Unintentional State Enforced Parental Alienation Syndrome During the Hard Lockdown in South Africa

The term parental alienation was first coined by Dr. Richard Gardner in the early 80s, in response to a cluster of symptoms (Gardner, 2002). It has however not entered into mainstream psychiatric use (Szabo, 2002). In overview, the syndrome refers to an attempt by one parent to alienate the child or children from the other parent, usually within the context of divorce and or separation (Gardner, 1985). While this syndrome does not formally exist as a diagnosis, there are however several diagnoses that could encompass it, within the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), such as the diagnosis of parent–child relational problems, within the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 2019), such as a child affected by parental relationship distress (Z62.820). According to Pedrosa (2019), this diagnosis focuses on distress within the relationship between a parent and child, which is believed to have been routed in conflict that is occurring within the parental relationship. Garber (2011) believes that what we know today as parental alienation is seldom solely as a result of one parent maliciously attempting to damage the child’s relationship with the other parent. Rather, it is the resultant of multiple relational factors resulting in the child’s rejection of one parent in favor of the other. This is an important point to note as there is still a limited understanding of the underlying causes of this syndrome with the majority of time having been spent on the observable behavior (Szabo, 2002).

The syndrome is believed to have manifested itself when the child engages in a campaign of denigration against one parent, with no justification (Garber, 2011). Concurrently, the child then aligns themselves with the other parent (Bernet et al., 2010). While the child will most likely claim that the language used against the alienated parent is their own, it is identical to the manner in which the alienating parent expresses themselves (Szabo, 2002). It should be noted that in cases where there is actual abuse or neglect, the child’s campaign would be justified and thus would not be an example of parental alienation syndrome (Garber, 2011). It can be expected that the child will present with a lack of ambivalence, with the alienating parent only having positive attributes being acknowledged with the inverse being prevalent in the case of the alienated parent (Szabo, 2002). This is often believed to be extended to the families of the two different parents (Pedrosa, 2019). Another clear hallmark is that whatever parenting deficits exist, often being quite minimal in reality, they are exaggerated (Gardner, 2002). This agenda of the alienating parent to which the child becomes a party to is debatable as to whether it is conscious or not and will manifest itself within clear behavioral patterns (Szabo, 2002).

One would be forgiven in assuming that this syndrome would be well-documented; however, there appears to be a reported dearth of empirical data in the topic and limited interventions both psychologically and legally (Szabo, 2002). However, it is estimated that within the United States, 1% of children experience parental alienation syndrome and are treated for this syndrome by mental health professionals (Bernet et al., 2010). The challenge to this could be that many of these cases are either not clearly recognized or often not reported as parental alienation syndrome and rather have alternative diagnoses made. Hence why it is believed that it is important for professionals working with children and or divorced families to have a solid and well-developed understanding of parental alienation syndrome. This as, then it can be easily detected and treated appropriately (Bernet et al., 2010).

One may wonder how this syndrome could be connected to the state’s reactions within the COVID-19 global pandemic. However, psychology has always had an intricate relationship with political systems, having either the power to be utilized as a tool to empower and meet the needs of people or to disempower them (Hook, 2004). As a result of this, psychology can either attempt to shy away from these political questions or it can rather engage with them. This as if we are all members of an interconnected system, changes that occur within the system have a ripple effect and impact upon each member of this system (Vorster, 2003). In this regard, what could have more impact upon the system as a whole could be conceptualized as a second-order cybernetic change or the change of the rules of the system (Vorster, 2011). Within this regard, it is not specifically the changing of the rules of the specific family system but rather that of the larger macrosystem which is having its rules changed and as a result will impact the rules that govern the family system and affect its homeostasis (Becvar & Becvar, 2009).

