Stressed Targeted Parent

This article is taken from a presentation by Randy Flood at the 2025 PASG (Parental Alienation Study Group) conference, September 10 – 12, 2025, in Toronto, Canada. It first appeared in the Fall 2025 issue of Contemporary Family Quarterly.

Everyday parenting for a parent who has been targeted by alienation can feel like they are parenting under siege, as common and average parental behaviors are misconstrued and weaponized within the custody and legal system. The cultural climate in which parenting takes place has shifted, creating a child-centric ethos that risks prioritizing a child’s momentary wants and emotions over their long-term developmental and parental needs, which sets the stage for misunderstanding and mislabeling in complex custody and alienation cases.

Defining Average-Range Parenting

To understand the core issue, we must first establish a foundation of what constitutes average-range parenting. According to the bell curve of parenting, 68.2% of parents fall within the average range, and this range includes normal parental flaws. A small percentage, about 2.3%, fall into the extreme range of highly abusive or neglectful parenting, which is typically the focus of child welfare agencies. Parents who are struggling with stress or a lack of specialized knowledge, such as those with children who have special needs, may appear below average, but this is not an indication of gross incompetence. Targeted parents, however, are often blamed rather than being provided with context-sensitive help.

Parenting philosophies naturally exist on a spectrum, from structured and directive (goal: compliance) to balanced and adaptive (goal: collaboration) to attuned and responsive (goal: connection). When one of these philosophies is weaponized, the parent using a structured approach may be labeled “controlling and abusive,” while a parent focused on connection may be labeled “permissive and neglectful,” and a parent seeking balance may be called “inconsistent and unstable.” Normative parent-child relationships also exist on a continuum, ranging from a child having positive relationships with both parents to a child having an affinity for one parent, and finally to a child being fully-allied with one parent.

Fragile-Child vs. Capable-Child

The current cultural perspective impacts how professionals view children, creating a fragile-child perception that seeks to avoid discomfort versus a capable-child perception that promotes growth through challenge. This fragile framing is then amplified by the alienating parent and used to undermine the targeted parent. The concept of anti-fragility, as Jonathan Haidt applies it to parenting, suggests that manageable stress, or “just enough stress” (hormesis), builds resilience in children, much like wind strengthens a tree. Over-protection leads to anxiety and fragility.

The alienation dynamic exploits this perception by framing the child’s distress (RRDs) as proof of the targeted parent’s “unfitness” rather than a symptom of the alienation dynamic itself, a phenomenon known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. Any mental health decline, such as anxiety or dysregulation, is seen as proof of the targeted parent’s unfitness. Furthermore, the child may be given a “special needs” narrative, framing the targeted parent as unable to meet those needs. Under this chronic stress, even average parenting risks decomposing into problematic parenting.

Weaponization by the Alienating Parent

A key aspect of this siege is the “Independent Thinker” phenomenon, unwittingly supported by a child-centric ethos. The alienating parent weaponizes the child’s rejection of the targeted parent as “their own choice.” Professionals may misread this rejection as healthy autonomy, strength, or confidence. In reality, this behavior is often a defense mechanism, a loyalty contract fueled by enmeshment, or projective identification from the alienating parent, which is a form of self-effacement, not independence. The siege concludes with the targeted parent being seen as unsupportive and controlling, while the alienating parent is seen as affirming and supportive. Professionals must learn to decode this behavior and refrain from reinforcing it.

In everyday life, children often resist things like doctor visits, swimming lessons, or visiting extended family, but we do not conclude that these things are unsafe. Instead, we support them through the discomfort with an anti-fragile mindset. However, in alienation cases, as the child’s rejection, resistance, and refusal (RRDs) intensify, the targeted parent’s authority is delegitimized, forming a relational dynamic that professionals often misread.

Besieged by Allegations

Targeted parents are pathologized through three major categories of allegations: miscategorized parenting, decontextualized parenting, and misunderstood parenting. Miscategorized parenting occurs when average parenting behaviors are miscategorized as abusive or punitive. Decontextualized parenting occurs when a parent’s actions are judged without awareness of the history of parental alienating behaviors and the effect the dynamic has on the child’s RRDs. Misunderstood parenting is when normal parental flaws or mistakes are exaggerated into a pattern of unfitness rather than recognized as a human response to being isolated and unsupported while dealing with a child with special needs.

