanates from a right relationship

with God and sequentially with self. It is challenging to maintain a healthy and peaceful

relationship with others if one cannot develop and maintain a peaceful and content inner

experience. As expressed by Fisher (2014), “Through love of God, people are more likely to love

self and others (p. 14). Taken in conjunction with the communities and larger systems to which

individuals are exposed, these three relationships, God, self, and others coalesce into an

awareness of relational and spiritual well-being (Fisher, 2014).

This connection between internal experience and external expression seems to come full

circle in Paul’s assertion in the book of Romans, which reads, “If possible, as far as it depends on

you, live in peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18, Amp.). One could conclude that peace with

others is a direct result of peace within one’s self and one’s determined effort to demonstrate that

peace in a relationally right manner.

Shalom - Right relationship with community. According to Fisher (2014), spiritual

health is a dynamic state of being in which individuals live in relational harmony not only with

God, oneself, and others but also with the larger communities of which they are a part. This

sense of harmony with one’s environment (domestic and social harmony, economic success,

spiritual well-being) supports the individualized experience of being connected, safe, and part of

a unified whole (Cafferky, 2014; Fisher, 2014). This interdependent connection or wholeness

between and among the collective members of a community or group, as described by

Brueggemann, is not only the “supreme will of the biblical God” it is the “outgrowth of a

covenant of shalom, in which persons are bound not only to God but to one another in a caring,

sharing, rejoicing community with none to make them afraid (Brueggemann, 2001, p. 15).

Covenant Relationships

The concept of a covenantal bond is best described as the ceremonial joining of two

persons through the “inter-commingling of their blood” (Trumbull, 1998, p. 5). A covenant

relationship is considered one of the most enduring and sacred of relational bonds and one that is

based on a mutual agreement that the bond is meant to last a lifetime (Cafferky, 2014; Smith,

2006; Trumbull, 1998). Within the context of the covenant bond, two entities come together to

form an interdependent union through which their respective strengths are utilized reciprocally

and their weaknesses are mitigated (Copeland, 2012).

Scripturally, the concept of the covenantal bond is used to describe the symbiotic

relationship between God and His creation through Christ. It is a biblical principle that speaks to

God’s commitment to His creation and the reciprocal commitment of the creation to the Creator

(Smith, 2006; Cafferky, 2014). This everlasting commitment and desire for relational connection

are highlighted in God’s plan to bring those who “once were [so] far away” near through the

blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13, Amp.). “And He came and preached the glad tiding of peace to

you who were afar off and [peace] to those who were near” (Ephesians 2:17, Amp.).

The bond of a rightly aligned relational unit or covenantal pledge provides a strong

metaphor for the degree to which God desires and seeks after relationship with His creation

(Smith, 2006; Cafferky, 2014; Freedman, 2016). It also acts as a model for unity and fidelity in

and among the members of the body of Christ. “Be eager and strive earnestly to guard and keep

the harmony and oneness of [and produced by] the Spirit in the binding power of peace”

(Ephesians 4:3, Amp.). Bound and held together by God’s Shalom, the relational,

interdependent, and covenantal body of Christ, becomes a powerful force through which God’s

plan for reconciliation finds expression.

Reconciliation and Unity

The concept of reconciliation in the Bible speaks to the heart of God to be joined in

relational intimacy with His creation. Having been spiritually separated from His creation, God’s

longing for reconciliation was satisfied through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, …”to make

atonement and propitiation for the people’s sins” (Hebrews 2:17, Amp.). With this singular act of

perfect love, the spiritual divide between God and humankind was bridged. and God was once

again able to commune, spirit to spirit with those for whom His heart yearned.

Having been reconciled to God through Christ, those now belonging to the body of Christ

were charged with the ministry of reconciliation and established as Christ’s personal

representatives and agents of peace to bring the good news of the gospel to the nations (2

Corinthians 5:17-21). As a unified whole, the body of Christ became the primary method

through which humankind could learn of God’s gift of reconciliation and have their darkened

spirits restored to right relationship with their Creator. The establishment of God’s covenant of

peace was designed to restore humankind to their original status of completeness, whole, safety,

and rest with God through Christ, most notably a state of Shalom.

Shalom Byit – Peace in the Home

The term Shalom byit, or peace in the home, refers to the biblical concept of peace and

harmony in the marital union (Kelley et al., 2018). Generally used as a term to describe the

mutual duty of each marital partner to offer love and respect to one another, the term can also be

used to signify the duty of parents to model a healthy relational bond for their children (Kelley et

al., 2018).

As a biblical model for a healthy and harmonious home, shalom byit offers a striking

contrast to the conflict and emotional distress associated with marital dysfunction and divorce.

As delineated by Kelley et al., (2018), Shalom byit is more than a lack of conflict between the

marital partners or rules of marital conduct, it is a sacred duty or transcendent experience that

involves God, the marital partners, and children born of the marital union. With God as the

ultimate model for relational health and harmony, shalom byit epitomizes the successive flow of

right relationship with God to right relationship with self, to right relationship with one’s marital

partner and with one’s children. Thus, shalom byit is a vision of the familial unit as defined by

peace, safety, prosperity, contentment, and well-being.

Broken Relationships and Familial Conflict as a Loss of Shalom

God’s original intention for humankind was a state of completeness and wholeness in

spirit, soul, and body (I Thessalonians 5: 23). Created to live in an everlasting state of peace with

self, one another, and God, humankind reflected God’ nature or image as a relational, connected,

and peace affirming creation. However, as a result of humankind’s disobedience, this state of

peaceful unity and relational connection between humankind, one another, and God became a

distorted and less than perfect reflection of God’s original design. This loss of peace or loss of

God’s perfect Shalom, resulted in all manner of disconnected, conflicted, and broken

relationships.

The marital relationship provides an expansive depiction of the intimate relationship God

desires with His creation. As an archetype of Christ’s love for the body of Christ, the marital

union acts as an example of unity, covenant commitment, and oneness (Cafferky, 2014; Mason,

2005; Ortlund, 2016). As the propitiation for sin, Christ’s sacrifice offers those who accept Him

as Lord, a spiritual rebirth and unification process that restores humankind’s connection with the

Creator Father.

The breakdown of the marital union demonstrates a loss of God’s Shalom peace in one or

all four foundational relationships (Corbett & Fikkert, 2012). A loss of Shalom in one member

of the familial unit correspondingly equates to the loss of Shalom for all members (Harper,

2016). As an interdependent or symbiotic unit, a breakdown or loss of peace in one member’s

relationship with God, self, others or the familial system can quickly become a lack of

connection, safety, and loss of Shalom in the collective’s well-being. These ruptures in relational

rightness diminish the ability of both the individual member and the collective to feel connected

and whole (Kynes, 2007). In the absence of peace (shalom) frantic efforts to resolve conflict

may result in behaviors of blaming, stonewalling, criticism, defensiveness, and rejection.

Parental alienation. At the heart of the parental alienation phenomena is the loss of

relationship connection and intimacy in the marital system. This breakdown, or loss of Shalom,

acts as the catalyst for a variety of emotional, mental, and relational problems (Collardeau &

Ehrenberg, 2016). Fueled by strong emotional reactions and woundedness, marital partners

often seek the support of legal and social service professionals in their attempts to re-establish

some type of internal and external peace and stability (Beal, 1998).

Because these entities are, by design, oriented toward identifying wrongs and

determining judiciously sound outcomes for a client, as opposed to the well-being of the entire

system, the needs of the client often supersede the need to resolve the underlying relational

issues driving the collective conflict. Because the court system is inherently an adversarial entity,

it is a less than ideal platform from which to address the deeply held and emotionally charged

issues represented by conflicted couples (Beal, 1998; Ellis, 2005; Maturana et al., 2018).

Efforts to deliberately damage or destroy the relational bond of a parent with their child,

whether perpetrated by the alienating parent or through the vicarious support of legal and social

service providers, are misguided attempts to restore peace to a highly conflicted and broken

system (Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001). Such efforts fall short of the restoration and wholeness

under which the marital union was designed to function.

Parental targeting. The targeted or rejected parent is faced with an untenable level of

emotional and relational brokenness, having been separated from their child and unwillingly cast

in the role of an unfit or unsafe parent (Kruk, 2010, 2011). From such a position, the targeted

parent is often faced with the task of attempting to remove the shadow of doubt that has been

hung over their relationship with their child(ren). This loss of Shalom is a grievous burden

highlighted by a loss of self and a re-conceptualizing of the targeted parent’s relational bond with

God, self, and others.

Implications for Christian Leaders and Educators

Parental alienation is a familial phenomenon that strikes at the heart of what it means to

be a peace-filled and biblically reflective model of Christ’s love for the body of Christ. With the

ever-diminishing number of intact family systems, the societal acceptance of the broken home

has become an all too familiar reality among communities of faith and Christian believers.

Because parental alienation is such an egregious form of familial division and loss of Shalom,

the need to increase the church’s knowledge and ability to minister to families impacted by this

dynamic is great.

The ability to be sensitive to the needs, woundedness, and failings of all members of the

broken family is an essential element of effective ministry and the restoration of God’s peace in

the home, (Shalom byit). Thus familiarity, increased awareness, and training in effective ways to

reduce conflict, find agreement, and rebuild relational bonds in conflicted family systems is a

relevant and needed aspect of Christian leadership and education (Slough, 2015).

The ministry of reconciliation. As personal representatives of Christ charged with the

ministry of reconciliation, Christian leaders and educators are often well positioned to address

breakdowns in the family unit directly. While such efforts can only be as effective as the

willingness of the family members to engage, inviting families into restorative and peacemaking

communities that directly address the relational needs of struggling families, is a peace affirming

method for healing and restoration.

Safety, support, and resources. The development of marriage-affirming parenting

programs, based on biblical principles and values, could serve as a valuable and practical model

for maintaining strong families. Such efforts in church and parachurch organizations could help

safeguard families against the Shalom damaging process of marital conflict, familial breakdown,

and parental targeting.

A community of Shalom. The call to strengthen the family unit, support healthy

parental relationships, and reduce toxic conflict is a needed and relevant ministry (Finzi-Dottan

et al., 2017). Building upon Brueggemann’s assertion that Shalom is rooted in a “theology of

hope…that the world can and will be transformed and renewed” Christian leaders and educators

are presented with an opportunity to speak a word of hope into family systems void of

connection, safety and wholeness (Brueggemann, 2001, p. 76). Ministries designed to address

the distressing phenomena of parental targeting can begin this journey of hope by educating and

leading those in positions of authority into a greater understanding of the nature and destructive

capacity of marital disruption and toxic parenting. As Christian leaders and educators become

more familiar with these issues, the need to develop and support a biblical response to the

phenomena of parental targeting will require intentional efforts to build communities of Shalom,

reconciliation, and unity (Finzi-Dottan et al., 2017; Holt, 2013).

Let the word [spoken by] Christ (the Messiah) have its home [in your hearts and minds]

and dwell in you in [all its] richness, as you teach and admonish and train one another in

all insight and intelligence and wisdom [in spiritual things, and as you sing] psalms and

hymns and spiritual songs, making melody to God with [His] grace in your hearts

(Colossians 3:16, Amp.).

At the end of Christ’s ministry on earth, during the last supper, Christ tells His disciples

that He is giving them a new commandment. “I give you a new commandment: that you should

love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too should love one another” (John 13:34,

Amp.). Shortly thereafter, Christ tells his disciples, “Peace I leave with you; My [own] peace I

now give and bequeath to you” (John 14:27, Amp.). This peace, as expressed by Strong,

Kohlenberger & Swanson, (2001), and translated as Eirene in Greek, follows the same meaning

and usage of the Hebrew word Shalom in the Old Testament. This endowment of peace, God’s

peace, God’s Shalom given through Christ reinforces God’s desire for His creation to live in a

state of harmony, tranquility, safety, health, and at “peace with God. In its full measure, God’s

Shalom is the promise of right relationship with God, self, others, and the communities and

larger systems of which all humankind are a part.

The phenomenon of parental alienation and the experience of parental targeting are

distressing examples of a relational loss of Shalom in the home and among the marital partners.

This loss of shalom impacts not only the lives of the marriage partners, their children, and their

communities but their fundamental ability to be at peace with their Creator and their internal

sense of self. The degree to which parental targeting impacts the relational well-being of the

targeted parent is an important consideration for Christian leaders and educators and a relevant

field of study for all those charged with the ministry of reconciliation.

Theoretical Framework

The systems thinking mindset is an orientation that attempts to understand the world in

terms of its organizing patterns. As articulated by Friedman (1991), “Systems thinking is all

about understanding components in terms of their structures” (p. 137). The ability to see the

interdependent nature of relational objects and to recognize the symbiotic dance that occurs in

and among the various parts of the collective whole is a key feature in a systems approach.

While Ludwig Von Bertalanffy is generally referred to as the father of systems thinking,

general systems theory is represented by a number of different models and theories that highlight

various aspects of systemic thought. Supported by the Aristotelian dictum of the whole that is

more than the sum of its parts, systems theory has become a rich and multidimensional matrix

for understanding the interdependent nature of mathematical, mechanical, ecological, biological,

and psychological dictums (Von Bertalanffy, 1972).

Bowen family systems theory is a relative departure from the traditional individualistic

therapeutic focus that attempts to identify, label, and treat specific symptoms in the individual

(Bowen, 1978; Nichols, 2005). Within the context of family systems theory, the family or system

becomes the focus of therapeutic inquiry, and as such, symptoms in the individual members of

the collective are viewed as manifestations of systemic breakdown. Thus, Bowen family

systems theory seeks to understand and address emotional and mental distress within the context

of the family unit by exploring the multigenerational and interdependent patterns of the

collective whole (Bowen, 1978; Nichols, 2005).

Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST)

Bowen Family Systems Theory (BFST), developed by Dr. Murray Bowen, is a branch of

systemic thought that delineates the family as the primary unit of study and the most basic and

naturally occurring system for enlarging systemic inquiry (Bowen, 1978, Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

As a natural systems theory, BFST is based on the ideology that living systems provide an

effective and naturally occurring medium for understanding the organizational patterns that

govern systemic function. Developed by Dr. Murray Bowen as a new way of thinking about the

human phenomenon, Dr. Bowen’s primary goal was to bring the study of the human experience

into the realm of science (Gilbert, 2006; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

In total, Bowen theory consists of eight interlocking or interdependent constructs that

influence how the various aspects of the family unit act and react with the various parts of the

systemic whole (Bowen, 1978; Friedman, 1991: Gilbert, 2006; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Because

systems thinking is first and foremost an attempt to understand the whole or wholeness of an

organized set of parts, its use as a complementary theoretical framework, juxtaposed against the

theological framework of Shalom, provides a consistent structure for understanding the

phenomena of the parental targeting within the context of parental alienation and familial

dysfunction. To understand the whole, one must first understand the impact and nature of the

individual parts that make up the whole and support “wholeness” (Von Bertalanffy, 1972, p.

415).

The four foundational constructs. The four primary constructs that act as the

foundation for Bowen theory include differentiation of self, the nuclear family emotional system,

the emotional triangle or triangulation, and the mutigenerational transmission process (Bowen,

1978; Friedman, 1991; Gilbert, 2006; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). These four constructs act as a

foundation upon which the other four constructs layer.

Nuclear family emotional system. Dr. Bowen went to great length to differentiate

between the family relational system and the family emotional system. While it would be correct

to identify the various members of the family by means of their relational bonds, it would be

even more accurate to define what happens between the members of the family unit as the

emotional system that undergirds or drives their behaviors (Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

As defined by Butler, (2015), the concept of the family as an emotional unit is the

seminal feature of BFST (p. 59). As such, the BFST concept of the family emotional system

emphasizes the interdependent nature of the family and the manner in which the beliefs,

perceptions, and behaviors of each individual member of the family directly impact the other

members of the family unit.

Differentiation of self. If the concept of the family as an emotional system is the seminal

feature of BFST, differentiation of self is the indispensable concept or linchpin that maintains the

structural integrity of the theory (Gilbert, 2014). As expressed by Richardson (2010),

differentiation of self can be defined as the ability of each part to stay true to “its own identity

and function while remaining connected to the whole” (p. 36). In short, a well-differentiated

person has developed the ability to define and maintain one’s sense of self while being intimately

connected to another. It is the ability to define and maintain a me while simultaneously defining

and maintaining a we; both/and, not either/or.

Triangles and triangulation. The triangle has been described in BFST as the smallest

stable unit in the emotional system (Bowen, 1978; Gilbert, 2014). When two members of the

family emotional system experience some type of conflict or tension, the tendency is to focus on

a third member of the system. This focus allows the unresolved dyadic anxiety to be rerouted or

directed at the third member (Klever, 1998; Richardson, 2010).

A common triangle in the family unit is the off-loading of unresolved parental tension or

anxiety onto the child (Rauseo, 2012). While this focus tends to relieve some of the tension

(anxiety) in the parental dyad, the child, who unconsciously becomes a container for the anxiety,

often becomes symptomatic and subsequently labeled as the identified problem (Gilbert, 2014;

Klever, 1998; Rauseo, 2012; Richardson, 2010). This tendency of the conflicted dyad to draw a

third party into the conflict is the essential feature of triangulation.

Multigenerational transmission process. A unique and often defining quality of BFST

is the depth to which the intergenerational patterns of the family unit are utilized as a paradigm

for understanding the functionality of the familial system in the present. While many theorists

will concede that the patterns of the past play a role in the development of present-day problems,

BFST purports that these patterns are embedded ways of being that are passed down through

successive generations (McGoldrick et al., 2008). Thus, the past does not simply influence the

present but is actually present in the here and now. As expressed by Friedman (1991), both the

nature and the degree of the intensity of the family unit’s emotional responses “are passed down

from generation to generation” (p. 147).

The remaining four constructs. The four remaining constructs of BFST further define

the parameters of the theory. Because it is difficult to understand any single construct in BFST

without some knowledge of the other seven, basic familiarity with each provides a more in-depth

understanding of the interconnected nature of the Bowenian constructs.

Emotional cutoff. The emotional cutoff is an aspect of Bowen theory that helps explain

how members of the family unit attempt to manage anxiety in the system (Friesen, 2003). When

tension develops between any two members of the family, one or both of the members may enter

a state of emotional and sometimes physical disconnection. While the distance of the cutoff

helps to relieve the experience of anxiety in the moment, the emotional and physical distance

created by the cutoff tends only to galvanize the conflict (Bowen, 1978; Friesen, 2003).

Paradoxically, the resulting symptoms, including increased anxiety and depression, may never be

consciously attributed to the emotional cutoff.

Family projection process. A common dynamic in the family unit is the projection of the

unresolved anxiety and conflict, that exists in the parental dyad, onto the children (Gilbert,

2008). This unresolved anxiety, conflict, or immaturity is then reflected in the child(ren) as

differing levels of differentiation of self (Rauseo, 2012). Because each child in the home will

have a different experience of their parent’s anxiety, conflict or immaturity, each child will

develop a level of differentiation of self that mirrors their unique experience in the family system

(Gilbert, 2008; Rauseo, 2012).

These patterns, once established, tend to become enduring ways of being that are passed

on to subsequent generations (Gilbert, 2014; Larson et al., 1998). Low levels of differentiation

of self in the parents tend to translate into lower levels of differentiation in successive

generations, while higher levels of differentiation of self tend to promote increased levels of

differentiation of self in future generations (see multigenerational transmission process).

Sibling position. The Bowen construct of sibling position offers a rich understanding of

how sibling birth order or sibling position impact one’s beliefs, perceptions, and relational

patterns. Having been deeply influenced by Toman’s (1961) extensive research on the nature of

sibling interactional patterns, Bowen recognized the complementary nature of Toman’s work and

utilized the contribution in the development of the sibling position construct (Gilbert, 2006;

Richardson, 2010).

As an aspect of BFST, the sibling position construct emphasizes the unique nature of

each child’s familial experience with other siblings and with their parents. Because each child in

the family unit will have their own personal experience with each parent and with each sibling,

their overall experience of the family will be an exclusive event different than that of any other

member of the family (Gilbert, 2006; Richardson & Richardson, 2000; Richardson, 2010). As

with other aspects of BFST, these experiences become enduring ways of being that influence

relational interactions and interdependencies on a multigenerational level (Gilbert, 2006; Klever,

1998; Richardson, 2010).