Toward the end of 2019, we saw the emergence of what is now referred to as COVID-19, a severe and acute respiratory syndrome, having genetic similarities to the coronavirus deemed responsible for the SARS outbreak in 2003 (World Health Organization, 2020b). The initial cases of COVID-19 were identified in the city of Wuhan, China. Cases would soon be reported around the world (Soma, 2020). In response to this rapid increase in cases and the spread of virus across countries and continents, the World Health Organization (2020a) declared that it had reached pandemic levels in March 2020 (World Health Organization, 2020a).

South Africa, while being delayed in terms of contraction of the disease when contrasted to the rest of the world, was no exception to this global pandemic. In response to the rising number of confirmed cases, in South Africa, a “hard” or full lockdown was announced on March 23 by President Cyril Ramaphosa (2020), to commence from midnight on March 26. This was done as part of government’s strategy in an attempt to “flatten the curve,” which refers to an attempt to slow the rate of infection and as such changes the trajectory of the infection rate within the country. Changing it from what could be considered an exponential curve, which is quite sharp when plotted on a graph, as opposed to one which when flattened would see a delayed peak is believed to reduce the demand placed upon the countries’ health care system and result in this being more easily managed. Strict rules and regulations were issued by the government for the general public. One such example of this was regulation 6(m), which prohibited the movement of children between divorced parents, separated parents, coholders of parental rights or responsibilities during the lockdown. However, on April 27, in the late hours of the evening, amendments were made to this regulation, resulting in their relaxation. The resultant is that the movement of children between parents and or coholders of parental rights and responsibilities remained prohibited. However, there were two exceptions which were made. These were; where an existing court order was in existence, or if there was a Parental Right and Responsibilities Agreement or Parenting Plan which regulated contact arrangements in place (Van Niekerk & Elson, 2020).

It should be noted that these regulations place the onus on those transporting these children to have in their possession the necessary court order or agreement. What can result in complications to this is that these provisions are subject to the condition that there is no person known to have come in contact or who is reasonably suspected to have come into contact with an individual who has contracted COVID-19 in either home to which the child is expected to travel to or from (Van Niekerk & Elson, 2020).

The use of the term reasonable indicates that a level of subjective judgment is set to be utilized by a parent (Van Niekerk & Elson, 2020), which allows for the possibility of intended abuse or indirect abuse through possible misinterpretations or rather differing interpretations of this regulation by either parent. This viewpoint would be supported by what was highlighted by Pedrosa (2019) that in order for parental alienation to take place one parent has to prevent the other parent from having contact with their child. In this regard, the parent with whom the child is currently residing has been given the state’s endorsement for denying contact with the parent that they are not currently residing with, on groups of what they consider to be reasonable. If it is to be believed that large portion of this syndrome is related to control and the administration of vengeance against a former partner (Szabo, 2002), then it could be safely assumed that unbeknown the government has given such a tool for the alienating parent to use. A very powerful tool, in times of great uncertainty and in which many would or could experience great levels of anxiety and helplessness, and even loss of meaning in their lives related to occupation difficulties, all of which were highlighted as subjective experiences of the alienated parent by Pedrosa (2019). As a result, one could hypothesize that these subjective experiences could or would be amplified in this scenario.

While parental alienation syndrome is seldom mentioned in South African legal discussions, it would appear that the sabotage of access or visits to noncustodial parent by the custodial parent, as part of using the child as a weapon within a non-acrimonious separation of divorce appears to be far more commonly recognized (Szabo, 2002).

The longer that this process of parental alienation takes place, the greater the likelihood of it being consolidated. In response to this, it is of the utmost importance that this process be identified and intervened on several levels (Szabo, 2002), these being on both practical and legal avenues as well as from a mental health perspective.

In conclusion, it is not believed that government intentionally or knowingly implemented laws that would allow for or even give state sanction to parental alienation and as a result cause relational strain between parent and child. However, it does highlight the importance of multidisciplinary consultation when drafting laws, policies, and or regulations, so as to attempt to take into account direct or indirect ramifications of these choices. This article also highlights the limited research on this topic within the South African context and concurrently brings to the fore the need for psychologist’s voices to be heard on the happenings within our society.