The aim of this paper is to present a critical review of the book “Parentectomy: A narrative ethnography of 30 cases of parental alienation and what to do about it” by Christine Giancarlo. To achieve this, a summary of the book contents will be presented, followed by an analysis of two cases where a comparison is made regarding the incidences of parental alienation. Additionally, interventions and recommendations for this problem will be presented, after which a conclusion is made. The rationale for this flow of contents is to make it possible to review the critical aspects of the book.
Summary
The book offers readers an empirical examination of the real effects of divorce and separation of parents on the children. Giancarlo (2018) terms the situation as a social crisis that she had previously never heard of. Being a divorcee, the author examined her own experiences and combined this with another 30 cases to provide adequate evidence of how divorce affects the children by alienating parents. The introduction of the book presents a background of the crisis, which uses peer-reviewed and evidence-based literature. Therefore, it can be seen that the author is keen on making sure the arguments and observations are well-supported. In the introduction, Giancarlo (2018) also explains the reasons for how and why parents alienate others, a subject approaches from a psychological and psychiatric perspective. Additionally, the introduction also briefly explores how the Family Law system, both in Canada and internationally, has failed to resolve the problem of parental alienation.
The first two chapters of the book have been used by the author to tell her story and experience as a divorcee. Her experiences include the fact she and her ex-husband were on good terms and that her ex-spouse was an excellent father and co-parent. Her marriage to Grant, a father of three, yielded a different feeling because of his relationship with the mother of his children. While she and her children were happy, the same could not be said for Grand and his children. Giancarlo (2018) explains that despite Grant trying hard to maintain a good relationship with his children, he was having to deal with an ex-wife who was diagnosed with Cluster B personality disorder. The experience that Grant’s children were put through by their mother made life difficult for them and Grant.
The following 29 chapters represent the 29 other narratives of people going through the same situation with their divorce and separation and the resulting parental alienation. Giancarlo (2018) used voice-recorded face-to-face interviews with the 29 participants, and their views presented in a single chapter. The 29 chapters have been used to achieve two purposes, namely to compare own experiences with other cases and to present a powerful case for the need to overhaul the Family Law system. Most importantly, many of the victims of parental alienation were men whose ex-wives mostly did not want the children to appreciate the efforts of the father. In some cases, the female ex-spouses’ behaviors made life difficult for male counterparts even before the separation. Russ’ case in chapter 3 is a perfect example where a girlfriend stops taking the pills and gets pregnant without informing Russ. His relationship comprised such challenges as picking unwarranted fights and threatening police action among others.
Chapter 32 of the book has been used by the author to make suggestions on how parental alienation can be eradicated. The alienation is perceived as abuse, which should be prevented in the first place, through education, mental health initiatives, and appropriate legislation. Additionally, Giancarlo (2018) proposes a model for intervention that has already proven to be successful. The approach works by removing children from abusive families and re-establishing a better and a healthy family system. Most importantly, the author preaches love as the ultimate solution to the problem.
Comparing Experiences
The main focus of this section is to compare two participant narratives and to explore how each of them suffered the problem of parental alienation. The first two cases, Cliff and Russ, have been selected for this purpose. While these two participants demonstrated several similarities, certain elements show the distinctions between the individual experiences. Cliff and Russ are male ex-spouses who have been alienated from their children by the children’s mothers. The main reason for the separation between the parents was unhappy relationships that the participants could not remedy.
By the time of the interview, Cliff had two children: a 20-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old son. An unhappy marriage meant that Cliff and his ex-wife separated in 2003. A verbal agreement was reached between the two regarding shared parenting. Cliff was a dedicated father, as evidenced by the fact that he wanted to remain close to his family and to fulfil his duties as a father. He “bought a house only a block away from my ex-wife…” to make logistics easier (Giancarlo, 2018, p. 95). Therefore, it is evident that Cliff was not a bad parent and he tried everything he could to remain a good father.
In the case of Russ, his situation was similar in certain aspects. For example, he also had two children who, at the time of the interview, were 12 and 10 years old. The first child was an adopted one, and the second – a biological son he had with his second wife. To explain how his miseries started, Russ’ girlfriend moved in with him as soon as he bought a house. His girlfriend, who was to become his second ex-wife, “quit her 4th year of university, stopped taking the Pill without my knowledge, and we became pregnant” (Giancarlo, 2018, p. 107). It is this situation that made him believe it was a set-up.
Cliff’s story begins after the separation where he makes it clear that his ex-wife’s actions deliberately alienated him from his children. She would fail to pack pills for his daughter and require that Cliff goes for the pills himself. In several instances, his ex-wife was out of town and Cliff had to convince a pharmacist to give him pills to last the weekend. She banned the children from taking clothes and toys to their father’s house and even required their daughter to go back to the mother’s place to dress for school. Most importantly, she had made it clear to the children that she was the primary caregiver and prevented them from sharing anything about their lives with their father.
Even though the story of Russ begins before and during the relationship, their separation story describes an ex-spouse who tortured him mentally. When the relationship was not working, he sought to leave but his ex-wife threatened police action. He overheard her best friends advising her that all men are cheaters and gave her tips on such things as how long she needed to live in their house to gain full ownership. Mental challenges, court battles, selling house furniture, and even telling the school that her ex-husband was a monster meant that Russ’ ex-wife wanted to destroy him.