Societal regression or societal emotional process. The construct of social regression is a

reflection or extension of the emotional process found in the familial unit. Just as the family unit

is defined by its emotional structure, so too is the larger social system and/or culture (Kerr, 2019)

As social anxiety grows, BFST purports a fundamental and corresponding drop in the ability of

the social structure to maintain emotional congruence or stability (Bowen, 1978; Kerr, 2019).

This regression in differentiation or societies’ ability to manage dichotomous issues, results in a

collective decline in which emotional reactivity replaces or subdues rational thought and gives

way to “rigidity, concreteness, and lack of imagination” (Friedman, 1991, p. 166).

Bowen’s Ninth Construct

While Murray Bowen did not officially design or establish a ninth construct that explored

or explained the spiritual nature of human relational connections, he did, just prior to his death,

begin an inquiry into the nature and function of what he termed “The Supernatural” (Gilbert,

2006). Since his death, a number of researchers, educators, and therapists have adopted a similar

interest in the supernatural with a special curiosity in the connection between theory, theology,

religion, and spirituality (Koenig, McCullough & Larson, 2001).

Inquiry into the role spirituality plays in the relational bondedness of family systems adds

another dimension to efforts to understand the interdependent nature of familial function and

interpersonal connection. Recent studies have provided support for the connection between

relational and emotional well-being and spirituality (Fisher, 2014; Jankowski & Sandage, 2011;

Pargament, 2007). As articulated by Fischer (2014), “Spirituality affects each person’s

relationship with themselves, and others, as well as the environment in which we live and move,

and have our being” (Fisher, 2014, p. 9). As most succinctly stated by Koenig et al., (2001), “In

the vast majority of studies, religious involvement was positively correlated with greater well-

being” (p. 117).

Chronic Anxiety - The Glue that Holds it Together

If the eight interlocking constructs of Bowen family systems theory provide the structure

for the theory, chronic anxiety acts at the metaphoric “glue” that holds the theory together.

Chronic anxiety, as conceptualized by BFST, seeks to highlight the process of automatic,

emotional reactivity as the “primary promoter of all symptoms” in the family system (Friedman,

1991 p. 140). The remedy or antidote of chronic anxiety, as further delineated by Friedman, is

differentiation of self (Friedman, 1991; Smith 1998). Thus, through the lens of BFST, chronic

anxiety is the root of all familial symptomology, and differentiation of self is the corrective

solution to be applied (Friedman, 1991; Smith 1998).

In BFST, it is important to differentiate chronic anxiety from acute anxiety. Acute

anxiety is the type of anxiety that human’s experience when they are faced with some type of

imminent danger (Kerr, 2019). Such anxiety acts as a survival mechanism designed to facility

survival and safety. Chronic anxiety is better understood as a free-floating kind of ever-present

anxiety that often exists outside of the family’s conscious awareness (Kerr, 2019). BFST

postulates that each family has a consistent level of chronic anxiety that is unique to their system,

with some families having higher levels of chronic anxiety and other families having much lower

levels of chronic anxiety. As differentiation in the family increases, chronic anxiety decreases

(Bowen, 1978; Kerr, 2019, Smith, 1998). Families with higher levels of chronic anxiety tend to

have lower levels of differentiation of self (Kerr, 2019; Smith, 1998). Family systems tend to

transmit their level of chronic anxiety (and differentiation of self) foreword onto successive

generations (Bowen, 1978; Kerr, 2019; Smith, 1998).

The Familial System as the Unit of Inquiry

From a system perspective, the family unit is comprised of several distinct parts that

make up the collective whole. Each part plays a particular role and interacts in dynamic ways

with the other parts of the system. The reciprocating patterns of behavior that exist in and among

the various members of the system create a perpetuating force of mutual influence or circular

causality that sustain the system’s basic homeostatic state and relative stability (Nichols, 2005).

Attempts to change the systemic dynamic are generally met with intense efforts to resist the

change and maintain the homeostasis to which the system is habituated (Nichols, 2005).

The three main components of the nuclear family system. The family system can be

broken down into three primary components, most notably the marital relationship, the

individual, parental partners, and the child(ren) (Friedman, 1991). A healthy or successful

marital relationship, according to Friedman (1991), could be defined by ‘the extent that the

nuclear family is symptom-free in all three locations” (p. 137).

Because symptomatic members of the system are indicative of some type of systemic

breakdown, correcting the underlying sources of emotional and mental distress in any one of the

primary components has the potential to calm the system’s chronic anxiety, reduce emotional

reactivity and encourage connection.

The marital relationship. Marital partners, as defined by Bowen (1978), are “two people

in the same generation with a life commitment to each other” (p. 311). As with all relational

systems, the management of each partner’s respective need for togetherness and individuality set

the stage for the amount of conflict, emotional reactivity, and anxiety the couple will experience

(Bowen, 1978; Glad, 1999). Partners that are able to balance these “powerful emotional forces”

tend to experience more stability, less reactivity, and increased intimacy (Bowen, 1978, p. 311).

To the degree to which they are not able to balance their individuality and togetherness needs,

they are likely to experience higher levels of conflict, reactivity, and chronic anxiety (Kerr,

2019).

Higher levels of differentiation of self are generally indicative of the ability to

successfully balance the togetherness and individuality needs of both the individual partners and

the larger system of which they are a part (Sandage & Jankowski, 2010). Lower levels of

differentiation of self tend to lead to an inability to balance togetherness/individuality and

generally result in marital distress, conflict, disconnection, and eventually marital separation and

divorce (Bowen, 1978; Glad, 1999; Skowron, et al., 2008).

The parental partners. The individual health, both emotional and mental, of each

partner, plays a significant role in the quality of the marital relationship (Dennison, Koerner &

Segrin, 2014). Partners who have developed the ability to be self-aware, self-defined, and self-

regulatory, manage their togetherness and individuality needs, and separate their thinking

process from their feeling process are more likely to experience a more satisfactory and mutually

respective marital relationship (Dennison, et al, 2014; Glad, 1999; Kerr, 2019; Peleg, 2014;

Richardson, 2010). In short, partners who have a more fully differentiated sense of self are less

likely to become emotionally reactive and conflicted within the context of their marital

relationship (Kerr, 2019; Sandage & Jankowski, 2010; Skowron, 2000).

To the extent to which the partners fuse (sacrifice self) or remain simultaneously

autonomous and connected, acts as a general predictor of marital satisfaction and longevity

(Larson et al., 1998; Kerr, 2019; Richardson, 2010). While couples can and do experience

traumatic life or nodal events, higher levels of maturity, differentiation, and a non-reactive sense

of self act as insulators against relational breakdown (Kerr, 2019; Peleg, 2014; Richardson,

2010).

The children. Children that live within the context of the parental unit are subject to the

relational health, or lack thereof, of the individual and collective couplehood (Amato &

Patterson, 2017; Beal, 1998). When disruptions in the marital relationship or in an individual

parent impact the family unit, children often become the symptom bearers for the collective

system (Bowen, 1978; Rauseo, 2012). While many treating professionals and counselors attempt

to separate the treatment of the symptomatic child from the family unit, such efforts generally

offer limited long-term benefit as they do not position the child within the context of the parental

conflict, distancing or dysfunction (Beal, 1998; Bowen, 1978; Richardson, 2010).

Because symptomatic children are a direct result of partner breakdown, conflict, or

disconnection, efforts designed to focus on the individual child or children, seldom bring about

long-lasting or systemic change (Beal, 1998; Bowen, 1978; Donley, 2003). While the projection

of systemic anxiety to a child is a common dynamic, the downloading of the system’s chronic

anxiety and lack of differentiation becomes a perpetuating cycle that has long-lasting

ramifications for both the child and any future relational connections of which the child is a part

(Amato & Patterson, 2017; Beal, 1998; Dennison et al. (2014); Kerr, 2019; Peleg, 2014;

Richardson, 2010; Wolfinger, 2000).

Bowen Family Systems Theory and Parental Targeting

Current research studies on the phenomena of parental alienation and parental targeting

have focused on the child or adult child’s experience of the alienation process (Balmer et al.,

2017; Harman et al., 2016; Maturana, et al., 2018). A few studies have attempted to understand

parental partners on an individual basis. To a large extent, these studies have attempted to

understand the behaviors of either the mother or father by means of a mental illness model or

diagnostic label (Balmer, 2017; Childress, 2015). To-date the majority of these efforts have

identified the assumed presence of narcissism, personality disorders (borderline, narcissistic),

pathogenic parenting, and other forms of pathology as a paradigm through which to understand

the phenomena (Bernet & Baker, 2013: Bernet, Von Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Stephen, 2010;

Childress, 2015).

Parental alienation and parental targeting, as evaluated by BFST, identifies the family

system and the parental dyad at the centralized feature(s) of inquiry (Bowen, 1978). Within the

context of BFST, focus on the behavior or symptoms of the child is diminished in favor of a

better understanding of the dyadic partnership and the processes that facilitate ongoing dyadic

conflict, dysfunction, and emotional reactivity (Bowen, 1978; Kerr, 2019; Peleg, 2014). By

shifting the subject of inquiry to the parental dyad within the context of the family unit and a

subsequent analysis of the family system within the context of the larger social systems (legal

and social services) to which they are embedded, BFST provides an effective and non-

pathologizing model for understanding parental alienation and parental targeting (Peleg, 2014;

Vassiliou & Cartwright, 2001; Maturana et al., 2018).

BFST provides a solid theoretical stance for inquiry into the lived experience of parental

targeting and supports the need for qualitative analysis of how parental targeting affects the

relational well-being of parents who have experienced parental targeting. Based on the

assumption that “family narratives organize and make sense of experience”, a family systems

mindset offers the best theoretical basis for exploring the lived experience of the targeted parent

(Nichols, 2005, p. 67). Because few, if any, research studies have been conducted on how the

phenomena of parental targeting affects the relational well-being of the targeted parent, this

study will significantly add to the knowledge base of the parental targeting phenomena and its

effect on relational well-being.

Related literature

Attempts to better understand the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental

targeting have resulted in a variety of ontological perspectives. The following section will

explore several of the more dominate viewpoints. While this section does not offer an

exhaustive record of the theories and postulations surrounding the phenomena of parental

alienation and parental targeting it does provide a backdrop for understanding the complexities

and the multiplicity of ideas currently reflected in the literature.

Parental Targeting Within the Context of Parental Alienation

An essential facet of systemic thinking is the ability to locate a system of inquiry within

the context of the larger systems of which it is a part. Like rings on an onion, systems form an

interconnected pattern of ever-expanding influence. The individual person exists within the

context of their familial system, the familial system exists within the context of their community,

which exits within the context of their city, which exits within the context of their state or nation.

Similarly, parental targeting is a phenomenon that exists as part of the larger social construct of

parental alienation.

Parental alienation (PA) has been defined as the deliberate attempt of one parent to

disrupt, impede, damage, or destroy the relationship of the child(ren) with the other parent

(Balmer et al., 2017; Baker, 2006; Darnell, 1998; Saini et al., 2016) The parent attempting to

alienate is known or referred to as the alienating parent or favored parent, while the parent who is

being alienated is known or referred to as the rejected or targeted parent (Darnell, 1998, Baker,

2006; Ellis, 2005). The experience of the child, as defined by Dr. Robert Gardner, has become

known as parental alienation syndrome (PAs), which refers to the impact of PA on the alienated

child and the behaviors the alienated child develops (Gardner, 1987, 1991, 2002). The distinction

between parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome is important as one speaks to the

experiences of the parents (PA) while the other speaks to the reactive experience of the

child(ren) (PAs).

For this study, a background on how the governing ideologies about parental alienation

and parental alienation syndrome developed and how they relate to the phenomena of parental

targeting is needed in order to further define the relevance of the lived experience of the targeted

parent. It is also essential to establish the role the larger systems in which the phenomena of

parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome, and targeted parenting takes place and

establish the part these systems have played in further developing and perpetuating the parental

alienation construct. Additional insight about the systemic dynamics of parental alienation,

parental alienation syndrome and targeted parenting, as provided by BFST, will support a deeper

appreciation for the interplay and context of parental targeting as an aspect of the larger parental

alienation dynamic.

Parental Alienation as a Systemic Breakdown.

The term parental alienation has come to have many meanings and has, over several

decades, been defined in light of a variety of mindsets, viewpoints, affiliations, and orientations

(Bernet & Baker, 2013; Gardner, 1998, 2002; Jaffe et al., 2017; Meier, 2009; Maturana et al.,

2018; Harman et al., 2019). Researchers, psychiatrists, therapists, lawyers, judges, social service

providers, and advocacy groups have all attempted to bring their particular beliefs and

perceptions to the construct known as parental alienation (Grohol, 2018; Harman et al., 2018).

These attempts have resulted in a number of different orientations and explanations about what

parental alienation is, what constitutes an appropriate response, and whether or not the

phenomena known as parental alienation actually exists, is a form of domestic violence, or is

simply an overly sensationalized version of co-parenting problems (Grohol, 2018; Harman, Kruk

& Hines, 2018).

To some degree, these various groups seem to find consensus on the following points, (1)

the phenomena of parental alienation, if it accepted as an existing phenomena, is negative in

nature, (2) requires interventive measures, and (3) includes both parental partners and the

child(ren) over which the parents share and maintain parental rights, legal guardianship, and an

intimate relational bond. Children are generally defined as children born of the parental union,

legally adopted, related by marriage, bonded through guardianship, or other legal or relational

connection.

Based on the common consensus that the system of inquiry is that of a familial unit

consisting of two parents and at least one child, it seems responsible to contend that the

discussion and/or debate about parental alienation can be most succinctly be located within the

context of the familial system (Childress, 2015; Grohol, 2012; Johnston, 2005). This system,

comprised of two parental figures and a child or children is then located within the context of the

larger systems of which they are a part, most notably local places of employment, communities

of faith, social service organizations as well as legal and law enforcement agencies (Bowen,

1978).

When familial systems breakdown, i. e., the parental figures decide to dissolve their

union through separation or divorce; they must petition the court system in order to be granted a

legal dissolution of their marital status. Marital dissolutions that do not include children

typically consist of financial and property settlement agreements that attempt to divide the

marital assets between the two partners. However, when marital dissolution involves child(ren),

the court must approve some form of parenting agreement that outlines how the parental figures

intend to provide for the needs of their children (Carter, 2011). Ideally, this parenting agreement

will allow for the involvement of both parents or shared parenting (Carter, 2011). Such shared

parenting plans assure that the child(ren) will be allowed to maintain a close and nurturing

relationship with both parents.

Historically, marital dissolution involved the designation of both legal and physical

custody rights (Carter, 2011). Joint legal custody agreements assure both parents a voice in the

major decisions concerning their child’s welfare, while joint physical custody establishes one

parent as the primary custodian for the child and provides for visitation for the noncustodial

parent (Baker, Bone, & Ludmer, 2014; Carter, 2011). Such arrangements have historically

favored the mother as the primary custodial parent (Carter, 2011).

In light of recent research on the value of the father’s involvement in the child’s day-to-

day life, both legal and physical custody has increasingly become a shared endeavor that

involves equal time and equal involvement (50/50) or shared custody/parenting frameworks

(Carter, 2011; Lowenstein, 2010). By nature, these types of custody agreements require

divorcing parents to reframe their spousal relationship in favor of a co-parenting mindset. For

many parents, this shift from spouse to co-parent partner evolves into a mutually respectful and

effective means through which to co-parent their child(ren) (Lowenstein, 2010). However, for a

number of conflicted parents, the shift from marital partner to effective co-parent becomes a

contentious and sometimes volatile process. In such cases, the tension and inability of the

combatant partners to set aside past conflicts and emotional wounds results in less than ideal

attempts at co-parenting.

When faced with the adverse outcomes associated with less than ideal co-parenting, these

conflicted couples tend to seek assistance from the larger social systems of which they are a part

(Bowen, 1978; Carter, 2011; Friedman, 1991; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Peleg, 2014). These

systems, which include social service providers, legal, and law enforcement agencies, are

designed to resolve conflicts and work for the “best interests of the child” (Carter, 2011). They

are designed around a model that supports problem-solving through judicial and authoritative

power. Such entities are not designed or equipped to address or meet the relational needs of

either the parental figures or the child(ren). As a branch of government, these entities seek to

solve problems, make judgments, and enforce consequences when rules are broken, and

directives are left unfulfilled.

Families struggling with the aftermath of a divorce can become locked in patterns of

disruptive behaviors that exacerbate their already conflicted dynamic (Beal, 1998). These

conflicts and the resulting anxiety between the parental figures quickly become the anxieties of

the child(ren) (Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Rauseo, 2012). The resulting triangle between mother,

father, and child forms the basis for the parental alienation dynamic and the phenomena of

parental targeting.

As a family system construct, an emotional triangle occurs when a dyad, in this case the

parental figures, becomes conflicted and seeks to reduce the collective anxiety by focusing,

inviting, or drawing another person into the relationship (Bowen, 1978; Friedman, 1991; Kerr &

Bowen, Rauseo, 2012; 1988; Peleg, 2014). Triangulation or the propensity for two people to

triangle with a third person or entity is, according to Bowen, (1978), “the molecule or the basic

building block of any emotional system, whether it is in the family or any other group” (p. 373).

This tendency to manage overwhelming anxiety by seeking or drawing in other people can

quickly become a series of interlocking triangles that perpetuate the stress and anxiety

throughout the system (Bowen, 1978; Friedman, 1991). Conflicted parents focus or draw the

child into a triangulated relationship in an attempt to reduce their collective anxiety. As the

tension in the triangle builds one or more of the members of the triangle, seek or invite outside

entities, such as legal and social service professionals, into the triangulation which results in a

series of interlocking and stress holding, anxiety perpetuating triangles which then duplicate in

kind (Bowen, 1978; Friedman, 1991). As expressed by Bowen (1991),

When tensions are very high in families, and available family triangles are exhausted, the

family system triangles in people from outside the family, such as police and social

agencies. A successful externalization of the tension occurs when outside workers are in

conflict about the family while the family is calmer (Bowen, 1978, p. 374).

When conflicted parents find themselves unable to manage the anxiety and tension in

their post-divorce relationship, these tensions inevitably interfere with their ability to co-parent

effectively. In such cases, one parent or the other may seek assistance or triangle with an outside

entity. This outside entity helps more evenly distribute the stress, anxiety, and tension in the

system, which is initially experienced as an increased sense of calmness or control (Bowen,

1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). However, the chaos of the family system, the anxiety, can quickly

be taken up by the larger systems (mental health, legal and courts), amplified, and then focused

back on the family in a perpetuating state of interlocking triangulations (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p.

141).

Framing the phenomena of parental alienation as interlocking and perpetuating mother-

father-child, mother-child-outsider, and/or father-child-outsider triangles provides a deeper

understanding of both the nature of the conflict and possible therapeutic methods for dismantling

the systemic dynamic and/or detriangling the family members from one another and the larger

systems of which they are a part (Beal, 1998; Rauseo, 2012). Viewed through the lens of BFST,

parental alienation becomes a matter of systemic breakdown that results in poor outcomes for all

members of the familial system that is often inadvertently supported and magnified by outside

social and legal systems (Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

Parental Alienation as a Legal Matter

Parental conflict is not a new development. Parental conflict that results in either

emotional or physical disconnection is also not a new development; neither are behavioral

problems in children who has been exposed to parental conflict and disconnection (Harman et

al., 2018; Meier, 2009). Numerous studies have documented the role of dyadic conflict and

instability as predictors of relational, emotional, mental, and spiritual issues in children (Amato,

1996; Hardy, Soloski, Ratcliffe, Anderson, & Willoughby, 2015; Wolfinger, 2011).