This siege can escalate into multiple Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations, where the child’s visible distress during transitions is used to focus on the targeted parent as “unfit.” The RRDs are misattributed to the targeted parent instead of the alienating parent’s coercion and psychological abuse. This denial of alienation as family violence calls for classifying parental alienation as a substantiated form of child abuse or mental injury.

What begins as isolated miscategorization builds into a pervasive, pummeling false narrative. The targeted parent experiences their parenting as under siege from a chronic, inescapable narrative that involves their children, co-parent, counselors, legal professionals, and even unwitting accomplices. This legal and parenting crisis parallels the dynamics seen in Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS). The battered woman and the battered targeted parent both experience deep betrayal and seek connection despite hopelessness and rejection. And both are misunderstood by the system: the battered woman was once seen as irrational or complicit, and the targeted parent is often seen as unstable, unfit, or responsible for the family breakdown.

The Trauma of Being a Targeted Parent

The trauma experienced by targeted parents is best understood through the lens of Complex Trauma in Alienated Parents (C-TAP). Recognized in the ICD-11 as Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD), it arises from prolonged, repeated, interpersonal trauma. C-TAP manifests not only with core PTSD symptoms but also Disturbances in Self-Organization (DSO), including emotional dysregulation, a negative self-concept of worthlessness, and interpersonal difficulties. In C-TAP, the prolonged trauma is chronic rejection, emotional cutoff, and the legal loss of the parenting role, leading to a distorted self-perception as “unfit” or “obsessed.”

In summation, average-range parenting is increasingly pathologized under siege conditions. Children benefit from an anti-fragile, resiliency-building ethos that counters the false narrative of alienation. Targeted parents are besieged by allegations in three major categories: miscategorized, decontextualized, and misunderstood. They are over-pathologized and need proper understanding and advocacy, similar to how victim psychology helped intimate partner violence victims. Mental health and legal professionals must critically examine their role in either reinforcing or breaking the siege on targeted parents’ parenting.

How Family Court Professionals Can Help

For systemic repair, judges should consider developing specialty dockets for high-conflict cases involving RRDs. It is vital not to be duped by the obfuscation that paints the alienating parent’s behavior as “protective” and the targeted parent’s as “abusive.” Forensic family evaluations should be ordered to clarify the causes of the child’s resistance. Judges must issue clear findings to direct a Coordinated Community Response (CCR) approach, because delays act as an intervention that is usually the wrong one. Enforcing proper parenting time and no-contact orders is necessary to reestablish parental authority and healthy roles.

Mental health professionals must promote anti-fragile development by holding multiple working hypotheses and not accepting the child’s narrative at face value. They must recognize child distortions, polarizations, and loyalty conflicts as attachment wounds requiring intervention. Professionals should push back against fragile-child ideologies and support anti-fragile growth by helping children tolerate distress and rebuild trust. In reunification work, they must operate under clear court authority, using family-systems models and proper protocols, and must collaborate across disciplines.

Ultimately, the system must reject child-led rejection when no evidence of abuse exists. Targeted parents need trauma-informed counseling to prepare for reunification efforts. Alienating parents require structured intervention and accountability, modeled after Batterer Intervention Programs, where external pressure drives internal change. Children need adult-guided boundaries, not permission to sever bonds. Parental alienation is family violence, not merely a custody dispute. Alienators, like batterers before them, thrive in fragmented systems. It is time to implement a Co-ordinated Community Response (CCR) model—which revolutionized domestic violence intervention—to address children’s RRDs, C-TAP in targeted parents, and the behaviors of alienating parents.

More Information and Support

Other resources for targeted parents and family court professionals can be found on this website via the following links:

Randy Flood and Zach Flood, MA, LLP, have presented several programs for Families Divided TV on Parental Alienation. A link to those programs can be found here: The Dilemmas Encountered Doing Court-related Work in Alienation Cases. You can also contact the Men’s Resource Center online or call us at (616) 456-1178 for more information about our counseling and coaching services for families and professionals navigating the turmoil of parental alienation.