The above play on words got me pondering on both the nature and choice of behaviours of those that intentionally or unintentionally become enablers of parental alienation.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question,” from Shakespeare’s Hamlet is arguably the best known line from literature and theatre. In its entirety the speech shows Hamlet’s profound dissatisfaction with life and its many struggles.
He is uncertain what death by suicide may bring. This is subtly underpinned with the Christian denunciation of suicide, the Tudor belief that suicide leads to the fires of hell. Hamlet is highlighting the dread and uncertainty of suicide. He believes the wrong judgement call leads to the fiery gates of hell with no way back.
In life there are many decisions and actions that are pivotal. Enablers of parental alienation ultimately make the wrong judgement call, when they intentionally or unintentionally engage in certain behaviours. Some choose to ‘turn a blind eye’ while others are prevented from doing the right thing.
“Nowadays we are encouraged to not just stop ‘turning a blind eye’ to such things as sexism, racism and any other form of abuse, but to actually challenge it.”
Very recently and as politely as possible I challenged the behaviours of some individuals who were clearly enabling the parental alienation of my children. Their response shocked me. One of their many points was that they understood parental alienation, however they reminded me that when a couple separates it is important to remain impartial. I have reflected on this point and given it a lot of thought. Nowadays we are encouraged to not just stop ‘turning a blind eye’ to such things as sexism, racism and any other form of abuse, but to actually challenge it. However it saddens me to think that individuals, that might even have a gut feeling that something is amiss, adamantly stand by the argument that it is more important to remain impartial. This is something I simply do not understand.
On a separate note I write weekly letters to each of my alienated children, however their mother refuses to hand them over to the children. I recently asked one of my children’s schools if they could start reading these letters to my youngest child. Their reply was that without the consent of the children’s mother they are unable to facilitate such a request. This is despite the school being more than aware of the ongoing abuse being inflicted on my children by their mother. In response to this I forwarded the school a Court Order that explicitly states that both direct and indirect contact has been ordered. I also put forward the point that the school was unintentionally enabling this severe alienation by not facilitating my request.
To enable, or not to enable, that is the question. Being unable to answer this question themselves, the head-teacher sought legal advice from the local authority. The subsequent advice was that the school should not get involved and that they must remain impartial. The head-teacher stated that he wished he could help but it would be going against legal advice. Once again this is something I simply do not understand. To enable, or not to enable, that is the question. Should we even need to question it?
“Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.” William Shakespeare, (All’s Well That Ends Well).