Before marital separation and divorce became a normative process, conflicted parents

attempted to manage their conflict, emotional reactivity, and marital tensions within the context

of their family unit, with the help of extended family members, with the help of their church, and

with other social affiliations. Before the divorce revolution, children exposed to the parental

conflict were still impacted by their parent’s attitudes (both positive and negative) about

marriage, conflict, intimacy, and other forms of being with one’s self and others. These

experiences, beliefs, and perceptions contributed to the child’s propensity to pass those

assimilated traits forward through the multigenerational transmission process (Amato, 1996;

Wolfinger, 2011). Thus, parents with lower levels of differentiation of self helped to promote

lower levels of differentiation of self in their children and subsequent generations while parents

with higher levels of differentiation of self helped promote higher levels of differentiation of self

in their children and subsequent generations (Bowen, 1978; Friedman, 1991; Gilbert, 2006; Kerr

& Bowen, 1988; Kerr, 2019; Richardson, 2010).

As the prevalence and level of social acceptance for divorce swelled, however, these

conflicted couples began to increasingly turn to the court systems in an attempt to manage their

unresolved problems, which continued to cause emotional distress in their post-divorce

interactions and attempts to co-parent. Specialized branches of the legal system and courts

known as the family court system provided high conflict couples a method through which to find

legal remedies for their familial and parental problems. Over the past several decades, the

variety of legal services available to conflicted couples have blossomed into a variety of

interventive services. It is not unusual for divorcing partners to utilize a variety of services

including an attorney or law firm (one for each partner), some type of mental health professional,

mediators, parenting coordinators, child evaluators, expert witnesses and other outside entities in

their pursuit of an equitable co-parenting arraignment.

As social awareness has grown, concerning the variety of services available to separating

or divorcing parents, a number of parents became skilled at using these systems to achieve their

preferred outcomes. Parents who desire an equitable division of assets, parental involvement,

and parenting time have been able to utilize the family court system in ways that allow for the

least contentious and mutually respective dissolution possible. Conversely, a growing number of

highly conflicted couples, privy to the same services, have attempted to “weaponize” the family

court system in an attempt to gain an outcome that favors one parent over the other (Lowenstein,

2010). Some parents have gone as far as to implicate or accuse their former partner of a number

of nefarious acts in an attempt to intentionally “erase” the other parent. In such cases, false

allegations of neglect or abuse have resulted in a loss of parental participation for the unflavored

parent (Harman et al., 2018). In such cases, the family court system has been tasked with

attempting to prove the validity of such allegations and making judgments about co-parenting

issues based on the testimonies, opinions, and historical accounts presented by each parent’s

attorney.

As sometimes unwitting members of the parental conflict, legal professionals have taken

to making decisions about the lives of countless mothers, fathers, and children through the rigid

lens of evidence, witnesses, testimony, and subjective opinion. Predictably, this dynamic has

resulted in a polarization of viewpoints and effectively divided the problems associated with the

decoupling of highly conflicted parents into a variety of dichotomous constellations. Some of

these constellations, as represented by the literature, include (1) A parent seeking full legal and

physical custody of the child(ren) based on allegations of neglect or abuse by the other parent

(domestic violence and/or child abuse did happen) (2) A parent seeking full legal and physical

custody of the child(ren) based on allegations of neglect or abuse by the other parent (domestic

violence and/or child abuse did not happen) (3) A parent in contempt of an agreed-upon custody

or co-parenting arrangement (4) A parent intentionally attempting to damage or destroy the

relationship of the child with the other parent (a form of child abuse/domestic violence by proxy,

parental alienation/parental alienation syndrome).

While these categories do not represent a complete listing of the types of cases that come

before the family court system, they are indicative of the complexity family systems represent

and the difficulty of attempting to resolve these familial issues through the court system (Beal,

1998). While the court system does attempt to consult with a variety of social service

organizations and treating professionals as they endeavor to apply the law to these complex

family dynamics judiciously, these cases generally end up pitting one side against the other

(Harman et al., 2018; Kruk, 2011). As common scenario includes the mother’s attorney fighting

it out with the father’s attorney, the father’s attorney fighting it out with the mother’s attorney

while the child becomes a type of chattel or prize to be awarded to the winner.

In an attempt to make informed and legally sound judgments in cases that involve

complex family dynamics, family law courts routinely collaboration with and seek testimony

from mental health experts. These experts, it is believed, provide needed clarity about how

family systems work and help bolster the court’s ability to make determinations with regard to

parental rights, custody, co-parenting plans and “the best interests of the child” (Lowenstein,

2010).

However, as expressed by Kruk (2011), the family court system has increasingly assumed

responsibility for determining the outcome of both child and spousal abuse allegations. As

delineated by Kruk, “family courts should not function as ‘quasi-criminal’ courts; family

violence is a criminal matter that must be dealt with in criminal court” (p. 100). Perhaps, as

outlined by Kruk, much of the impetuous for parental alienation is triggered by an adversarial

family court system that promotes a “winner takes all” mentality that ultimately pits parent

against parent and encourages rather than discourages conflict, loss of parental rights, and

strategic allegations of abuse (Kruk, 2011, p. 101).

Parental Alienation as a Syndrome

One such professional, Richard A. Gardner, a child psychiatrist in the mid-1980s, became

one of the most note-worthy contributors to the ongoing debate about parental rights and co-

parenting issues both in and out of the court system. Dr. Gardner is well known for having

developed the parental alienation syndrome paradigm as a result of his work with children who

were experiencing the separation or dissolution of the parental union (Gardner, 1987, 1991,

2002). Gardner, upon noticing a disturbing pattern of child behavior in which a child

demonstrated fear, disrespect, and even hostility towards a parent, coined the phrase “parental

alienation syndrome” in his attempt to identify specific markers he believed identified this

behavioral pattern in children (Gardner, 1987). His work, as a child psychiatrist and child

custody evaluator, has deeply influenced how the phenomena of parental alienation and parental

targeting have been defined, adjudicated, and researched for almost 30 years (Meier, 2009).

The debate or controversy over parental alienation and parental targeting generally fall

into two camps. Those who believe the phenomena of parental alienation and parental targeting,

as defined as the intentional efforts of one parent (the alienating parent) to destroy or damage the

relational bond of the child with the targeted or unflavored parent exists and is a valid dynamic,

and those who believe that the parental alienation syndrome is a non-scientific, unverified, and

potentially harmful model developed as a way of helping actual abusive parents avoid the

consequences associated with child abuse (Bernet et al., 2010; Harman, et al., 2018). The need

to place the complex issues represented in this debate on a dichotomous scale of true or false

ignores the variations and complexities of the family dynamic of decoupling highly conflicted

parents.

Much of the research conducted on the phenomena of parental alienation and parental

targeting have done so based on the acceptance of Dr. Gardner’s work and delineated syndrome

as a valid theory (Bernet et al., 2010; Baker, 2005, 2006). A significant number of research

studies have attempted to delineate Dr. Gardner’s work as a form of junk or pseudoscience

(Grohol, 2012; Houchin, Ranseen, Hash, Bartnicki, 2012; Meier, 2009; Pepiton, Alvis, Allen, &

Logid, 2012; Walker & Shapiro, 2010). To date, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

has refused to support Gardner’s postulation of a parental alienation syndrome or, after extensive

lobbying, add parental alienation syndrome to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM-5) (Grohol, 2018). According to Dr. Darrel Regier, vice chairman of the task

force tasked with drafting the newest edition of the DSM-5, parental alienation “is not a disorder

within one individual, it’s a relationship problem – parent-child or parent-parent. Relationship

problems per se are not mental disorders” (Cary, 2012; Grohol, 2018).

Dr. Regier’s statement highlights a significant aspect of the debate about the validity of

parental alienation and targeted parenting. The rejection of the proposed DSM-5 definition of

parental alienation as, “a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents are

engaged in a high-conflict divorce, allies himself or herself strongly with one parent, and rejects

a relationship with the other parent, without legitimate justification” does not dismiss or deny the

reality of parental alienation and parental targeting as a relationship problem that exists within

the context of the parent-child/parent-parent dyad. Such a rejection serves to clarify the

phenomena of parental alienation and parental targeting as a relational issue between and among

family members, not a child-specific mental disorder (Grohol, 2018).

The rejection of Dr. Gardner’s proposed syndrome by the APA and his assertion that

children who have been impacted by emotionally distraught, and highly conflicted parents are

suffering from a diagnosable mental disorder, and the subsequent definition of parental

alienation and parental targeting as a relational dynamic provides for a dynamic shift in how the

phenomena is defined, treated and researched. Because much of the research on parental

alienation and parental targeting have presupposed the validity of Gardner’s syndrome and

because researchers based much of their inquiry on definitions provided by mental health, social

service and legal entities, the lived experience of those actually impacted by the phenomena of

parental alienation, including the alienating parent, the alienated parent, and the child(ren), has

been interpreted and overshadowed by the syndrome mentality or ignored altogether (Harman, et

al., 2018; Johnston, 2005).

Conceptualizing parental alienation and parental targeting as a form of systemic

breakdown, in which emotional and mental trauma, distress, and disruptions exist and manifest

within the context of the relational bond of the mother, father and child and who are collective

members of a familial system, provides a valid and therapeutically accurate paradigm and

phenomenologically sound orientation for research and inquiry (Johnston, 2005). As a systemic

dynamic, the relational breakdown of the mother/father/child relationship along with the ensuing

interwoven triangles, alliances, anxieties, emotional reactivity and cutoffs represented by the

family’s fusion with the family court system become more understandable, predictable, and

treatable when viewed through the lens of family systems theory. As expressed by Beal, (1998),

“…the concepts of differentiation, emotional cutoff, and nuclear family emotional system, with a

specific emphasis on child focus, illuminate the current divorce phenomenon” (p. 352).

Research that begins with exploring a phenomenological aspect of human interactionary

patterns, including the lived experience of those who have personally experienced the

phenomenon of interest, provides a sound foundation for the development of detailed

quantitative studies that provide the basis for correlation of common attributes to the general

population. While the legal system and social services agencies have much to contribute to the

understanding and treatment of familial distress and conflict, such entities are not sound

representatives of the intergenerational and relational dynamics of the family system (Johnston,

2005). Further research of the family system breakdown, known as parental alienation and

parental targeting by those skilled at understanding and treating familial distress and dysfunction,

offer a realistic and effective means for reducing, preventing, and healing the relational ruptures

that contribute to ongoing family conflict and trauma (Johnston, 2005; Polak & Saini, 2015).

Through the lens of a family systems orientation, both the collective and individual needs of all

of the family members can be identified and effectively addressed (Johnston, 2005; Polak &

Saini, 2015).

Parental Alienation is a Form of Domestic Violence

The cycle of domestic violence and abuse is a well-documented phenomenon that finds

expression in a number of human relational constellations (Harman et al., 2018). A most

egregious form of abuse is the abuse of a child, especially when the perpetrator of the abuse is a

parent. Society has long recognized child abuse as a destructive and unacceptable form of human

interaction. Those who are found guilty of child abuse are generally subjected to harsh

consequences and social rejection. However, social perception of what constitutes child abuse

tends to vary. Because child abuse can encompass such a wide array of behaviors, situations,

age-groups, levels of severity, and outcomes, a definitive definition of child abuse is a

challenging undertaking (Harman, et al., 2018).

Because, parental alienation entails the “aggressive” intent of one parent to damage or

destroy the relational bond of the child with the other parent and because such efforts can and do

result in emotional and mental distress, trauma and decompensation in both the child and the

targeted parent, PA has been increasingly defined as a form of domestic violence and child abuse

(Harman et al., 2018, p. 1278). In a similar manner, parental alienation, or more specifically

parental targeting, as a vehicle through which to emotional and mentally harm the other parent,

can be regarded as a form of intimate partner violence or IPV (Kruk, 2010; Harman et al., 2016).

It is interesting to note that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th

edition (DSM-5), supports the aforementioned definitions. Despite its traditional use as a device

to identify and classify mental disorders, the DSM-5, delineates a number of “relational

problems” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 715). According to the DSM-5,

Key relationships, especially intimate adult partner relationship and parent/caregiver-

child relationships, have a significant impact on the health of the individuals in these

relationships. These relationships can be health promoting and protective, neutral, or

detrimental to health outcomes. In the extreme, these close relationships can be

associated with maltreatment or neglect, which has significant medical and psychological

consequences for the affected individual (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p.

715).

Additional relevant content includes the efforts the DSM-5 exerts to specifically point out

that these relational problems “are not mental disorders” (APA, 2013, p. 715). Of specific

interest, under the heading Problems Related to Family Upbringing, the DSM-5 lists V code,

V61.29 – Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress which is defined as “the negative

effects of parental relationship discord (e.g., high levels of conflict, distress, or disparagement)

on a child in the family” (p. 716). Under the heading of Child Psychological Abuse, the DSM-5

defines the psychological abuse of a child as the “nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a

child’s parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant

psychological harm to the child” (p. 719). Under the Spouse of Partner Abuse, Psychological

section, the DSM-5 defines the psychological abuse of a spouse or partner as “nonaccidental

verbal or symbolic acts by one partner that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in

significant harm to the other partner” (p. 721).

The inclusion of both spouse and child psychological abuse in the DSM-5 as relational

problems provides support for two important delineations of the parental alienation debate. The

first being the acknowledgment that parents can and do intentionally and “non-accidentally”

abuse their child in ways that psychologically harms them, and second, spouses can and do

intentionally and “non-accidentally” abuse their partners in ways that psychologically harm

them. While not an exhaustive or final declarative statement of PA, these assertions provide an

additional layer of support and validation for the phenomena of parental alienation and parental

targeting as forms of intimate partner abuse and child abuse (Harman et al., 2016; Harman et al.,

2018).

Major Contributors - Parental Alienation & Parental Targeting Literature Base.

Dr. Richard Gardner: At the heart of the parental alienation debate and subsequently,

the phenomena of parental targeting are the suppositions and postulations of Dr. Richard

Gardner. Dr. Gardner’s most defining work, the parental alienation syndrome or PAs, was

developed as a direct result of his clinical experiences and observations as a child psychiatrist

(Gardner, 1987, 1991, 2002). A prolific writer, Dr. Gardner self-published a plethora of books,

articles, and statements that outline and support his beliefs and suppositions about the relational

and behaviors patterns of divorcing parents and the impact of those patterns of behavior on their

children.

The development of the PAs modality provided Dr. Gardner with a platform for

defending what he believed were false allegations of child abuse designed to sway the courts and

secure child custody cases that favor the alleging parent (Meier, 2009). Because the alleging

parents were disproportionately mothers, Dr. Gardner asserted that mothers have a propensity to

file false allegations of child abuse in order to punish or otherwise remove an undesirable partner

from the parenting equation (Dallam & Silberg, 2016; Johnston, 2005).

The proliferation of the PAs modality in the court system, as a method through which

fathers could counter allegations of child abuse, spearheaded a dramatic shift in how the family

court system handled allegations of child abuse. Dr. Gardner himself became an intricate part of

the court system providing expert testimony about the PAs modality and interventions he

asserted was appropriate in cases of PAs (Gardner, 1987, 1991, 1992).

As a result of the court’s acceptance of Dr. Gardner’s PAs modality, divorce proceedings

began to heavily focus on the child(ren), or more specifically the behaviors of the child(ren),

rather than the allegations of abuse or the divorcing parents. Based on the eight criteria Dr.

Gardner developed as a means through which to identify the presence of PAs, in the child, legal

professionals including lawyers, child custody evaluators, social workers, and guardian ad litem

began basing their finding on whether or not the child in question fit the profile of an alienated

child as defined by Dr. Gardner’s eight criteria (Meier, 2009). If a child met the criteria, or at

least the two identified “dominate” features of the “syndrome” the child was assumed to have a

mental condition or disorder as a direct result of having been brainwashed and/or unduly

impacted by a parent (typically the mother) who was attempting to destroy the relationship of the

child with the parent.

The relevance of the court’s acceptance of Dr. Gardner’s proposed syndrome is immense.

In spite of Dr. Gardner’s, and a barrage of court, social service and mental health professionals,

acceptance of the PAs modality as a legitimate and scientifically sound syndrome or disorder,

much of the current research on PAs is based on an unsubstantiated belief that Gardner’s eight

criteria provide a valid measure for asserting mental illness in a child and making legal

determinations of custody (Meier, 2009). The subjective and conclusory nature by which PAs is

measured speaks to its lack of validity (Johnston, 2005; Pepiton et al., 2011; Walker & Shapiro,

2010). Presumptive at best, the PAs modality relies on the ability of a legal, social, or mental

health entity to judge whether or not a child meets Dr. Gardner’s criteria.

If it is determined PAs exists in the child, a cascade of additional conclusions follow.

According to Gardner (1987), the presence of parental alienation syndrome in the child acts as a

criterion for distinguishing between false and valid claims of abuse (p. 109). Using this logic,

the PAs criteria act as a measure for determining the presence of parental alienation syndrome,

which according to Gardner, disproves allegations of abuse while the presence of abuse nullifies

the presence of parental alienation syndrome. This approach represents the problems inherent

with this type of circular argument which postulated that if PAs exists, the abuse allegation is

false, but if PAs does not exist, the abuse allegation is true (Johnstone, 2014; Meier, 2009). Used

within the context of subjective diagnostic criteria that utilizes thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

as determinate factors, such a “diagnosis” is not reliable, replicable, or correlational (Johnstone

et al., 2018; Johnstone, 2014; Meier, 2009). Taken one step further, a PAs diagnosis alleged that

the child, the mother and the father were all suffering from some form of mental illness or mental

disorder (Balmer et al., 2017).

Since the years since its inception, the parental alienation syndrome modality has been

faced with a number of substantive problems. One of the most notable being the rejection of

PAs from the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness.

The rejections of PAs as a mental condition, and the assertion by several members of the DSM

task force committees that PAs represents a relational problem in the child-parent and parent-

parent relationship helped support attempts to separate the phenomena known as parental

alienation from Gardner’s syndrome. While several major contributors continue to utilize

Gardner’s eight criteria as a basic and reliable measure of alienating behaviors, a few

researchers, and mental health clinicians have offered alternative explanations for the phenomena

of intentional parental targeting and rejection (Polak & Saini, 2015; Walker & Shapiro, 2010).

Dr. Amy J. L. Baker: Amy Baker is considered a leading expert in the field of parental

alienation. As the director of research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection, and

a specialist in parent-child relationships, Baker regularly lectures and provides her services as an

expert witness. She is a prolific researcher and author who have written countless articles on the

subject of PAs. Dr. Baker is a strong advocate of Dr. Gardner and often utilizes Gardner’s eight

criteria to support her research and literary works.

Dr. C. A. Childress: Dr. Childress, a licensed clinical psychologist who specializes in

child and family therapy and parent-child relationship conflict, is well-known for his postulation

of an attachment-based model of parental alienation (Childress, 2015). According to Childress,

(2015), the phenomena of parental alienation and its subsequent offshoot parental targeting is

best understood as a manifestation of “pathogenic parenting” (Childress, 2015, p. 7). The

pathogenic parenting dynamic is, according to Childress, (2015) a result of the child’s

triangulation into a parental dyad defined by pathological dysfunction, most notably narcissistic

personality disorder and borderline personality disorder which presents in the mother and father

as the result of developmental trauma or attachment trauma in childhood (p. 8).

While Childress does emphasize the relational dynamic of triangulation, he strongly

asserts that parental alienation is the result of an underlying attachment wound or trauma that

results in a fused parental alliance between two personality disordered partners. Childress further

asserts that the parental alienation dynamic is best understood within the context of diagnostic

criteria. As such, Childress utilizes the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria to diagnosis the family system

dysfunction known as parental alienation as the convergence of the child and their personality

disordered parents who draw their child(ren) into their dysfunction which, in turn, results in

various forms of child abuse, neglect, or psychological damage to the child (Childress, 2015).

Childress’ use of attachment theory as an explanatory media through which to understand

the importance of a child’s relationship with their parents, highlights the importance of utilizing

such theories in ways that are true to their original intent. As expressed by Lowenstein (2010),

attachment theory “is a two-edged sword” that has increasingly been used as a rationale for

denying contact of the child with one parent or the other (p. 166). Used in this manner,

attachment theory becomes a weapon wielded in support of the best interests of the client as

opposed to the best interests of the child. In its most authentic sense, attachment theory

recognizes the importance of the child’s attachment to both parents. In cases where there is no

evidence of abuse, the child should be allowed to maintain their attachment bond with both their

father and mother, and efforts should focus on helping the parents develop healthier ways of co-

parenting (Lowenstein, 2010; Carter, 2011).