There are differences between the two cases, with the most visible being the cause of their separation and the nature of their relationships with their ex-spouses. Cliff remained close to his children since he bought a house near his ex-wife’s place. On the other hand, Russ was required to work abroad, which made it impossible to be close to his children. Russ was in an abusive relationship where his ex-wife made it difficult for him to go back to Canada from Abu Dhabi due to threats of arrest upon arrival. A mutual verbal agreement between Cliff and his ex-wife showed a more subtle nature of the separation.
Alienating the children from their fathers is another area in which differences can be observed. Even though Cliff was allowed to see his children and be with them, his ex-wife wanted to make sure that the children did not build a healthy relationship with their father. However, the main difference is the fact that Russ’ ex-wife labelled him a monster, which made it impossible for him to get involved in such matters as his children’s school. The most important observation is the fact that the two participants in these cases were willing and capable parents whose ex-spouses made sure that they were removed from the lives of their children.
Prevention of Parental Alienation
The two cases of Cliff and Russ illustrate the effects of one partner alienating the other from the children. The prevention mechanisms proposed by Giancarlo (2018) could be used to elaborate on how their situations could have been avoided. However, the most important point is that the ex-spouses in both situations deliberately sabotaged the fathers and their possibilities of creating a healthy relationship with their children. In the case of Cliff, such simple measures as counselling and guidance could have made it possible for his ex-wife to realize that the children need their father as much as they needed their mother. Emotional counselling would have allowed the ex-wife to appreciate the role of her ex-husband in bringing up their children. Advice could have been offered to them that their children should be prioritized in the case of separation and divorce.
The case of Russ is different because of the attitude and mental nature of his ex-wife. Guidance and counselling could prove futile because his ex-wife was abusive, which could be seen as a mental condition. Therefore, mental treatment and interventions could have prevented the parental alienation by allowing Russ’ ex-wife to behave normally, in which case the separation could not have occurred in the first place. The company that she kept was also to blame him for the events that surrounded their divorce because she was advised not to trust Russ and treat him as any other cheating husband. Legal intervention could have presented the best chance for preventing parental alienation, but such a suggestion would only work if the legal system recognized the true nature of the situation.
Interventions for Parental Alienation
Cliff’s situation could have been handled using the triage system as an intervention. The argument is that Cliff was alienated by his ex-wife, which could have resorted to her being triaged and subjected to treatment for mental illness. Giancarlo (2018) argues that such an intervention allows children to be temporarily removed from the alienator and placed in the primary care of the targeted parent. Therefore, Cliff could have obtained custody of the children, from which he could have had the opportunity to re-connect with them. Such an intervention would require that the law changes to allow both parents an equal voice in parenting matters. The involvement of mental health professionals is the most important aspect because the judges and lawyers lack this expertise. Additionally, supervision would have prevented the mother from brainwashing the children to believe that they should not share anything regarding their lives with their father.
The case of Russ could have used the same intervention because his ex-wife could be perceived to be suffering from a mental condition. In addition to being the alienator, Russ’ ex-wife sought to further hurt Russ in ways that included financial and psychological through the multiple threats. For example, Russ was required to pay child support on a salary of $120,000 even though he was earning $75,000 (Giancarlo, 2018). In his situation, the law failed to properly implement the access enforcement programs (AEP), which could have prevented the alienator from financially benefiting from having primary custody of the children.
Recommendations
From the many cases presented in the book, it is apparent that parental alienation occurs as a result of the feelings and emotions of one parent towards the other. In such a case, the current legal system becomes futile in addressing the situation. Therefore, it can be recommended that mental health professionals should be engaged in all divorce cases. These professionals should act neutrally in addressing the interests of all parties, especially the children and the alienated parents. Continuous monitoring is also recommended, including exploring how each parent treats the children. An early warning against alienation should help both parents conduct their duties responsibly, especially when they are made aware of the consequences of alienation. Advising the parents that alienation could cause loss of primary custody would prevent any parent from doing or saying anything to the children that can be perceived as attempted alienation. Therefore, the involvement of neutral third parties and continuous monitoring would be the perfect solution.
Conclusion
The book has been a revelation of the real experiences of alienated parents during separation and divorce. The book is perfectly poised to make it possible for the reader to acknowledge that the current legal system simply does not work and should be overhauled. Promoting wellness through healthy families in Canada will require the country to re-think its strategies and policies. Most importantly, the book presents evidence that the current legal system is abysmally applied to protect the interest of the children, majorly because it allows for alienation to take place through offering primary custody to one parent. My opinion has been shaped by the book through the expensive use of evidence-based and peer-reviewed literation in addition to real-life case studies. Most importantly, the book makes it possible to comprehend the true extent of the problem and how much suffering has been caused by parental alienation. Additionally, the author has expressed that despite the complicated nature of the problem, solutions can still be found.
Reference
Giancarlo, C. (2018). Parentectomy: A narrative ethnography of 30 cases of parental alienation and what to do about it. Tellwell Talent.