Dr. Richard A. Warshak: Dr. Warshak, a clinical, research, and consulting psychologist

in private practice is part of a movement committed to ongoing research and education about the

phenomenon of parental alienation. Warshak’s work highlights a growing tendency to

deemphasize labeling the experience of parental alienation, which he defines as the process of a

child being influenced by one parent to turn against the other, as a syndrome, disorder, condition,

or problem (Warshak, 2018). This trend to refocus research and educational endeavors toward a

better understanding of the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting and

effective ways to prevent or intervene is a cause championed by a number of researchers, mental

health, social service, and legal professionals.

Dr. Jennifer J. Harman: Dr. Harman, an associate professor of psychology at Colorado

State University, has widely researched the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental

targeting and provides another example of a resolution focused approach to understanding and

resolving familial conflict and alienation. Harman and a number of associate researchers have

helped clarify parental alienation and parental targeting as a type of domestic violence (Harman,

et al., 2016; Harman et al., 2018; Harman et al., 2019).

Harman et al., (2018), frame the phenomena of parental alienation as a form of “hostile

and instrumental human aggression…that has been controversial and largely overlooked by

many social science researchers” (p. 1275). The efforts to establish parental alienation… “as a

form of emotional abuse and domestic violence” highlights a definitive shift in the research and

provides a basis for increased understanding as well as an increased focus on developing ways to

both prevent and intervene in cases of parental alienation and parental targeting (Harman, et al.,

2018, p. 1276).

Rationale for Study and Gap in the Literature

Few experiences in life are more painful than the end of a marriage. The tearing of the

marital bond can produce extreme experiences of emotional and mental distress. For the child of

divorcing parents, the pain of divorce can be equally distressing and immobilizing. In marital

dissolutions, the well-being of the child(ren) is directly related to the quality of the re-organized

relationship that the former spouses are able to achieve. Partners that are able to set aside their

differences, and provide a supportive environment with shared parenting are likely to see their

children, heal and develop a healthy regard for self and others. In such cases, the emotional and

mental pain of the family disruption can be mitigated, to some extent, by the efforts of the

parents to provide a safe and supportive space for their child(ren) to enjoy a loving and

constructive relationship with both parents.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that a percentage of divorcing parents, by design, are

highly conflicted and unable to work through their differences in a productive or supportive

manner. By the time the marital partners begin to seek assistance from outside sources, the

relational resources of the marital partners are usually running thin or are nonexistent. Often, the

first resources divorcing couples seek out are those in the court system. As an inherently

adversarial system, family courts are designed to provide structure and resolutions to individuals

who have not been able to achieve a mutually satisfying agreement through their efforts (Meier,

2009).

A Growing Social Problem.

The growing social acceptance of divorce as a satisfactory way to manage marital

conflict and discontent has contributed to the swelling family court docket and helped fuel the

need for the court system to make determinations about how divorcing couples will manage the

parenting of their collective children (Harman et al., 2016). Such a dynamic lends itself to the

establishment of a number of relational triangulations that exacerbate an already inflamed

mother-father-child triangle (Bowen, 1978). These interconnected triangles tend to exponentially

expand as they fold in a variety of lawyers and law firms, mediators, social service, and mental

health professionals, guardians ad litem, and expert witnesses.

In such a dynamic, the ability for one parent to initiate a campaign of disconnection and

alienation of the couple’s child(ren) from the other parent is greatly enhanced. Divided

parenting time offers opportunities for the alienating parent to begin building a negative narrative

about the other parent and disrupt the relationship of the child with the targeted parent. In a

relatively short, time the insidious phenomena of parental alienation and parental targeting can

become a deeply rooted dynamic that is often unwittingly supported by the legal and social

service entities with whom the parents have become fused (Harman et al., 2016).

The phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting is a field of inquiry

struggling to find unity and structure. As research continues to more fully define the

phenomenon and explore the underlying causes and contributing factors and develop effective

ways to interrupt and reduce the destructive fallout of this form of domestic violence and child

abuse, it is imperative to hear from those individuals who are at the center of the experience; the

mothers, fathers, and children who are locked in disintegrating triangles of emotional and mental

pain.

The Lived Experience of the Targeted Parent

To date, research on the lived experience of the familial triangle has been primarily

focused on the child(ren) or adult children of parental alienation. While Baker, (2005, 2006) has

provided a wealth of information on the impact of parental alienation on children (including

adult children), the research on the lived experience of the targeted parent and the alienating

parent remains limited at best (Balmer et al., 2017; Maturana, et al., 2018; Saini et al., 2016;

Poustie et al., Balmer, 2018).

Because the current field of inquiry around parental alienation was largely birthed in the

observations and postulations of Gardner and was initially defined as a problem located in the

child, the experiences of both the mother and father have been largely set aside. This is

unfortunate from a BFST perspective, which defines dysfunction in the child as a direct result of

dyadic conflict and unresolved anxiety and emotional reactivity (Bowen 1978). As Bowen

exerted, symptomatic children are best understood in the light of the parental dyad and the efforts

of the parents to invite or draw the child into a triangled position (Bowen 1978; Freidman, 1991).

While the court system has contributed to the identified plight of the targeted parent in

cases where one parent is attempting to damage or destroy the relational bond between the child

and the other parent, parental alienation remains an intensely debated subject. In a relative

pushme/pullyou dynamic, divorce lawyers have used the PAs platform as a way to defend

against false allegations of abuse while simultaneously using the PAs modality as a way to

define pathology in the mother, father, and child.

Currently, targeted parents have few resources from which to draw support. Typically,

these resources are confined to those available through social media or advocacy groups. It is

not unusual for targeted parents to experience a profound sense of loss, grief, isolation, stigma,

and hopelessness (Kruk, 2010). Suicide among targeted parents is increasingly reported event;

however, additional studies will need to focus on how the lived experience of parental targeting

is linked to suicidal ideation.

The Literature Gap

An examination of the literature base on parental targeting demonstrates a significant lack

of information or study on the lived experience of the targeted parent (Balmer et al., 2016; Ellis,

2005; Maturana et al., 2018). At the time of this study, this researcher was not able to find any

studies that directly explored the effect of parental targeting on the relational well-being of the

targeted parent.

Because the vast number of research studies on parental alienation and parental targeting

have been based on the experiences and opinions of legal, social services, and mental health

professionals, the need to increase the knowledge base about parental alienation and parental

targeting is great (Balmer et al., 2017; Ellis, 2005).

Implications for Christian Leaders and Educators

Leadership has been broadly defined as the ability or art of influencing others. This

concept of influence has been used as a backdrop for a number of leadership and educational

development programs (Wilke, Wilke, and Viglione, 2015). However, the relevance of

developing the ultimate sphere of influence, leadership and educational development in the

home, is a field of inquiry ripe for exploration and study (Wilke et al., 2015). The home or

family as the central unit or system within which leadership and education is most fully

expressed is a concept that finds support as both a systemic and organizational construct (Fox &

Baker, 2009; Gilbert, 2014).

As expressed by Gilbert (2006), parents are naturally occurring leaders and educators

whose sphere of influence is the nuclear family. By identifying the familial unit as the primary

unit of study for systemic thinking, the concept of parental influence acts as model establishing a

set of guiding and enduring life principles for effective leadership in the home, and larger social

and organizational systems (Gilbert, 2006; Wilke et al., 2015). Because the family unit and the

level of relational maturity (differentiation of self) one develops within the context of the home

“forever influences” adult behavior, individuals who emerge from their family of origin with

higher levels of differentiation (relational and emotional maturity) are more likely to become

effective leaders and educators (Fox & Baker, 2009, p. 107).

The implications of a family leadership model that frames the parental dyad as the

primary unit of influence are significant. Research has shown that higher levels of

differentiation are linked to increased ability to relate well with others, manage emotional

reactivity, maintain perspective and navigate difficult life experiences with better results than

those with lower levels of differentiation (Bowen, 1978; Fox, & Baker, 2009; Kerr & Bowen,

1988; Kerr, 2019). Parents with low levels of differentiation generally experience more conflict,

emotional reactivity, and chronic anxiety, while parents with higher levels of differentiation

generally experience a more connected, respectful, and mutually satisfying relationship (Beal,

1998; Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Kerr, 2019). According to BFST, the degree of

differentiation expressed in the parental dyad are indicative of the level of differentiation that

will be passed to their children (Bowen, 1978).

In short, the patterns, life principles, values, virtues, and level of differentiation in the

parents predict the child’s ability to navigate the challenges of life effectively. This dynamic

emphasizes the importance of a strong parental dyad equipped to act as agents of positive

influence. As the primary source of influence in a child’s life, the role of the parental leader and

educator becomes an extraordinary opportunity to instill the guiding life principles, and values

that will define the child’s ability to lead self and others (Wilke et al., 2015).

The breakdown of the family unit is a concern for a number of social, spiritual, and

organizational systems. The disruption, chaos, and emotional pain of marital discord and divorce

is a reverberating experience that impacts the lives of hundreds of mothers, fathers, and children

each year. For the Christian leader and educator, these broken familial systems present a number

of complex challenges. Parental alienation and parental targeting are twin phenomena that

represent an especially confusing, although important aspect of leadership and education.

The distressed family unit represents an opportunity for healing, relational realignment,

support, and spiritual assistance by Christian leaders and educators (Slough, 2015). However,

those with a heart for a biblical orientation to family structure may find direct interventions in

conflicted and distressed familial systems poorly defined or lacking altogether. Thus, the

development and implementation of biblically-based methods for providing support to the family

unit are important and relevant fields of service. Within the context of parental alienation and

parental targeting, the concept of God’s Shalom peace, as a process for healing ruptured

relationships between mothers, fathers and children, provides a template for restoring the

foreseeable loss of relationship with God, self, others and community in those who experience

domestic violence and abuse (Slough, 2015).

As expressed by Slough (2015), communities of faith can provide significant healing

support for troubled families by bearing witness to their story, validating their experiences,

providing needed support services, and providing the basis for renewed hope. This type of

caring support in an invaluable way Christian leaders and educators can provide needed support

to those experiencing parental alienation and parental targeting.

Ultimately, however, the most effective way to deal with parental alienation and parental

targeting is to provide direct intervention in homes that demonstrate a propensity for high levels

of conflict, emotional reactivity, fusion, and other forms of diminished differentiation. Such

efforts, if directed at helping parents conceptualize their role as that of a parent leader and

educator, provide an effective means through which mothers, fathers, and children can increase

their respective levels of differentiation and reduce their tendencies for emotional reactivity,

conflict and disconnection.

Family leadership programs designed to support the role of the parent leader and parent

educator, offer the hope of transforming the family unit by reducing conflicted patterns of

emotional reactivity and building increased levels of differentiation and spiritual maturity in all

of the members of the familial system. The vision of the family system and the parental dyad as

the genesis of leadership and educational development provides a theological and theoretically

sound agreement for the establishment of a family leadership model. Such an initiative could

serve as the basis for helping the mothers, fathers, and children impacted by parental alienation

and parental targeting find hope and healing within themselves, with others, with God and in the

larger systems and organizations of which they are a part.

Profile of the Current Study

Parental alienation and the subsequent phenomena of parental targeting is a growing

social and spiritual concern. Having been largely defined by the legal, social service, and mental

health professionals with whom they interact, the mothers, fathers, and children impacted by

parental alienation and parental targeting have rarely been given the opportunity to have their

stories heard, validated, and recorded as the lived experiences they represent. This research study

is an attempt to provide a platform for those whose lives have been deeply impacted by parental

targeting in the hope that their lived experiences will provide the basis for greater understanding

and ultimately more opportunities for relational health, healing, and well-being as well as add to

the current literature base and reinforce ongoing research.

Parental alienation and parental targeting are constructs that reflect the impact of

systemic relational failure on the lives of the collective members of the familial unit. As the

primary parental dyad is overtaken by ever-increasing tension and anxiety, their efforts to invite

their children into an emotional triangle often offer a sense of temporary stability and reduced

conflict (Beal, 1998; Bowen, 1988; Gilbert, 2014). However, once the triangle becomes unable

to manage all of the chronic anxiety in the system, various members of the triangle will invite or

draw additional entities into the system in an attempt to establish a sense of equilibrium (Bowen,

1998).

As the role of the legal, social and mental health systems become an embedded part of

the parental alienation and parental targeting debate, controversies about the validity of the

parental alienation phenomena have led to a variety of views and assertions about PA and its

ability to adequately describe the phenomena of one parent’s intentional effort to damage or

destroy the relational bond of the child with the other parent. Recent research has demonstrated

the effort to better define the phenomena as a form of domestic violence and child abuse (Kruk,

2010; Harman et al., 2016).

The dynamic of parental alienation and the subsequent development of parental targeting

is a phenomenon with significant implications for Christian leaders and educators. Limited

resources for targeted parents necessitate opportunities for many forms of biblical support and

interventions. For Christian leaders, these opportunities open the door for establishing God’s

Shalom peace in the lives of the mothers, fathers, and children who have experienced ruptures in

their relationship with God, self, others, and the larger systems of which they are a part.

The dynamic of parental alienation and parental targeting also provide opportunities for

Christian leaders and educators to recognize parents as naturally occurring leaders and educators

with the capacity to influence the relational health and well-being of their children through

reciprocating patterns that predict future relational and occupational success. The concept of a

family leadership model designed to highlight the power of parental influence is relevant and

needed field of inquiry.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As a philosophy of understanding, interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology is a

reflective process that attempts to understand the essential meaning of a phenomenon or lived

experience (Van Manen, 2015). It is a process that invites new understanding by encouraging the

interplay of what is previously know (fore-projections) with what is newly known (Heidegger,

1962; Holroyd, 2007). This study will utilize an interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological

methodology to explore the lived experience of targeted parents and attempt to make meaning of

the role intergenerational patterns of marital conflict and social structure play in parental

alienating behaviors.

The study will be guided by the theological concept of Shalom and parental targeting as a

resultant loss of Shalom. Additional support will be provided through the theoretical framework

of Bowen family systems theory, which will provide additional insight into the familial system

and the role intergenerational patterns may play in the phenomenon of parental targeting.

To accomplish the research objective, a qualitative research design will be used to assess

the self-reported perceptions and beliefs of targeted parents as they attempt to make meaning of

the phenomena known as parental alienation. Using a dual interview process, verbal, written, and

observational representations of the lived experience will be gathered and divided into

“structures of experience” or themes that will be reflectively analyzed (Van Manen, 2015, p. 79).

This chapter will include an outline of the research design, the sample selection process, details

of the dual interview and data collection process, ethical considerations, as well as sections on

how the collected data will be processed and subsequently analyzed for thematic content. The

chapter will conclude with a detailed description of how the thematic content will be further

differentiated into transferable units of understanding.

Research Design Synopsis

The Problem

The phenomenon of parental alienation (PA) is not a new or uncommon problem (Rand,

2013). As a familial dynamic, marital discord has historically played a role in the quality of the

relational bond in and among the various members of the family unit, most notably parent-

parent, parent-child, and child-parent relationships (Amato & Patterson, 2017; Bowen, 1978;

Campbell, 1992; Frost, 2015). Research on the role marital conflict plays in familial discord

highlights the enduring nature of parental conflict and discord on the relational well-being of

both the parental partners and children (Peleg, 2014; Wolfinger, 2000). Marital conflict has been

linked to a number of negative outcomes, including relational, emotional, behavioral, and

spiritual difficulties (Fagan & Rector, 2000; Raley & Wildsmith, 2004; Rhoades & Stanley,

2014; Marquardt, 2005). However, the phenomenon of parental alienation is an especially

troubling form of marital discord that is becoming increasingly prevalent (Harman et al., 2016;

Meier, 2009).

A number of contemporary research studies portray parental alienation as a form of

pathology that exists in all members of the family unit, including mother, father, and child(ren)

(Baker, 2005; Baker, Burkhard, & Albertson-Kelly, 2012; Baker et al., 2014; Bernet & Baker,

2013; Childress, 2015; Gardner, 2002; Lorandos et al., 2013)). Because of the tendency for

parental alienation to come to light during the divorce process, the phenomenon of parental

alienation has become a familiar child-focused schema fostered by legal and social services

authorities attempting to manage marital conflict and discord by relegating its resolution the

family court system (Meier, 2009; Johnston, 2005).

Contemporaneously, the phenomenon known as parental alienation has been defined by a

number of well-published psychiatrists, legal experts, and researchers who embrace the work of

Richard Gardner (Baker, 2006; Bernet & Baker, 2013; Johnston, 2005). Gardner (1987, 1992,

2002) proposed an experience in which one parent (known as the alienating parent) deliberately

attempts to damage or destroy the relationship of the child with the other parent (known as the

rejected or targeted parent). As a result of Gardener’s observations, Gardner developed criteria

for “diagnosing” what he termed parental alienation syndrome or PAs (Gardner, 1987, 1992,

2002). According to Gardner, parental alienation syndrome or PAs is a form of mental illness

that develops in the child as a result of parental alienating behaviors (Gardner, 1987, 1991, 1992,

2002).

In the ensuing years, a plethora of legal, psychological, and research professionals have

used Gardner’s PAs criteria as a basis for understanding parental alienating behaviors and the

resultant emotional trauma of the child (Baker et al., 2012; Baker & Fine, 2014; Darnell, 1998;

Jaffe et al., 2017; Johnston, 2005). As a result, much of the historical research on the

phenomenon of parental alienation is based on Gardner’s proposed PAs model, which was

developed as a result of observational and subjective assumptions and hypotheses void of

scientific validity (Grohol, 2018; Meier, 2009; O’Donohue, Benuto, & Bennett, 2016; Johnston,

2005; Walker & Shapiro, 2010). As delineated by Johnston, (2005), Gardner’s PAs model “can

be viewed as ‘iatrogenic’ meaning that it provides a psychiatric prescription that causes its own

disease!” (p. 774).

In recent years, however, research on parental alienation has separated into two camps.

Most notably, allegiances have divided between those who embrace Gardner’s PAs model and

those who define parental alienation and parental alienating behaviors as relational issues. While

some researchers continue to use the terms PA and PAs interchangeable, there is a decisive move

to categorize the phenomenon of parental alienation and targeted parenting as relational rather

than a form of pathological disorder (Grohol, 2018; Pepiton et al., 2012; Walker & Shapiro,

2010).

The ongoing effort to frame parental alienating behaviors as either a mental illness or

disorder in the child, the mother, the father or a combination thereof, provides the backdrop

against which a growing number of divorce and child custody cases are based (Maturana et al.,

2018; Walters & Shapiro, 2010). The extensive use of the PAs model in the legal and social

service’s systems has helped push the narrative of disorderedness and mental illness and reduce

research into the role of dyadic conflict and discord play in setting up and maintaining the child

alienation process (Pepiton et al., 2012; Walker & Shapiro, 2010).

This research study will maintain that much of the confusion about parental alienation

and parental targeting developed due to the limited amount of inquiry of the lived experience of

parental alienation. According to Crist and Tanner (2003), qualitative research is often used as a

starting point for “understanding human experience” (p. 203). Within the context of qualitative

inquiry, studies framed as hermeneutic and phenomenological, are designed to work “with” the

data to provide deeper insight and awareness about shared phenomena (Crowther, Ironside,

Spence, & Smythe, 2017, p. 829).

To date, few research studies focus on the lived experience of families who experience

parental alienation or targeted parenting (Balmer et al., 2017; Finzi-Dottan et al., 2012; Maturana

et al., 2018). According to Balmer et al., (2017), “much of the historical literature that does exist

focused on the perceived or postulated characteristics of the alienating parent and the targeted

child” (p. 1). Therefore, this study will attempt to provide additional insight and understanding of

the lived experience of parental alienation from the perspective of the targeted parent. By

experientially engaging targeted parents, the study will attempt to develop a more comprehensive

picture of the lived experience of parental targeting, how intergenerational patterns of marital

conflict influence the alienation process, and impact relational well-being across the familial

unit. The implications of parental alienation and parental targeting will be considered within the

context of Christian leadership and educational endeavors.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this hermeneutic phenomenological study is to understand the lived

experience of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns of marital discord and

social structure play in the formation of parental alienating behaviors as well as the effect of

alienating behaviors on the relational well-being of targeted parents. This study will utilize a

collaborative integration of Bowen family systems theory as a means through which to better

understand the phenomenon of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns of

marital conflict play in the formation of alienating behavior and the implications of parental

alienating behaviors for Christian leaders and educators.

Because there is presently no universally accepted definition of parental alienation, this

research study will generally define parental alienation as a form of dyadic conflict in which one

parent (known as the alienating parent) attempts to damage or destroy the relationship of the

child with the other parent (known as the targeted parent) (Balmer, el a., 2017; Darnell, 1998;

Saini et al., 2016). Parental alienating behaviors will be defined as those behaviors and actions

that support or result in a relational breach between the targeted parent and the child(ren)

(Darnell, 1998; Harman et al., 2016). This study will be framed within the context of

Heidegger’s interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological model, which espouses the ongoing

100

revision of understanding as a means for making sense of lived experiences (Heidegger 1962;

Dreyfus, 1992; Van Manen, 2015). This study will also utilize Bowen family systems theory

(Bowen 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988), which proposes a multigenerational transmission process

in which relational patterns and experiences in one’s family of origin influence and perpetuate

along generational lines. The study will be undergirded by a theology of Shalom, which

delineates God’s desire for harmonious relational well-being in one’s self, with others, with God,

and with nature (Plantinga, 1995).

Research Questions

The following research questions will guide this study:

RQ1. What is the meaning ascribed to the experience of parental alienation by targeted parents? RQ2. What are the characteristics and dominant themes associated with parental targeting? RQ3. What role, if any, do intergenerational patterns and social structure play in the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental targeting? RQ4. What impact, if any, does parental targeting have on relational well-being? This qualitative, hermeneutic phenomenological study will be designed to facilitate

learning, make meaning of and further define the phenomenon of parental alienation and parental

targeting, and subsequently explore and better understand the role intergenerational patterns in

one’s family of origin and social structure play in the formation of parental alienating behaviors.

Each research question is designed to provide an open and unbiased platform through which to

communicate the participant’s thoughts, ideas, insights, beliefs, and perceptions.

Research Design and Methodology

This qualitative research study will utilize an interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological

(IHP) framework to explore the lived experience of targeted parents as expressed in the

101

phenomena of parental alienation. Because qualitative research approaches are designed to

explore or make meaning of human experience or phenomena, a qualitative research approach

attempts to make meaning of a particular human experience or phenomena as it is express in the

lived experience of the participants (Creswell, 2014; Van Manen, 2015). It is a progressive

process that attempts to “capture and study” the complexities of the phenomena as it occurs in its

natural setting (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019).

Qualitative research is generally used to expand the current knowledge base of an un-

researched or under-researched subject and set the stage of further inquiry. Because qualitative

research tends to be less structured and more malleable by design, its inherent flexibility allows

the researcher to follow the flow of information being gathered and restructure in light of

increased knowledge in a reciprocating and hermeneutic fashion (Stolorow, 2011; Van Manen,

2015).

Interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology is a specific method of qualitative design, based

on the works of Martin Heidegger (Neubauer, Witkop, & Varpio, 2019; Sloan, & Bowe, 2014).

Heidegger was a student of Edmond Husserl, who is generally considered the father of

phenomenology (Kafle, 2011). While both Husserl and Heidegger embraced phenomenology as

a philosophy or method for studying human phenomena, Husserl postulated a descriptive or

transcendental version of phenomenology inquiry while Heidegger was oriented to an

interpretive or hermeneutic approach.

A hermeneutic phenomenological research approach, based on Heidegger’s philosophy of

interpretive methodology, is geared toward understanding human experience and increasing

“sensitivity to humans’ ways of being-in-the-world (Dreyfus, 1991). It is an inherently

interpretive process, as expressed by Crist & Tanner, (2003), “used when the research question

102

asks for the meaning of a phenomenon with the purpose of understanding the human experience”

(p. 1). As succinctly defined by Dreyfus (1991), hermeneutic phenomenology “is an

interpretation of human beings as essentially self-interpreting thereby showing that interpretation

is the proper method of studying human beings” (p. 34).

As an interpretive process, the hermeneutic phenomenological design is, by nature, a

nonlinear and interactive progression of the interplay between the researcher, the data, and the

interpretive method. As such, the process can be described as an evolving method of inquiry that

adjusts, realigns, and overlaps with each new line of investigation.

Interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological studies begin with a desire to know more

about the lived experience of a particular group. Care is taken to develop criteria through which

to identify and ensure a consistent sample (Crist & Tanner, 2011). An adequate sample size is

reached when interpretations are clear and visible, no new findings are revealed by new

informants, and narratives become redundant (Benner, 1994 Creswell, 2014).

The traditional method of data collection in interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology has

been the qualitative, in-depth interview (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019; Lopez & Willis, 2004).

However, as expressed by Holroyd (2007), “it is not enough” to ask each individual what is it

like to live within the context of their experience because

each individual’s understanding of an experience …has a deep connection with his or her

history and culture. …to really engage in the topic, there needs to be a sharing of his or

her experiences – a storytelling of sorts – and it is in these stories that meaning and

understanding are disclosed (p. 7).

Because this study is an attempt to understand better the lived experience of individuals

who have experienced targeting parenting, within the context of the parental alienation

103

phenomena, interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology offers an appropriate framework for

allowing these individuals to find their voices and tell their stories. This method of inquiry

provides an effective means for making meaning of the lived experience of targeted parents.

A significant aspect of IHP is Heidegger’s concept of one’s “lifeworld” or “being-in-the-

world, which postulates that one’s experiences in life are intrinsically linked to the meaning

people make of their particular life circumstances and contexts (Gorichanaz et al., 2018; Van

Manen, 2015). These lifeworld experiences become the backdrop through which people make

meaning of their lives and against which the researcher must interpret the phenomenon. As

expressed by Neubauer et al. (2019), interpretive phenomenologists attempt to translate the

narratives provided by the research participants in light of their social, cultural, and political

contexts.

For targeted parents, the context of parental alienation is the backdrop or lifeworld, that

defines the being-in-the-world experiences this research study will attempt to uncover. Because

the dynamic of parental alienation reflects the social, cultural, and political ideologies that

currently contribute to the larger understanding of the alienation process, these contributions will

factor into the interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological process.

Correspondingly, interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology does not “negate the use of a

theoretical orientation or conceptual framework as a component of inquiry” (Lopez & Willis,

2004, p. 730). Because this study will utilize a family systems framework, as postulated by

Murray Bowen, and will use Bowen family systems theory (BFST) as an orienting framework

through which to better understand how multigenerational patterns impact the lived experience

of parental targeting within the context of parental alienation, the integrated use of Bowen family

systems theory and interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology reflects the congruence of IHP and

104

BFST as interpretive measures through which to better understand the lived experience of

targeted parenting.

This study will begin with identifying a sample population that represents a group of

people who have lived experience as targeted parents. These sample participants will be invited

to participate in a dual interview process that will begin with a study of the individual’s

multigenerational family system known as a genogram. The genogram will provide a three-

generational map of the demographic, relational, perceptional, emotional, and spiritual patterns

of the participant’s lifeworld. Phase two of the interview process will ask each participant to

write a letter to either their alienated child, the alienated parent or a social service, mental health,

or legal professional who played a significant role in their alienated experience. Participants will

be asked to complete their letter before attending the final interview. This final interview will

include an invitation for the participant to express what they would want others to know about

the lived experience of parental targeting. Participants will be encouraged to share these

descriptive narratives through storytelling, poetry, art work, photos or other forms of media.

The data collected from the dual interview process will include verbal, written, and

observational data. The researcher’s field notes will also be utilized as a source of data

representative of the participant’s lived experience. The collected data will be transcribed

verbatim and subjected to an analytic process designed to isolate certain commonalities, codes

and theme clusters of experience, which will be subsequently analyzed and reported. Examples

of the participant’s comments will be linked to their corresponding thematic clusters.

The results will be utilized to develop further and define the meaning participants make

of targeted parenting and to define universal essence that are transferable to individuals with

similar lived experience. Overarching themes identified within the context of the analysis will be

105

explored for possible theological ideas related to the concept of Shalom and relational well-

being. Implications for Christian leaders and educators will be considered in an attempt to

identify possible interventive and supportive roles for the congregational church and para-church

organizations. Such understanding could provide the basis for the development of pro-family

programs and curriculum that emphasize intact family units, reconciliation, and relational

healing.

Setting

The proposed setting for the dual interview process is a private practice therapeutic

setting located in the community of Plainfield, just west of the Indianapolis, Indiana area. The

interview setting will provide a safe, discreet, and confidential location for participants to engage

in the two-phase interview process. This setting will provide the advantage of flexible scheduling

to optimize convenience for the identified participants. Participants will be able to choose

daytime, evening, or weekend times for completing the interview process. Due to the sensitive

nature of the data to be collected, the private and discreet nature of a therapeutic private practice

setting will provide the participants will a comfortable, safe, and supportive venue for discussing

their experiences as targeted parents.

This setting will provide for both video and audio recording capabilities as well as secure

and confidential storage of collected data. The setting will be fitted with a professional security

system to ensure against any unauthorized access to stored data. All collected data will be

sequestered to the interview site for a period of three years or until such time as the data is

deemed obsolete and destroyed in a manner consistent with the confidential disposable of

participant data. Data collected will be categorized according to traditional thematic analysis and

106

will only be used for the purposes outlined in the research design and as authorized by the

institutional review board (IRB) approval and the informed consent of the participants.

Participants

The goal of this research study is to understand better the lived experience of individuals

who have experienced parental targeting. Participants for this study will be selected using a non-

probability, purposive, or criterion sampling technique in which the participants will be

identified based on several distinct conditions and characteristics. Participants selected for this

study will meet the following criteria, which will be used as a measure to ensure each participant

can give voice to the lived experience parental targeting.

All participants will meet the following set of established criteria.

1. Divorced individuals at least 18 years of age, who were married a minimum of five years and are at least two years post-divorce. These parameters are designed to assure the capacity of each participant to meet adult consent requirements and provide objective feedback.

2. Individuals who reside within the mid-western state of Indiana.

3. Individuals who are willing and able to make themselves available for two separate

interview sessions lasting between 1 hour and 1.5 hours each.

4. Individuals who are willing and able to complete both phases of the interview process within a two-week time frame. This time frame will allow for congruence and consistency between the two phases of the interview process.

5. Individuals who have lived experience as a targeted parent (i. e., parents who self-

6. Individuals who can provide rich, descriptive narratives of the lived experience of

parental targeting. In order to assure the participant’s capacity for providing a detailed account of their lived experience, participants will be encouraged to provide a short one to two paragraph narrative about why they find the study subject interesting and why they would like to participate in the study. One open-ended question will be included in the initial inquiry questionnaire to facilitate this aspect of the process.

107

Perspective participants who express a desire to be included in the study will be asked to

complete and submit a short online questionnaire to establish their status as a qualified

participant. Participants who meet the criteria for inclusion will be invited to join the study.

Qualifying participants will be notified by email and provided with a link to a secure online

scheduling system where they will be able to schedule appointments for both interviews.

Once scheduled, the participant will receive an email verification of their scheduled

appointments, instructions and information about the nature of the interviews, an online link to a

pdf of the informed consent document as well as a list of professional support services to be

utilized at the participant’s discretion. The interview process will begin with the selection and

scheduling of the first participant and continue until an adequate sample has been established.

In studies that employ an interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological method, sample

size is based on the emergence of new data. Because IHP studies rely on a lengthy interview

process to provide data, the dual interview design of the study will likely produce a large amount

of textual data (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). Thus, the intended sample size for the study will be 5-6

participants; however, participants will be added to the study until procured narratives become

redundant, and no new findings or meanings can be identified (Creswell, 2014). Once it has been

determined that the narratives have become redundant, and no new data is being provided by

new participants, the sample size will be considered adequate. Should the anticipated number of

5-6 participants prove to be insufficient, the interview process will continue until such time as

the requisite standard of saturation has been met (Creswell, 2014).

Potential participants will be pulled from the greater Indianapolis metropolitan area, and

surrounding counties. These communities include the towns of Plainfield, Avon, Brownsburg,

Zionsville, Carmel, Noblesville, Fishers, Lawrence, Beech Grove, and Greenwood. Potential

108

participants will be solicited through a variety of outreach methods including informational

fliers, letters and email. Distribution sites will include counseling or therapeutic centers and

agencies, law firms, churches, and other potential gathering sites such as community centers and

social service agencies. Potential participants will be considered without regard to

social/economic background, race, gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Role of the Researcher

“The opportunity to engage in hermeneutic understanding is likely to arise when

individuals undergo any experience that serves to disrupt the ordinary, taken-for-granted aspects

of existence” (Holroyd, 2007, p. 2). This type of “negative dialectical experience” tends to shift

or even negate previous ways of being and knowing with our self, with others and with God

(Gadamer, 1960, 1989). Interpretive hermeneutic phonological study acts as a bridge between

old ways of understandings and new ways of knowing, thinking, being, and understanding. It is a

process defined by humility and a readiness to set aside presuppositions in favor of new, richer,

and more meaningful understandings about self, others, and the world in which we live.

According to Heidegger (1962), hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry can never be free

of presuppositions. For the researcher who embraces an interpretive hermeneutic method, the

identifying of these “fore-having” or “fore-conceptions, helps identify a critical part of the

hermeneutic process (Heidegger, 1962, Dreyfus, 1991). The knowing of one’s own pre-

formulated understandings is a necessary and productive aspect of a not-knowing or

collaborative learning experience. In this sense, interpretive, hermeneutic study is an

interconnected process between the researcher and the researched.

The phenomena of parental alienation and targeted parenting are, for this researcher,

defined by two dominant orientations or contexts. As a licensed marriage and family therapist

109

(LMFT), licensed addition counselor (LAC), certified domestic mediator, and parenting

coordinator who regularly works with conflicted couples either in the process of divorce or

attempting to recover from a divorce, this researcher can attest that the impact of alienating

behaviors on all members of the family unit is significant. Exposure to the phenomena of

parental alienation has expanded this researcher’s knowledge base and created a desire to

understand better the dynamics that lead to this type of familial discord. Engagement with the

phenomena of parental alienation has helped solidify this researcher’s belief that knowledge of

an experience does not equate to the ability to understand the experience. In essence, the clinical

aspect of this researcher’s experience with alienating behaviors supports the supposition that

there is a great deal about the phenomena of parental alienation that is unknown and

misunderstood. This seems especially true with regard to the experience of the targeted parent.

The second relevant context from which a number of pre-suppositions emanate is the

researcher’s personal experience of parental targeting. As a targeted parent, 25 years post-

divorce, the lived experience of parental targeting provides ample opportunity for reflection on

those things that “existed in advance” as an “already decided way of conceiving that which we

are interested in” (Holroyd, 2007, p. 3). The need to “work the fore-structure” as a method for

reducing the impact of projected meanings is a necessary element in interpretive hermeneutic

inquiry (Heidegger, 1962; Gadamer, 1989).

Thus, the pre-suppositions or fore-knowings of the researcher are not seen as problematic

ideologies that need to be bracketed off, but rather utilizes as “valuable guides to the inquiry”

(Neubauer el al., 2019, p. 95). The intersection of the researcher’s pre-assumptions with the

subject of inquiry begins the process of ongoing revisionary meaning between the individual

parts and the collective whole (Heidegger, 1962). As proposed by Heidegger, this hermeneutic

110

circle of revisionary interpretation, is not a “ciculus vitiosus” to be avoided but a vital element in

building understanding (Heidegger, 1962, p. 195; Dreyfus, 191, p. 201). The key, according to

Heidegger, it to “come into it in the right way” because within the circle “is hidden a positive

possibility of the most primordial kind of knowing: (p. 195).

This working of the fore-structure, as proposed by Heidegger, is best accomplished

through the dynamic of the hermeneutic circle which, according to Heidegger helps reorient pre-

suppositions in a collaborative manner with interpretations in the present, which subsequently

interact and produce new meanings of understanding in an interdependent and interdependent

manner (Heidegger, 1962; Crist & Tanner, 2003). Within the context of the hermeneutic circle,

interpretation is a constant revisionary process through which the researcher revises his/her

understanding in light of newly acquired information. This new information is synthesized with

previous understanding in a non-linear process in which pre-understandings or fore-conceptions

modify understanding in a constant process of renewed projection (Gadamer, 1989).

Because interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology does not require researchers to bracket

their pre-conceptions or theories and acknowledges that people are “inextricably situated” in

their worlds, the “recognizing assumptions” of the researcher are typically utilized as the forward

arc of the hermeneutic circle while interpretations act as the return arc of the circle (Packer &

Addison, 1989, p. 275). According to Gadamer (1960) and as restated by Crowther, Ironside,

Spence, and Smythe, 2017), the hermeneutic researcher is charged with “articulating the pre-

understandings and power relations” they bring to the listening and interpretation of stories,

always being open to the impact of their already-there prejudices (p. 829). Such transparency is

an essential part of the interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological process.

111

Through the lens of interpretive hermeneutic inquiry, understanding begins with a self-

reflective review of one’s own fore-projections and pre-assumptions. Assuming the role of the

researcher requires a delineation of these forms of fore-knowledge and the understandings that

spring from this researcher’s lived experiences as both a professional psychotherapist, domestic

mediator, parenting coordinator, and targeted parent.

The following fore-projections are reflections of the experiential horizons, lifeworld, or

state of being-in-the-world of the researcher. As such, these horizons of understanding include

but are not limited to

1. A biblical orientation of God as the originating Author of all Truth.

2. All human beings as intrinsically valuable and image-bearers of the creative God even in their fallen state.

3. All Truth is God’s Truth. God’s Truth can be found in every field of inquiry.

(Pearcey, 2005).

4. People make sense in the context of their lived experiences.

5. Behavior is an external manifestation of a person’s internal beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and emotions.

6. Painful emotional experiences are perceived as unendurably traumatic when they

occur outside of the context of the person’s known lifeworld or context and in the absence of a secure relational and emotional attachment to others (Stolorow, 2011).

7. Emotional and mental pain are not illnesses or disorders to be treated or from which

to recover.

8. Emotional and mental pain are trauma responses to be validated, shared, and relationally healed in self, with others, through Christ.

Ethical Considerations

Participants accepted into the study will be provided with an informed consent form, as

approved by the Liberty University Institutional Review Board, that outlines the structure of the

research design and outlines any inherent risks associated with their participation. The assumed

112

risk for participant harm can be compared to that which would be expected of a normal

psychotherapy process. However, due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, care will be

taken to provide each participant with a list of licensed professionals who are qualified to

provide any type of therapeutic support the participant may desire or need during or following

participation in the study.

All data collected from the participants will be categorized by means of a pseudonym

name and numbering system designed to maintain anonymity and confidentiality. Hard copy,

textual data will be stored in locked file cabinets at the interview site, which will be protected by

both on-site and off-site security. All computer-generated files and data, video, and audio

recordings will be maintained on an encrypted, external hard-drive so as to avoid any

opportunity for cloud or internet security failures or “hacks.”

All needed aspects of research study will be designed to meet or exceed traditional

standards for informed consent and secure storage. These standards include a statement that

identifies the research study as a voluntary event, provides the purpose, duration and procedural

aspects of the study, outlines the reasonable, foreseeable risks or discomforts associated with the

study, the potential benefits of the participants voluntary participation and any alternative

procedures or course of treatment associated with the study. All participants will be required to

sign a consent form verifying receipt of notification and attesting to their ability to understand

and choose to participate in the research study.

Data Collection Methods and Instruments

According to Creswell (2014), qualitative researchers typically gather “multiple forms of

data…rather than rely on a single data source” (p. 185). In this study, participant data will be

gathered through a variety of data sources including (1) an assessment questionnaire, (2) the

113

collaborative creation of a multigenerational genogram, (3) written narratives expressed through

letter writing and transcribed textual data of collaborative interactions and (4) video and audio

recordings. See attaches appendices for examples of the questionnaire, participant solicitation,

and interview protocols.

Collection Methods

All data will be collected during face-to-face encounters between the researcher

(interviewer) and the participant. The interviews will take place in a safe, comfortable, and

inviting setting designed to provide the participant with an environment conducive to the telling

of their experiential story. During the first of two interviews, the participant will be asked to

participate in the creation of a multigenerational genogram. The genogram or family map is a

collaborative and interactive process between the researcher and interviewee designed to outline

and explore salient and nodal familial events, relational patterns and other patters of functioning

(McGoldrick et al., 2008; McGoldrick et al., 2005). During the second interview, participants

will be asked to bring a written (previously prepared) letter to share. Participants will also be

given an opportunity, during the second interview, to share how they feel their lived experience

has impacted their relational lifeworld and what they believe are the most salient aspects of the

lived phenomenon of parental targeting. Participants will be provided with supplies or comfort

measures they may need to complete the interview process (i.e., pen, paper, computer, printer,

restrooms, beverages, tissues, etc.). Collected data will be immediately secured and coded to

ensure confidentiality and secure storage.

Instruments and Protocols

The initial assessment questionnaire will be defined by the criteria established for

inclusion in the study. Once the first participant has been approved, both of the interviews will be

114

scheduled via a secure online scheduling software. Subsequent interviews will be scheduled and

completed until such time as saturation has been assessed.

Inquiry Questionnaire. Potential participants who express a desire to be included in the

study will be asked to complete a brief online questionnaire which will be managed by Survey

Monkey. Participants who fall within the parameters of the study criteria will be sent an

acceptance email outlining the parameters of the study as well as a link which through which

participant can schedule two interview appointments via an online scheduling system. The online

scheduling process will be provided by Full Slate which is a secure and encrypted online

scheduling service that does not require users to create an account or register. To schedule,

participants will only need to enter the same email through which they received their acceptance

into the study.

Once scheduled, participants will receive an email confirming their appointments times

as well as a link to the informed consent document (as approved by the Liberty University IRB)

which they will be asked to read and bring to their first interview. Participants will be able to

address any concerns they may have about the process before signing the document. The

confirmation email will also include a list of licensed professional health care agencies and

individuals qualified to provide support should the participant feel such support would be

helpful. Participants will additionally be provided with the interview location and contact

information for the researcher. A finalized copy of the questionnaire protocol will be placed in

the attached appendices section.

Interview One. The first interview will be the collaborative construction of a genogram,

which will be used to identify salient aspects of the participant’s familial life and the

intergenerational patterns that inform the participant’s relational, emotional, mental, and spiritual

115

experiences. The genogram, according to McGoldrick, Gerson & Petry (2008), is an established

and “practical framework for understanding family patterns” (p. 1). As delineated by

McGoldrick et al. (2008), genograms typically record information about family members and

their relationships over at least three generations. As a fundamental aspect of Bowen family

systems theory, the genogram is a well-known inquiry instrument used to gather information of a

person’s immediate and extended family members that influence their relational, emotional,

behavioral, and spiritual well-being. A copy of the finalized genogram protocol will be placed in

the appendices section.

The genogram inquiry used in this research study will focus on several salient aspects of

the participant’s life and will broadly include

• Demographic information or historical facts • Dates of births, marriages, marital separations, co-habitations, divorces, illness, deaths

etc. • Sibling position • Ethnic, class, and religious background • Occupation and education • State of current relationships • Patterns of functioning • Contextual factors • Religious, Spiritual and Transcendent Experiences and Orientations

Because the construction of a genogram is a collaborative and evolving process, questions

are generally fashioned in response to the shared narratives of the interviewee. As a tool for

eliciting individual and family narratives about specific events, such information is typically

revealed as a result of attempting to understand the individual within the context of the larger

system. For this study the genogram will be utilized to explore a specific lived experience,

parental targeting, and its impact on relational, emotional, behavior, and spiritual well-being of

the individual and the familial unit. Specific areas of inquiry will seek to understand the role

intergenerational patterns of marital conflict play in parental targeting. Questioning follows a

116

natural progression from questions about the problem to who was involved and how the

experience impacted the participant (McGoldrick et al., 2008). Examples of specific questions

might include

• Marital conflict and discord are normal aspects of a marital relationship. What kinds of conflict, discord or problems did you experience in your marriage?

• During your marriage, how would you describe your relationship with your partner? • Can you identify a time or event during the marriage that significantly changed the

dynamic of the marital relationship? • During your marriage, how would you describe your relationship with your

child/children? • Have any extended family members had particular marital or parenting problems or

concerns? • Are there certain family members who have more power to define what will happen in a

relationship?

Interview Two. The second interview will be a letter-writing exercise in which the

participant will be asked to write a letter to either the child(ren) from which they are currently

alienated, the alienating parent, or a social service, legal, or mental health professional they

believe significantly impacted their lived experience as a targeted parent. The participant will be

asked to write the letter “as if” the intended party would be reading the letter. The participant

will be asked to complete the letter before the interview session. The participant will be asked to

consult a qualified therapist or counselor for guidance should they feel inclined to engage with

the subject of their letter-writing experience.

Additionally, the participant will be encouraged to explain how the experience of parental

alienation has impacted their life, their relationship with self, others, and the God of their

understanding. The participant will be also be provided to share what they would like others to

know about the experience of parental targeting. Participants will be encouraged to bring with

them any additional forms of lived expression in the form of poetry, written word, journal

entries, statements, photo, art work etc., they believe will facilitate this phase of the interview

117

process (Van Manen, 2015). A copy of the second interview protocol will be placed in the

appendices section.

Video and Audio Recordings. Observational forms of data, including the video and

audio recording made during the two interviews, will be screened for information that will add to

the depth of the research inquiry. Such notations will be documented and included in the content

analysis process. As expressed by Morse (2012), observational data collected through video and

audio recordings provide the researcher with opportunities to capture intricate aspects and details

of the interview process (changes in facial expression, emotional shifts, voice inflections etc.)

that might be missed through other means of interaction and data collection. Video and audio

recordings will be considered additional forms of the IHP reflective interpretive process.

Field Journal. The researcher will utilize and maintain a field journal which will provide

an additional level of recursive data. These notes, observations and insights will act as a

background for preliminary organizing and coding of data. Such inquiry will also provide insight

into the ways “my experiences could be our experiences.” (Van Manen, 2015, p. 57). As

expressed by Van Manen, reflective awareness of “one’s own experiences of a phenomenon may

provide the researcher with clues for orienting oneself to the phenomenon and thus to all the

other stages of phenomenological research” (p. 57).

Procedures

This qualitative research study will utilize an interpretive, hermeneutic phenomenological

method designed to elicit data about the lived experience of parental targeting. As an aspect of

the phenomena of parental alienation, parental targeting will be isolated as a specific element of

the phenomena and a subject worthy of exploration in its own right.

118

To accomplish the research goal of increased understanding of the lived experience of

parental targeting, participants will be asked to engage in a two-part, face-to-face interview

process. Participants chosen for the study will self-identify as a targeted parent, be at least 18

years of age, and be at least two years post-divorce.

In order to assure the safety and well-being of the participants and mediate any risk

associated with participation in the study, each participant will be dually informed of any

foreseeable risk factors. Participants will be asked to complete an informed consent form and

will be provided with a comprehensive list of qualified professionals who can provide needed

support should the participant feel such support is warranted.

A proposed consent form and professional service provider list will be submitted for the

Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Liberty University for evaluation and approval. A copy of

the assessment questionnaire, the questions proposed for each phase of the interview process,

and solicitation documents will also be submitted for review by the IRB. Other documents that

will be submitted for review by the IRB will be an outline of the proposed safety measures that

will be implemented in order to assure the safety of the participant’s confidentiality and

anonymity. Care will be taken to make sure all documents submitted for IRB review will contain

all required elements and conform to the IRBs delineated standards as documented on the

website and in provided templates.

Data Analysis

Qualitative research has been described as a process through which researchers attempt to

extrapolate meaning from the lived experience (Roberts, 2010). It differs from quantitative

research in that the researcher is considered the primary research instrument (Roberts, 2010).

Qualitative research is also unique in that the data produced are words and observations that

119

represented the ideas, perceptions, beliefs, and understandings of those who have experienced

the phenomena of interest.

The process through which qualitative data is analyzed can be complex due to the

quantity of data collected. As explained by Erlingsson & Brysiewicz (2017), “The objective in

qualitative content analysis is to systematically transform a large amount of text into a highly

organized and concise summary of key results” (p. 94). Through the process of qualitative

thematic analysis, large amounts of text can be coded, categorized, and thematically explored as

a way of making meaning out of human experience.

Analysis Methods

The majority of the data produced as a result of this qualitative study by utilizing an

interpretive, hermeneutic phenomenological methodology, will come from transcribed audio-

recorded interviews, field journal or interview entries, visual observations, and participant letters.

To process this data into units of understanding, a thematic analysis (TA) method will be

utilized, similar to the models expressed by Virginia Clark, Virginia Braun, and Max Van Manen

(Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Clarke, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015; Van Manen,

2015). Procedural insights will also be gleaned from the work of Erlingsson and Brysiewicz

(2017) with regard to coding and thematic developmental procedure.

This process will begin with the transcription of all collected data. Analysis of the raw

data from verbatim transcribed interviews, interview notes, and participant submissions will be

systematically coded and then grouped into themes which can be further developed into

overarching themes, interpretation, and meanings (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017;

Clarke, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015; Van Manen, 2015). Through the use of thematic analysis, data

will progressively break down the whole of the text into smaller parts, which according to the

120

hermeneutic circle, will simultaneously maintain the reflection of the whole while further

delineating the perceptive parts that emerge from the data. In short, “each part should reflect the

whole, and the whole should be reflected in each part” (Heidegger 1962).

While the steps of thematic analysis are not linear in nature, the most likely progression

will include the following.

1. Analysis will begin by reading and rereading the transcripts, listening to the audio recordings and observing the video recording in order to facilitate familiarization with the data (Clarke, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015).

2. Begin to divide the text into smaller units that identify relevant features of the data. This

process of identifying patterns in the data (coding) helps group together similar data segments that relate to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Clark, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015). These smaller units of meaning will be coded or labeled in such a way as to distinguish the meaning of the text in a one or two-word form (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017).

3. The researcher groups together codes (that capture the key aspects of the data) into

categories that can be further explored as expressed themes that attempt to add additional understanding and meaning to the text (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Clark, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015).

4. Potential themes are reviewed to assure they are relevant to the research questions and

reflect the content of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Clark, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015).

5. Identified themes are further defined by a short descriptive narrative or commentary that

provides a brief summary of each theme. Thematic names should capture the essence of the theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Clark, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015).

6. The researcher writes a report that explains why the researcher choose to use thematic

analysis as well as the specific themes, descriptive narrative, and commentary of each theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Braun, 2017; Clark, Braun, & Hayfield, 2015).

7. As new information is entered into the process, revisions will take place, and new

meanings will correspondingly emerge (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017).

As a final step of the thematic analytic process, the researcher will further analyze the

themes developed by the first phase of the analytic process through the lens of Van Manen (Van

121

Manen, 2015). This final phase of analysis will attempt to explore the fundamental lifeworld

themes or “essentials” of the targeted parent (p. 101). The four fundamental lifeworlds or

essentials that will serve as guides to this reflective and interpretive phase of the analysis process

will include lived space, lived body, lived time, and lived human relation (Van Manen, 2015, p.

101). Because these four essentials or lifeworlds represent universal aspects of the human

experience, they are an appropriate lens through which to further expand this phenomenological

study of the lived experience of parental targeting (Van Manen, 2015, p. 102). More clearly

defined, the four fundamental lifeworlds include

Lived space (spatiality). The essential lifeworld of lived space can be defined as felt

space or the spaces that affect the way a person feels. As a category of inquiry, the lived space

essential provides a frame for understanding how day-to-day life is experienced. Thus, lived

space represents the places, landscapes, and settings where people can “be” at home with their

authentic self, (Van Manen, 2015, p. 102).

Lived body (corporeality). The essential lifeworld of lived body can be defined as the

experience of being bodily in the world. It represents the physical or external experiences of life

or bodily presence. Expressions of lived body experiences could include physical manifestations

of internal experiences i. e., blushing, drooping shoulders, tears, flushing etc.

Lived time (temporality). The essential lifeworld of lived time can be defined as

subjective time as opposed to clock time or objective time (Van Manen, 2015, p. 104). Lived

time represents the various “horizons of a person’s temporal” or earthly landscape and can be

generally be defined as simultaneously having an experiential past, present, and future (p. 104).

Lived other (relationality). The essential lifeworld of lived other can be defined as the

experience of relational connection between two people. It is the experience of the other that

122

often begins as a corporal or physical awareness and deepens because of a sense of

connectedness, bond, or relationship. It is the ability to transcend self by connecting to an other.

(Van Manen, 2015, p. 105).

The interconnected essentials of lived body, lived space, lived time, and lived other form

an intricate and interwoven unity of human experience through which to better understand the

lifeworld of the targeted parent. As a final interpretive phase of this hermeneutic

phenomenological study, Van Manen’s model provides a method for disseminating the dominant

themes of the targeted parent’s experience (Lauterbach, 2018). This final process will help bring

forth the universal and transferable essence of the phenomenon and thus provide a frame for

understanding the fundamental meaning of the targeted parent’s lived experience.

It is important to note that while this study will utilize a thematic analysis format as a

method through which to identify key categories and themes that arise from the narratives of the

participants, this undertaking will act as a supportive force for conceptualizing and producing

“meaningful concepts that reflect” the lived experiences of the participants (Leedy & Ormrod,

2019, p. 236). As an interpretive, hermeneutic phenomenological study, a core goal will be to

better understand the lived experience of parental alienation by integrating the dominate themes

that arise from the data and developing a “typical” narrative about the targeted parent’s lived

experience (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019, p. 236).

As expressed by Van Manen (2015), reflections pulled from the participant’s lived space,

lived body, lived time, and lived human relation “can be differentiated but not separated” (p.

105). The cumulative value and meanings extrapolated from these various parts of the

participant’s lived experience all form an “intricate unity” or depiction of their being-in-the-

world experience or lifeworld (Van Manen, 2015, p. 105). It is postulated that these identified

123

essences will be transferable to the lived experience of other targeted parents and act as the basis

for more effective interventions and supportive programs and curriculum (Van Manen, 2015;

Lauterbach, 2018).

Trustworthiness

Because qualitative researcher does not focus on numbers and statistics as a method for

making correlational links between variables, the concepts of validity and reliability are not

viewed as appropriate measures for evaluating the rigors of qualitative research and design

(Leedy & Ormrod, 2019). As such, qualitative research is generally assessed according to the

study’s perceived trustworthiness as expressed in its credibility, dependability, conformability,

and transferability (p. 239). This research study will strive to adhere to the following aspects of

trustworthiness.

Credibility. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), credibility is demonstrated by an

inquiry conducted in such a fashion as to “ensure the topic was accurately identified and

described” (p. 31). Similarly, Beck (1993) defined credibility as a measure of how vivid and

faithful the resulting narrative is to the expressed lived experience of the participant. To ensure

credibility, this study will strive to depict the lived experience of parental targeting in “in all of

its complexity” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2019, p. 251). Thus, care will be taken to diligently transcribe

and reflect the meanings expressed by the participants, by extrapolating and preserving the

delineated essence of the targeted parent’s lived experience or lifeworld.

Dependability. To be dependable, a study must outline all of the steps and procedures

taken to select the participants, collect the data, analysis the data, and make conclusions about

the data. This study will strive to provide a clear and replicable path for others who wish to

confirm or expand on the work. Such detail can ensure that the work completed in this study can

124

be elaborated upon or recreated through similar methods. Care will be taken to create an audit

path as a means through which to facilitate replication and expansion of these research methods.

Conformability. While it is assumed that all of the data collected in this study will not be

presented in the final version, the data will be held in trust for a period of time, not less than five,

to ensure future studies or efforts to replicate the study will not be hindered. However, because it

is the nature of interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology to embrace the presuppositions of the

researcher, the data will, to some extent, reflect the horizons, context of mindsets of the

researcher/interviewer as well as those of the participants.

Transferability. Because the phenomena of parental targeting have been devoid of

extensive investigation and because much of the current understanding of parental targeting has

been formed on the opinions and ideologies of a variety or social services, legal and mental

health professionals, the lived experience of the targeted parent is currently an understudied and

poorly understood experience. Further investigations into the lived experience of targeted parents

will increase the literature base and provide a better understanding of the phenomena of parental

targeting through the lens of the targeted parent. Additional research into the lived experience of

the child(ren) and the alienating parent would provide even more insight into the familial

dynamic known as parental alienation.

While interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological studies are not designed to provide

generalizable data, such studies can produce postulations, commonality, and other forms of data

that is transferable to persons with similar lived experiences. Such studies provide the foundation

upon which reliable understandings can be formed, possible correlations can be developed, and

future inquiry can be framed.

125

Chapter Summary

This chapter provides a description of the research methodology that will be employed in

this qualitative research study. Included is a synopsis of the research problem, the purpose

statement, and the research questions that will frame the study. A description of the proposed

research site, participants, and the role of the researcher was followed by a segment about the

ethical considerations that will be utilized in the study. An outline of the data collection method

and proposed instruments and protocols included a detailed description of each type of data

collection method. This chapter concluded with a discussion of the data analysis process the

manner through which trustworthiness will be established.

126

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Compilation Protocol and Measures

Demographic and Sample Data

Data Analysis and Findings

Evaluation of the Research Design

127

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Research Purpose

Research Questions

Research Conclusions, Implications, and Applications

Research Limitations

Further Research

128

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 58(3), 628-640. ProQuest

Amato, P. R. (2009). Institutional, companionate, and individualistic marriage: A social

psychological perspective on marital change. In H. E. Peters & C. M. Kamp Dush (Eds.),

Marriage and family: Perspectives and complexities (75-90). New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Amato, P. R., & Patterson, S. E. (2017). The intergenerational transmission of union instability

in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 79, 723-738.

doi.10.1111/jomf.12384

American Psychological Association, Research on Marriage and Divorce (2020). Encyclopedia

of Psychology Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/

Axinn, W. G., & Barber, J. S. (1997). Living arrangements and family formation attitudes in

early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 59(3). 595-611.

Baker, A. J. L. (2006). Patterns of parental alienation syndrome: A qualitative study of adults

who were alienated from a parent as a child. The American Journal of Family Therapy,

34(1), 63-78). doi:10.1080/0192618050030

Baker, A. J. L., (2005). The Long-term effects of parental alienation on adult children: A

qualitative research study. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(4). 289-302,

doi:10.1080/01926180590962129

Baker, A. J. L., Bone, J. M., & Ludmer, B. (2014) High-conflict custody battle: Protect yourself

& your kids from a toxic divorce, false accusations & parental alienation. Oakland, CA:

New Harbinger Publications.

129

Baker, A. J. L., Burkhard, B., & Albertson-Kelly, J. (2012). Differentiating alienated from not

alienated children: A pilot study. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 53(3), 178-193.

doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.663266

Baker, A. J. L., Fine, P. R. (2014). Co-parenting with a toxic ex: What to do when your ex-

spouse tries to turn the kids against you. Oakland, CA: Raincoast Books.

Balmer, S., Matthewson, M., & Haines, J. (2017). Parental alienation: Targeted parent

perspective. Australian Journal of Psychology. 1-9. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12159

Beal, E. W. (1998). Child-focused divorce. In Peter Titelman (Ed.), Clinical application of

Bowen family systems theory (pp. 327-353). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis

Group.

Beck, D. (1993). Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and

auditability. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 15(2), 263-266.

Beil, L. (2011, November 29). The certainty of memory has its day in court. New York Times p.

D1 (L).

Benner, P. (1994). The tradition and skill of interpretive phenomenology in studying health,

illness and caring practices. In P. Benner (Ed.), Interpretive phenomenology (pp. 99-127)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernet, W., & Baker, A. J. L., (2013). Parental alienation, DSM_5, and ICD-11: Response to

critics. The Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the law, 41, 98-104,

doi:2013-10780-014

Bernet, W., Von Boch-Galhau, Baker, A. J. L., & Stephen, L. (2010). Parental alienation, DSM-

V, and ICD-11, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(2), 76-187.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Lanham, ML: Rowman & Littlefield.

130

Bratcher, W. E. (1982). The Influence of the family on career selection: A family systems

perspective. The Personnel and Guidance Journal 61(2), 87-91.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063a

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Rance, N. (2015). How to use thematic analysis with interview data. In A.

Vossler, & N. Moller (Eds.), The counseling and psychotherapy research handbook

(pp.183-211). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE

Brueggemann, W. (2001). Peace: Understanding Biblical themes series. St. Louis, MO: Chalice

Press.

Butler, J. F. (2015). The family as an emotional unit concept: Origins and early history. In R. J.

Noone, & D. V. Papero (Eds.), The family emotional system: An integrative concept for

theory, science, and practice. (pp. 59-69). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Cafferky, M. E. (2015). The ethical-religious framework for shalom. Journal of Religion and

Business Ethics 3(1). 1-36.

Caldwell, C., & Hasan, Z. (2016). Covenantal leadership and the psychological contract: Moral

insights for the modern leader, Journal of Management Development, 35(10), 1302-1312.

doi: 10.1108/JMD-02-2016-0027

Campbell, T. W. (1992). Psychotherapy with children of divorce: The pitfalls of triangulated

relationships. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 29(4), 646-652.

doi:10.1037/0033-3204.29.4.646

Capobianco, R. (2015). Heidegger’s way of being: New studies in Phenomenology and

Hermeneutics. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press.

131

Carter, D. K. (2011). Parenting coordination: A practical guide for family law professionals.

Danvers, MA: Springer Publishing.

Childress, C. (2015). An attachment-based model of parental alienation: Foundations.

Claremont, CA: Oaksong Press.

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3),

297-298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Hayfield, N. (2015). Thematic Analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.),

Qualitative Psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 222-256). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE

Collardeau, F., & Ehrenberg, M. (2016). Parental divorce and attitudes and feelings toward

marriage and divorce in emerging adulthood: New insights from a multiway-frequency

analysis. Journal of European Psychology Students, 7(1), 24-33. doi:10.5334/jeps.341

Copeland, K. (2012). Covenant of blood. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.

Corbett, S., & Fikkert, B. (2012). When helping hurts: How to alleviate poverty without hurting

the poor…and yourself. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Crary, D. (2012, September 23). Parental alienation not on list of disorders: Psychiatrists rebuff

lobbying campaign. The Washington Times. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/23/parental-alienation-not-on-list-of-

disorders/

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Saga Press.

Crist, J. D., & Tanner, C. A. (2003), Interpretation/analysis methods in hermeneutic interpretive

phenomenology. Nursing Research 52(3), p. 202-205.

132

Crowther, S., Ironside, P., Spence, D., & Smythe, L. (2017). Crafting stories in hermeneutic

phenomenology research: A methodological device. Qualitative Health Research 27(6),

827-835. doi:10.1177/1049732316656161

Dallam, S., & Silberg, J. L. (2016). Recommended treatments for “parental alienation syndrome”

(PAS) may cause children foreseeable and lasting psychological harm. Journal of Child

Custody 13 (2-3), 134-143. doi:10.1080/15379418.2016.1219974

Darnell, D. (1998). Divorce casualties: Protecting your children from parental alienation. New

York, NY: Taylor Publishing.

Dennison R. P., & Koerner, S. S. (2008). A look at hopes and worries about marriage: The views

of adolescents following a parental divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 48(3-4),

91-107. doi:10.1300/J087v48n03_06

Dennison, R. P., Koerner, S. S., & Segrin, C (2014). A dyadic examination of family-of-origin

influence on newlyweds’ marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 429-

435. doi:10.1037/a0036807

Donley, M. (2003). Unraveling the complexity of child-focus. Family Systems: A Journal of

Natural Systems thinking in Psychiatry and the Sciences 6(2), 147-160.

Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eickmeyer, K. J., & Manning, W. D. (2018). Serial cohabitation in young adulthood: Baby

boomers to millennials. Journal of Marriage and Family 80, 826-840.

doi:10.1111/jomf.12495

Elazar, D. J. (2000). Covenant and community. Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and

Thought, 49(4), 387-398.

133

Ellis, E. (2005). Help for the alienated parent. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33(5),

415-426. doi:10.1080/01926180500274518

Ellis, E. M., & Boyan, S. (2010). Intervention strategies for parent coordinators in parental

alienation cases. The Journal of Family Therapy 38(3), 218-236,

doi:10.1080/01926181003757074

Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African

Journal of Emergency Medicine 7(3). 93-99. doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001

Fagan, P. F., & Rector, R. (2000). The effects of divorce on America. The Heritage Foundation

Backgrounder Executive Summary, No 1373, 1-32. Retrieved from

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-effects-divorce-america

Finzi-Dottan, R., Goldblatt, H., & Cohen-Masica, O. (2012). The experience of motherhood for

alienated mothers. Child & Family Social Work 17, 316-325. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2206.2011.00782.x

Fisher, J. (2014). Comparing the influence of God and other transcendents on spiritual well-

being. Religious Education Journal of Australia, 30(2), 9-15.

Fisher, J., & Ng, D. (2017). Presenting a 4-Item spiritual well-being index (4-ISWBI). Religions

8(9), 1-13, doi:10.3390/rel8090179

Fox, L. A., & Baker, K. G. (2009). Leading a business in anxious times: A systems approach to

becoming more effective in the workplace. Chicago, IL: Care Communications Press.

Freedman, A., Rabbi. (2016). Peace: Shalom is more than the absence of war. Global Virtue

Ethics Review, 7(3), 53-60.

Friedman, E. H. (1991). Bowen theory and therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.).

Handbook of family therapy (Volume II) (pp. 134-170). New York, NY: Routledge.

134

Friesen, P. J. (2003). Emotional cutoff and the brain. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Triangles: Bowen

family systems theory perspectives (pp. 83-108). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.

Frost, R. T. (2015). The predictability of the family emotional system. In R. Noon & D. Papero

(Eds.), The family emotional system: An integrative concept for theory, science and

practice (pp. 43-69). Lanham, MA: Lexington Books.

Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd. Rev. Ed.), (J. Weinsheimer & D. Marshall Tras.).

New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gardner, R. A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between

fabricated and genuine child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1991). Sex abuse hysteria: Salem witch trials revisited. Cresskil, NJ: Creative

Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal

professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (2002). Parental alienation syndrome vs. parental alienation: Which diagnosis

should evaluators use in child custody disputes? The American Journal of Family

Therapy, 30(2). 93-115.

Gilbert, R. M. (1992). Extraordinary relationships: A new way of thinking about human

interactions. New York: NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gilbert, R. M. (2004). The eight concepts of Bowen theory: A new way of thinking about the

individual and the group. Front Royal, VA: Leading Systems Press.

Gilbert, R. M. (2006). Extraordinary leadership: Thinking systems, making a difference. Front

Royal, VA: Leading Systems Press.

135

Gilbert, R. M. (2006). The eight concepts of Bowen theory: A new way of thinking about the

individual and the group. Front Royal, VA: Leading Systems Press.

Gilbert, R. M. (2014). The cornerstone concept: In leadership, in life. Stephens City, VA:

Leading Systems Press.

Glad, G. E. (1999). The effect of self-differentiation on marital conflict. American Journal of

Pastoral Counseling 2(4), 65-76. doi: 10.1300/J062v02n04 05

Godbout, E., & Parent, C. (2012). The life paths and lived experiences of adults who have

experienced parental alienation: A retrospective study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,

53(1), 34-54. doi:10.1080/10502556.2012.635967

Gorichanaz, T., Latham, K. F., Wood, E. (2018). Lifeworld as “unit of analysis” Journal of

Documentation 74(4), 880-893, doi:10.1108/JD-12-2017-0174

Grohol, J. (2018). Parental alienation: Disorder or not. Psych Central. Retrieved from

https://psychcentral.com/blog/parental-alienation-disorder-or-not/

Guzzo, K. B. (2014). Trends in cohabitation outcomes: Compositional changes and engagement

in never-married young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family 76, 826-842.

doi:10.1111/jomf.12123

Guzzo, K. B. (2017). Marriage and dissolution among women’s cohabitations: Variations by

stepfamily status and shared childbearing. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 1108-1136.

doi:10.1177/0192513X16686136.

Hardy, N. R., Soloski, K. L., Ratcliffe, G. C., Anderson, J. R., & Willoughby, B. J. (2015).

Associations between family of origin climate, relationship self-regulation, and marital

outcomes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 41(4), 508-521.

doi:10.1111/jmft.12090

136

Harman, J. J., Bernet, W., & Harman. (2019). Parental alienation: The blossoming of a field of

study. Association for Psychological Science, 28(2), 212-217.

doi.10.1177/0963721419827271

Harman, J. J., Biringen, Z., Ratajack, E. M., Outland, P. L., & Kraus, A. (2016). Parents

behaving badly: Gender biases in the perception of parental alienating behaviors. Journal

of family Psychology. 30(7), 866-874.

Harman, J. J., Kruk, E. & Hines, D. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged

form of family violence, Psychological Bulletin, 133(12), 1275-1299.

Harman, J. J., Leder-Elder, S., & Biringen, Z. (2016). Prevalence of parental alienation drawn

from a representative poll. Children and Youth Services Review 66, p. 62-66.

doi.10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.021

Harper, L. S. (2016). The very good gospel: How everything wrong can be made right. New

York, NY: Waterbrook.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York, NY: Harper. (Original work published 1927).

Hemphill, K. S. (2001). The names of God. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Holroyd, A. D. (2007). Interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology: Clarifying understanding.

Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 7(2), p. 1-12.

Holt, R. (2013). Educating for shalom. St. Mark’s Review. 225, p. 119-127.

Houchin, T. M., Ranseen, J., Hash, P. A., Bartnicki, D. J. (2012). The parental alienation debate

belongs in the courtroom, not in DSM-5. The Journal of the American Academy of

Psychiatry and the Law, 40, 127-131.

Hoult, J. (2006, Spring). The evidentiary admissibility of parental alienation syndrome: Science,

law, and policy. Children’s Legal Right Journal, 26(1), pp. 1-61.

137

Howe, L. T. (1998). Self-Differentiation in Christian perspective. Pastoral psychology 46(5),

347-362.

Jackson, S. L. (2011). Research methods: A modular approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jaffe, A. M., Thakkar, M. J., & Piron, P. (2017) Denial of ambivalence as a hallmark of parental

alienation. Cogent Psychology, 4, 1-15. doi:10.1080/23311908.2017.1327144

Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2011). Spiritual dwelling and well-being: the mediating role

of differentiation of self in a sample of distressed adults. Mental Health, Religion &

Culture, 15(4), 417-434. doi: 10.1080/13674676.2011.579592

Jensen, T. M., Willoughby, B. J., Holman, T. B., Busby, D. M., & Shafer, K. (2014).

Associations between family and interpersonal processes and emerging adult marital

paradigms: Does adult attachment mediate? Journal of Adult Development,

doi:10.1007/s10804-014-9200-3

Johnston, J. (2005). Children of divorce who reject a parent and refuse visitation: Recent

research and social policy implications for the alienated child. Family Law

Quarterly, 38(4), 757-775. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25758265

Johnstone, L. (2014). A straighttalking introduction to psychiatric diagnosis. Momnouth, UK:

PCCS Books.

Johnstone, L., Boyle, M., Cromby, J., Dillon, J., Harper, D., Kinderman, P., Longden, E.,

Pilgrim, D. & Read, J. (2018). The Power Threat Meaning Framework: Towards the

identification of patterns in emotional distress, unusual experiences and troubled or

troubling behavior, as an alternative to functional psychiatric diagnosis. Leicester:

British Psychological Society.

Jones, B. D. (2014). Dwell: Life with God for the world. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

138

Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi: An

Interdisciplinary Journal 5, 181-200.

Kelley, H. H., LeBaron, A. B., Sussman, L. J., Fagan, J., Dollahite, D. C., & Marks, L. D.

(2018). Shalom byit – peace of the home: Ritual and tradition in American Jewish

families. Marriage & Family Review, 54(7), 706-718.

Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation

syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 249-266.

Kerr, J. E., (2019). Bowen theory’s secrets: Revealing the hidden life of families. New York, NY:

W. W. Norton & Company.

Kerr, M. E. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &

Company.

King, P. E. (2016). The reciprocating self: Trinitarian and Christological anthropologies of being

and becoming. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 35(3), 215-232.

Kivisto, A. J. (2013). Length of marriage: Divorce law. In R. E. Emery (Ed.), Cultural Sociology

of Divorce: An Encyclopedia. (Volume 2) (pp. 694-697). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Klever, P. (1998). Marital fusion and differentiation. In Peter Titelman (Ed.), Clinical

application of Bowen family systems theory (pp. 263-298). New York, NY: Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group.

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of Religion and Health

New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Kruk, E. (2010). Collateral damage: The lived experiences of divorced mothers without custody.

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51(8), 526-543, doi:10.1080/10502556.2010.504103

139

Kruk, E. (2011). Divorced fathers: Children’s needs and parental responsibilities. Halifax:

Fernwood Publishing.

Kruk, E. (2018). Parental alienation as a form of emotional child abuse: The current state of

knowledge and directions for future research, Family Science Review, 22(4), 141-164).

Kruk, E. (2019, January). Parental alienation as child abuse and family violence: A form of

emotional aggression and intimate terrorism. Psychology Today. Retrieved from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/co-parenting-after-divorce/201901/parental-

alienation-child-abuse-and-family-violence

Kynes, W. L. (2007). The marriage debate: A public theology of marriage. Trinity Journal 28(2).

187-203.

Larson, J. H., & Wilson, S. M. (1998). Family of origin influences on young adult career

decision problems: A test of Bowenian therapy. The American Journal of Family

Therapy, 26(1). 39-53.

Larson, J. H., Benson, M. J., Wilson, S. M., & Medora, N. (1998). Family of origin influences on

marital attitudes and readiness for marriage in late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues,

19(6), 750+. Retrieved from

http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A21263190/AONE?u=vic_liberty

&sid=AONE&xid=292145ec

Lauterbach, A. A. (2018) Hermeneutic phenomenology interviewing: Going beyond semi-

structured formats to help participants revisit experience. The Qualitative Report 23(110,

2883-2598.

140

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of

historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods 2(3), 21-35. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design (12th ed.). New

York, NY: Pearson.

Lehr, R., & MacMillan, P. (2001). The psychological and emotional impact of divorce: The

noncustodial father’s perspective. Families in society 82(4). 373-382.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Livingston, G. (2018, April). About one-third of U.S. children are living with an unmarried

parent. Pew Research Center Fact-tank. Retrieved from

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/27/about-one-third-of-u-s-children-are-

living-with-an-unmarried-parent/

Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their

contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research 14(5), 726-735.

doi:10.1177//1049732304263638

Lorandos, D., Bernet, W. & Sauber, S. R. (2013). Overview of parental alienation. In D.

Lorandos, W. Bernet & S. R. Sauber (Eds.). Parental alienation: The handbook for

mental health and legal professionals. (pp. 5-46). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2010). Attachment theory and parental alienation, Journal of Divorce &

Remarriage, 51(3), 157-168, doi:10.1080/10502551003597808

Mahrer, N. E., O’Hara, K. L., Sandler, I N., & Wolchik, S. A. (2018). Does shared parenting

help or hurt children in high-conflict divorced families? Journal of Divorce &

Remarriage 59(4), 324-347, doi:10.1080/1002556.2018.1454200

141

Majerus B. D., & Sandage, S. J. (2010). Differentiation of self and Christian spiritual maturity:

Social science and theological integration. Journal of psychology and theology, 38(1), 41-

51.

Maloni, J. (1998). Emotional dysfunction in children. In Peter Titelman (Ed.), Clinical

application of Bowen family systems theory (pp. 147-164). New York, NY: Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group.

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2002). First comes cohabitation then comes marriage? Journal

of Family Issues, 23, 1065-1087.

Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2005). Measuring and modeling cohabitation: New

perspectives from qualitative data. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4), 989-1002

Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). The changing institution of

marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 69(3), 559-575.

Manning, W. D., Smock, P. J., Dorius, C., & Cooksey, E. (2014). Cohabitation expectations

among young adults in the United States: Do they match behavior? Population Research

and Policy Review 33(2), 287-305. doi:10.107/s11113-013-9316-3

Manning, W., & Cohen, J. (2012). Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Dissolution: An

Examination of Recent Marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(2), 377-387.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41507277

Manning, W., Smock, P., & Majumdar, D. (2004). The Relative Stability of Cohabiting and

Marital Unions for Children. Population Research and Policy Review, 23(2), 135-159.

doi:10.1023/B:POPU.0000019916.29156.a7

142

Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children and divorce. New York,

NY: Crown Publishers.

Mason, M. (2005). The mystery of marriage: Meditations on the miracle. Colorado Spring, CO:

Multnomah books.

Maturana, S. L., Matthewson, M., Dwan, C., & Norris, K. (2018). Characteristics and

experiences of targeted parents of parental alienation from their own perspective: A

systematic literature review. Australian Journal of Psychology. 1-9.

doi:10.1111/ajpy.12226

McGoldrick, M., Gerson, R., & Petry S. (2008). Genograms: Assessment and intervention (3rd.

ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Garcia-Preto, N. (Eds.). (2005). Ethnicity and Family Therapy

(3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

McGuire, A. (2014, November 8). Millennial madness-kids without marriage. New York Post.

Retrieved from http://nyp.st/1snMm5s

Meier, J. S. (2009). A historical perspective on parental alienation syndrome and parental

alienation. Journal of Child Custody 6(3-4), p. 232-257. doi:10.1080/153794109084681

Michaelson, V. E. (2014). A missed possibility: A study of the influence of church participation

on health indicators related to shalom in Canadian children. [Doctoral dissertation]

Retrieved from ProQuest (Order Number 1667093738).

Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn

from the experiences of others. Perspective on Medical Education 8(2), 90-97.

Doi:10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2

Nichols, M. P. (2005). The essentials of family therapy (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

143

O’Donohue, W., Benuto, L. T., Bennett, N. (2016). Examining the validity of parental alienation

syndrome. Journal of Child Custody 13(2-3), 113-125,

doi:10.10801537918.2016.1217758

Ongaro, F., & Muzzuco, S. (2009). Parental separation and family formation in early adulthood:

Evidence from Italy. Advances in Life Course Research, 14, 119-130. doi:

10.1016/j.alcr.2009.06.002

Ortlund, R. C. (2016). Marriage and the mystery of the gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway

Packer, M. J., & Addison, R. B. (1989). Entering the circle: Hermeneutic investigation in

psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing

the sacred. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Pava, M. L. (2003). Leading with meaning: Using covenantal leadership to build a better

organization. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan

Peace. (2003). In Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Pearcey, N. (2005). Total truth: Liberating Christianity from its cultural captivity. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway Books.

Peleg, O. (2014). The relationship between stressful life events during childhood and

differentiation of self and intergenerational triangulation in adulthood. International

Journal of Psychology 49(6), 462-470. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12054

Pepiton, M. B., Alvis, L. J., Allen, K., Logid, G. (2011). Is parental alienation disorder a valid

concept? Not according to scientific evidence. A review of parental alienation, DSM-5

144

and ICD-11 by William Bernet. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 21, 244-253,

doi:10/1080/10538712.2011.62872

Plantinga, C. (1995). Not the way it’s supposed to be: A breviary of sin. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Polack, S., & Saini, M. (2015). Children resisting contact with a parent postseparation: Assessing

this phenomenon using an ecological systems framework. Journal of Divorce &

Remarriage 53(3), 220-247, doi:10.1080/10502556.2015.1012698

Poustie, C., Matthewson, M., & Balmer, S. (2018). The forgotten parent: The targeted parent

perspective of parental alienation. Journal of Family Issues 39(12), 3298-3323.

doi:10.1177/0192513X18777867

Powell, M. B., Roberts, K. P., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (1999). The effects of repeated

experience on children’s suggestibility. Developmental Psychology 35(6), P. 1462-1477

Raley, R. K., & Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 66(1), 210-219.

Rand, E. C. (2013). The history of parental alienation from early days to modern times. In D.

Lorandos, W. Bernet, & S. R. Sauber (Eds.), Parental alienation: The handbook for

mental health and legal professionals (pp. 291-321). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas

Publisher.

Rauseo, E. L. (2012). Child focus: Triangles that come and stay. In P. Titelman (Ed.), Triangles:

Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp.265-290). New York, NY: The Haworth

Press.

Reinhold, S. (2010). Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability.

Demography, 74(3), 719-733 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40800838

145

Rhoades, G. K., & Stanley, S. M. (2014). Before “I do”: What do premarital experiences have to

do with marital quality among today’s young adults? The National Marriage Project at

the University of Virginia. Retrieved from www.virginia.edu/marriageproject

Richardson, R. W. (2010). Couples in conflict: A family systems approach to marriage

counseling. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press

Richardson, R. W., & Richardson, L. A. (2000). Birth order and you (2nd ed). Bellingham, WA:

Self-Counsel Press.

Roberts, C. M. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saini, M, Johnston, J. R., Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2016). Empirical studies of alienation. In L.

M. Drozd, M. Saini, & N. Olesen (Eds). Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research

for the family court (2nd ed), pp 374-430. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Saini, M. A., Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N. W. (2017). Adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping

behaviors and attitudes: Implications for child outcomes after separation and divorce.

Family Court Review 55(2), 260-272.

Sandage, J. S., & Jankowski, P. J. (2010). Forgiveness, spiritual instability, mental health

symptoms, and well-being: Mediator effects of differentiation of self. Psychology of

Religion and Spirituality, 3, 168-180. doi: 10.1037/a0019124

Sandage, S. J., & Shults, F. L. (2007). Relational spirituality and transformation: A relational

integration model, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 26(3), 261-269.

Shaw, M. (2016). Commentary for “examining the use of ‘parental alienation syndrome,’”

Journal of Child Custody, 13(2-3), 144-146, doi:10.1080/15379418.2016.1219244

146

Skowron, E. A., Stanley, K. L., & Shapiro, M. D. (2008). A longitudinal perspective on

differentiation of self, interpersonal and psychological well-being in young adulthood.

Contemporary Family Therapy, 31, 3-18. doi: 10/1007/s10591-9075-1

Sloan, A., Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy,

the methodologies and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’

experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quality 48(3), pp. 1291-1303.

doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3

Slough, R. (2015). Congregational responses to abuse and trauma: The persistent hope of

Shalom. Mennonite Quarterly Review 89(1), 95-110.

Smith, J. B. (1998) The use of Bowen theory in clinical practice with the elderly. In Peter

Titelman (Ed.), Clinical application of Bowen family systems theory (pp. 205-225). New

York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Smith, M. (2002). The lost secret of the new covenant. Tulsa OK: Harrison House.

Smith, M. (2006). The power of the blood covenant: Uncover the secret strength in God’s

eternal oath. Tulsa, OK: Harrison House.

Smock, P. J. (2000). Cohabitation in the Unites States: An appraisal of research themes, findings

and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.

Stanley, S., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. (2006). Sliding versus deciding: Inertia and the

premarital cohabitation effect. Family Relations, 55, 499-509.

Stolorow, R. D. (2011). World, affectivity, trauma: Heidegger and post-cartesian

psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

147

Strong, J., Kohlenberger III, J. R., & Swanson, J. A. (2001). Peace (7965 Shalom). In The

strongest Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the bible. (p. 1574). Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Thomas, F. A. (2002). Spiritual maturity: Preserving congregational health and balance.

Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Publishers.

Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family

issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and

Family 63 1009-1037. doi:10.111/j.1741.2001.01009.x

Titelman, P. (2012). The concept of the triangle in Bowen Theory: An overview. In P. Titelman

(Ed.), Triangles: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp.3-61). New York, NY:

The Haworth Press.

Toman, W. (1961). Family constellation: Its effect on personality and social behavior (3ed ed.).

New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Trumbull, H. C. (1998). The blood covenant. Kirkwood, MO: Impact Christian Books.

Van Manen, M. (2015). Researching lived experience: Human science from an action sensitive

pedagogy. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Vassiliou, D., & Cartwright, G. F. (2001). The lost parents’ perspective on parental alienation

syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29(3), 181-191.

doi:10.1080/019261801750424307

Vine, W. E. (2005). Vine’s concise dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The History and status of general systems theory. The Academy of

Management Journal 15(4). Pp. 407-426.

148

Von Boch-Galhau, W. (2018). Parental alienation (syndrome) – A serious form of psychological

child abuse. Mental Health and Family Medicine, 13, 725-739.

Walker, L. E., & Shapiro, D. L. (2010). Parental alienation disorder: Why label children with a

mental disorder: Journal of Child Custody, 7(4), 266-286.

doi:10.1080/15379418.2010.521041

Warshak, R. A. (2001). Divorce poison: Protecting the parent-child bond from a vindictive ex.

New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Warshak, R. A. (2018, April 26). Backlash against parental alienation: Denial and skepticism

about psychological abuse [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://warshak.com/blog/2018/04/26/backlash-against-parental-alienation-denial-and-

skepticism-about-psychological-abuse/

Warshak, R. A., & Otis, M. R. (2010). Helping alienated children with family bridges: Practice,

research and the pursuit of “humbition.” Family Court Review, 48(1), 91-97).

Wilke, S. D., Wilke, J. R. D., & Viglione, (2015). The corporate family model of leadership

development. The psychologist-manager Journal 18(2), 64-76.

Willoughby, B. J., Carroll, J. S., Vitas, J. M., & Hill, L. M. (2012). “When are you getting

married?” The international transmission of attitudes regarding marital timing and marital

importance. Journal of Family Issues, 33(2), 223-245. doi:10.1177/0192513X11408695

Wolfinger, N. H. (2000). Beyond the intergenerational transmission of divorce: Do people

replicate the patterns of marital instability they grew up with? Journal of Family Issues

21(8), 1061-1086.

Wolfinger, N. H. (2011). More evidence for trends in the intergenerational transmission of

divorce: A completed cohort approach using data from the general social

149

survey. Demography, 48(2), 581-92.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s13524-011-0025-4

Wolterstorff, M. P. (1983). Until justice and peace embrace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans

Publishing Co.

Wolterstorff, N. P. (2002). Educating for life: Reflections on Christian teaching and learning,

Grand Rapids: Baker.

Worenklein, A. (2013). Moderate cases of parental alienation. In D. Lorandos, W. Bernet & S. R.

Sauber (Eds.). Parental alienation: The handbook for mental health and legal

professionals. (pp. 97-124). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

150

APPENDIX A

Draft Recruitment Letter

[Date] [Recipient] [Title] [Address 1] [Address 2] Dear [Recipient]: As a graduate student in the School of Divinity at Liberty University. I am conducting research to better understand the lived experience of parental targeting. The purpose of this hermeneutic phenomenological study is to understand the lived experience of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns of marital discord and social structure play in the formation of parental alienating behaviors as well as the effect of alienating behaviors on the relational well-being of targeted parents. I am writing to invite eligible participants to join my study. Participants must be divorced individuals at least 18 years of age who were married a minimum of five years and are at least two years post-divorce. Participants must also reside within the mid- western state of Indiana. Participants must have lived experience as a targeted parent and be able to provide rich, descriptive narratives of the lived experience of parental targeting. Participants, if willing, will be asked to attend two face-to-face interviews within a two-week period. Each interview will last between 1 and 1.5 hours. Names and other identifying information will be requested as part of this study, but all collected information will remain confidential. In order to participate, please [click here] to complete a brief online questionnaire. Participants that fall within the study parameters will be notified by email and provided with a link to an online scheduling site where they can schedule two interview appointments. Both interviews will be audio and video recorded. Participants will receive an email confirmation of their appointment times. This confirmation email will provide the location of the interview site. A consent document will be provided in the appointment confirmation email. The consent document contains additional information about my research. Participants will need to sign the consent document and return it to me at the first interview appointment. Each participant will be provided with a $15 gift card as a means of off-setting transportation costs. If you have any questions about the study or the process of becoming a participant, I can be reached at 317-760-0604 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Warm regards,

151

Teresa M. Walters, LMFT, LAC Doctoral Candidate: Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University 317-760-0604 | [email protected]

152

APPENDIX B Draft Recruitment Flyer

153

APPENDIX C Draft Informed Consent Document

Consent

Title of the Project: Me, We, and Thee: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study of the Targeted Parent’s Lived Experience Principal Investigator: Teresa M. Walters, LMFT, LAC, Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University

Invitation to be Part of a Research Study You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be a divorced individual at least 18 years of age, who was married for at least five years and is currently two years post-divorce. You must live within the mid-west state of Indiana and reside in the Indianapolis metropolitan area or surrounding counties. You must be willing and able to make yourself available for two separate, face-to-face interviews lasting between 1 hour and 1.5 hours each. You must be willing to complete both phases of the interview process within a two-week time frame. You must have lived experience as a targeted parent and be able to provide a rich, descriptive narrative about the lived experience of parental targeting. Taking part in this research project is voluntary. Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part in this research project.

What is the study about and why is it being done? The purpose of the study is to better understand the lived experience of parental targeting and the role intergenerational patterns of marital discord and social structure play in the formation of parental alienating behaviors. This study will also explore the effect of alienating behaviors on the relational well-being of targeted parents.

What will happen if you take part in this study? If you agree to be in this study, I would ask you to do the following things:

1. Schedule two interview appointments. These appointments can be scheduled by clicking on [this link]. Each interview will last between 1 hour and 1.5 hours. Both interviews will be audio and video recorded.

2. Attend the first face-to-face interview. This interview will require no advance preparation.

3. Attend the second face-to-face interview. This interview will require you to write a short letter to either your alienated child, the alienating parent or to a legal or social service provider who was involved in the divorce/custody process. The intent of the letter is to express (to your subject) how the experience of parental targeting has impacted your life, your relationship with yourself, your relationship with others, your relationship with the God of your understanding and any hopes or desires you have for reconciliation, relational repair etc. This letter will need to be prepared prior to the second interview. You will need to bring this letter with you to the second interview and verbally share it with the interviewer. This letter is for interview purposes only and is not intended for

154

actual delivery to the subject of the letter. You may also create and bring any additional materials you feel provide additional insight into your experience of parental targeting. These items could include, but are not limited to, poetry, art work, drawings, diagrams or other media that help more fully express your lived experience.

How could you or others benefit from this study?

The direct benefit participants should expect to receive from taking part in this study is an opportunity to tell your story of parental alienation as the targeted parent in a safe, supportive, and nonjudgmental environment. Benefits to society include better understanding about the lived experience of parental targeting which could provide insight into the types of support services targeted parents need, increased clarity about possible future studies of families impacted by parental alienation and increased public awareness of the phenomenon of parental targeting. A better understanding of the role intergenerational patterns of marital discord play in parental targeting and the effect of parental targeting on relational well-being are also possible social benefits.

What risks might you experience from being in this study? The assumed risk for participant harm can be compared to that which would be expected of a normal psychotherapy process. However, due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, care will be taken to provide any type of therapeutic support the participant may desire or need during or following participation in the study. You will be free to take a break or immediately suspend either interview should you become emotionally distraught or feel unable to continue. Should you believe yourself to be in need of additional support services, a list of area counselors and treating professionals will be provided to you. Should you feel the need for immediate assistance, you will be directed to either the nearest emergency room or encouraged to dial 911 for on-site assistance. Please note that under Indiana law each citizen of Indiana is considered a “mandated reporter” with a duty to report abuse and neglect or a child, elder, or dependent adult. As a licensed marriage and family therapist (LMFT) and licensed addiction counselor (LAC) I am subject to certain limits to confidentiality and mandatory reporting requirements. These limitations include an obligation to breach confidentiality…

1. If I perceive an individual to be a direct or immediate danger to self or others. 2. If I learn that a child, an elder, or dependent adult is being neglected or abused.

How will personal information be protected?

The records of this study will be kept private. Published reports will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be stored securely, and only the researcher will have access to the records. Data collected from you may be shared for use in future research studies or with another researcher. If data collected from you is shared, any information that could identify you, if applicable, will be removed before the data is shared.

• Confidentiality will be maintained through the use of pseudonyms and by changing specific contextual details that could reveal your identity. All interviews will be

155

conducted at a safe and secure location that will assure privacy and guard against any part of the interview being overheard.

• The interview site will be designed to both audio and video record both interviews. All

collected data including written, recorded, and observed will be securely stored. The interview site will be fitted with a professional security system to ensure against any unauthorized access to stored data.

• Hard copy, textual data will be stored in locked file cabinets at the interview site, which

will be protected by both on-site and off-site security. All computer-generated files and data, video, and audio recordings will be maintained on an encrypted, external hard-drive so as to avoid any opportunity for cloud or internet security failures or “hacks.” All data will be securely maintained for a period of three years after which the data will be shredded or destroyed in a confidential manner.

• Audio recordings will be transcribed and stored on a secure, external hard drive. This

hard-drive will only be accessible to the researcher via a password secured computer. All audio recording, video recording, transcribed data and observational data will be shredded or destroyed after a period of three years.

• Confidentiality will be limited only to the extent demanded by Indiana law and mandated

reporting requirements.

How will you be compensated for being part of the study? Participants will be compensated for participating in this study. Each participant will receive a $15 gift card to off-site travel expenses associated with the scheduled interviews.

Is study participation voluntary? Participation in this study is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time.

What should you do if you decide to withdraw from the study? If you choose to withdraw from the study, please contact the researcher at the email address/phone number included in the next paragraph. Should you choose to withdraw, data collected from you will be destroyed immediately and will not be included in this study.

Whom do you contact if you have questions or concerns about the study? The researcher conducting this study is Teresa M. Walters. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at (000)-000-0000 or [email protected]. You may also contact the researcher’s faculty sponsor, Dr. Brian Pinzer, at [email protected].

Whom do you contact if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?

156

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Blvd., Green Hall Ste. 2845, Lynchburg, VA 24515 or email at [email protected]

Your Consent By signing this document, you are agreeing to be in this study. Make sure you understand what the study is about before you sign. You will be given a copy of this document for your records. The researcher will keep a copy with the study records. If you have any questions about the study after you sign this document, you can contact the study team using the information provided above. I have read and understood the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study.

The researcher has my permission to audio-record and video-record me as part of my participation in this study. ____________________________________ Printed Subject Name ____________________________________ Signature & Date

APPENDIX D

Participant Recruitment Survey Questions

1. What is your full legal name? 2. What is your gender? 3. What is your ethnicity? 4. What is your highest level of educational instruction or degree? 5. What is your current marital status? 6. If divorced, have you subsequently remarried? 7. Are you at least 18 years of age? 8. What is your state of legal residence? 9. What is your county of legal residence? 10. What is the best form of contact should poor weather or other extenuating

circumstance require rescheduling of an interview phase (i.e., phone number, email address, etc.)?

11. Do you have any form of religious, spiritual, or transcendent preference, belief, or orientation?

12. If divorced, are you at least two years post finalized divorce? 13. Do you have a child or children that were born or adopted during your

marriage? 14. Do you currently have any contact with this child or children? 15. Are you willing and able to talk about your marital, family of origin, and

childhood experiences? 16. Do you believe that you have lived experience as a targeted parent i.e., you

have experienced a dynamic in which you believe your marital partner deliberately attempted to damage or destroy your relationship with your child or children?

17. Can you attend two (2) separate interview sessions over a two-week period? 18. Do you believe yourself capable of providing a rich narrative about your lived

experience as a targeted parent? 19. Please provide a brief one or two paragraph statement about why you find the

subject of parental targeting interesting and why you would like to participate in the study.

APPENDIX E

Participant Notification Email

Dear [Participant] Thank you for your interest my research study on parental targeting and for taking the time to complete the participant inquiry questionnaire. I am happy to inform you that your questionnaire confirms that you meet the criterion for the study. This email is your official invitation to join the study. If you are interested in moving forward, I will need you to schedule two interview appointments. Available times and dates can be accessed by following [this link]. Once on the scheduling site, you will be able to choose between a variety of day, evening, and weekend appointment slots. You will receive an email confirmation once you have completed this step. If you have any problems with the scheduling software please feel free to call for assistance. You will additionally need to download, print and sign a copy of the informed consent document contained in your notification email. This document can be which can be found by clicking on [this link]. Please read the consent form carefully. If you have any questions or concerns, I can be contacted by phone at (000)-000-0000, or by email at [email protected]. Interview 1: The first interview will require no advance preparation. This interview will last between 1 hour and 1.5 hours. The address of the interview site can be found on your email confirmation. During this interview we will be creating a genogram which is a type of family map. The construction of this map will help identify familial patterns over several generations. Interview 2: The second interview will be a letter-writing exercise and will require you to write a short letter prior to attending the interview appointment. This letter should be addressed to either the child(ren) from which you are currently alienated, the alienating parent or a social service, legal, or mental health professional you believe significantly impacted your lived experience as a targeted parent. You will write this letter “as if” the intended party would be reading the letter; however, the letter is not intended for actual delivery. This letter will provide the basis for discussion during the second interview. You will be encouraged to bring any additional items or media you feel further expresses your lived experience as a targeted parent. Such media items might include, photos, art work, poetry, journal entries etc. This interview will last between 1 hour and 1.5 hours. Due to the sensitive nature of our subject matter, every effort will be made to provide a safe, supportive and nonjudgmental space for you to share your experience. You will be free to withdraw from the study at any time should you feel this is in your best interest. Additionally, a list of licensed, professional service providers will be made available should you feel such services would be helpful or needed. This list can be accessed at [this link].

Thank you again for you interest and participation. I look forward to meeting you at the first interview. Please remember to bring your signed consent document to your first interview. Warm regards, Teresa M. Walters, LMFT, LAC Doctoral Candidate: Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University 317-760-0604 | [email protected]

APPENDIX E

Genogram Inquiry Categories and Questions

Inquiry Categories: • Demographic information and historical facts • Date of births, marriages, marital separations, co-habitations, children, divorces, illness,

deaths, etc. • Siblings position • Ethnicity, class systems, religious and faith-based systems • Occupations and education • Current relational and health status • Patterns of functioning • Contextual factors • Religious, spiritual and transcendent experiences and orientations

Examples of specific questions might include

• Marital conflict and discord are normal aspects of a marital relationship. What kinds of conflict, discord, or problems did you experience in your marriage?

• During your marriage, how would you describe your relationship with your partner? • Can you identify a time or event during the marriage that significantly changed the

dynamic of the marital relationship? • During your marriage, how would you describe your relationship with your

child/children? • Have any extended family members had particular marital or parenting problems or

concerns? • Are there certain family members who have more power to define what will happen in a

relationship?

APPENDIX F

Licensed Counselors, Therapists and Professional Service Agencies Dr. Robert Smith, Ph.D., LLC 429East Vermont Street Suite #11 Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-283-6360 Freedomway Therapy Services, LLC 429 East Vermont Street Suite # 309 Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-730-4433 Loom of Life Couple and Family Therapy, LLC 422 ½ 5th Street Columbus, IN 47201 812-343-7248 Hope Haven Psychological Resource, LLC 5610 Crawfordsville Road Suite # 200 Indianapolis, IN 46224 317-241-4673 Centerpoint Counseling 7700 N. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46260 317-252-5518 Healing Streams Psychotherapy and Counseling, LLC 320 N. Meridian Street Suite # 617 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-528-0026 Vibrantly Live 709 East Main Street Suite B Brownsburg, IN 46112 317-520-1476

CanalScape Counseling Associates 815 E. 63rd Place Broad Ripple (64th & College) Indianapolis, IN 46220 317-800-7410 Reality Counseling, LLC 5610 Crawfordsville Road Suite # 605 Indianapolis, IN 46224 317-331-3992 New Outlook Counseling Center 435 E. Main Street Suite #185 Greenwood, IN 46143 317-987-6163 Dr. Eric Davis Life Recovery Center (South Office) 8150 Madison Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46227 317-887-3290 x 111 Abram Sinn, LMFT 4040 South Meridian Street Suite # 17 Indianapolis, IN 46217 317-460-4204 Nancy Eisenman, MSW, LCSW 9640 Commerce Drive Suite #413 Carmel, IN 46032 317-605-7015 Christian Theological Center Counseling Center 1000 W. 42nd Street Indianapolis, IN 46208 317-924-1331