Intimidation and control of relationships is violence

Following on from last week's text “A story of alienation in dating, marriage and divorce” (Delgado-Martins, E.; in Observador , 13 June 2025), today we will describe the experiences shared by an alienated mother, Ana, victim of various behaviours and attitudes of an alienating ex-partner/father, who used them as alienation strategies, to create a continuous system of control, intimidation and persecution of the lives of the mother and son João, invading and disrespecting the time and space of coexistence between them.

Ana told us that she was legally restricted in her contact with her son João, immediately after she managed to separate: “Almost two months after the separation, we were called (…) to the first hearing to regulate parental responsibilities (requested by the father), in which it was provisionally agreed that João would live with his father and that he would be with me, every fifteen days, at the weekend”.

Ana said that the alienating father's behavior was insistent and invasive, trying to interfere in João's time and space with his mother: “his father tried, insistently, to contact me through calls, written messages, ringing the doorbell…”.

Furthermore, the father exerted enormous pressure and destabilisation on his son at these times, repeatedly trying to interfere, using communication with João as an instrument of control and intimidation: “always insisting that he wanted to speak to his son to explain why he had not yet picked him up”. The father tried to provoke emotional confusion in the child, turning him against his mother or instilling doubts about the legitimacy of being with her, adopting a behaviour of parental alienation, disguised as concern.

Ana tried to reduce the constant pressure she was subjected to during her time with her son due to the disrespect shown by the alienating father, who insisted: “after several moments of intense pressure, and after having sent photos and videos that demonstrated how well João was doing…”. Even so, the alienating father did not stop trying to disrupt their relationship.

By wanting to talk to João while he was with his mother, the father’s goal was to create anxiety, instability and fear in his son. Ana told us that: “the father simply said: As soon as you want, dad will come and get you. I’ll be two minutes away”, suggesting to João that the time spent with his mother could be interrupted at any time, creating emotional insecurity and placing the responsibility for the decision on the child. João, who was safe and happy with his mother, was afraid and destabilized by his father’s alienating behavior: “my son was scared… he calmed down, played a lot and never asked to leave”.

Ana described that the alienating father behaved in a manipulative manner, deliberately ignoring the well-being and happiness that his son showed after positive interactions with his mother, with the aim of devaluing them: “first thing in the morning, as soon as he spoke to his son (…) after asking him and getting the answer that he was fine and enjoying the weekend… The next day, first thing in the morning, as soon as he spoke to his son (after receiving a text message saying that he had had a good night and that he would return after lunch because that was what he had arranged with me), after asking him and getting the answer that he was fine and enjoying the weekend (…)”, the alienating father, in an accusatory, manipulative and emotionally abusive tone, seeking to manipulate his son, said to him: “…in an accusatory tone: ‘Daddy will only pick you up after lunch because mummy won’t let him go before then’, or ‘Yesterday, I already tried to pick you up so you could sleep with daddy’, or even expressions such as ‘Mummy doesn’t like me’, or ‘I’m not happy with you ... “let me talk to you.”; “Mommy won’t let you talk to me.”; “Daddy is at the door.”; and “Daddy is going to ring the bell soon”. Expressions used with the aim of creating a negative image of the mother and, particularly, through creating fear, saying that she is “at the door”, once again placing João as the mediator and victim of the parental conflict.

The alienating father, through coercive and manipulative behavior, made João afraid of his own father and also afraid of the environment of coercion created by him, as his mother describes: “This behavior (witnessed by my family) left my son in a “catatonic” state: crying compulsively, shaking all over and screaming, both because of the accusatory tone and screams he heard from his father, but also because of the fear that he instilled in him.”

Ana described the systematic pattern of alienation from her father, causing continued isolation and emotional deprivation, including moments of symbolic and significant dates, of family traditions of intergenerational bonds (with her grandmother and aunt), proving that her strategy was not only aimed at her mother, but also at her entire maternal family: “Cumulatively, I didn’t have him with me at Christmas, New Year’s Eve, Carnival, Palm Sunday (my sister is his godmother), Easter, Mother’s Day (when we were together for 15 minutes, at his doorstep) or at birthdays of relatives on my mother’s side”.

Ana also witnessed how the alienating father created traumatic episodes and incidents for João, and designed the process of progressively distancing himself from his son, through strategies of physical and emotional manipulation, during moments of transition, which led to the complete cessation of João's contact with his mother: “After that episode, he never spent another weekend with me and, whenever I tried to pick him up, he would appear at the door without an outer coat or barefoot and invite me to come in and play inside his house as a “reward” for my decision not to “come” to his mother's house”. The father's alienating behavior was constructed through the impoverishment of the relationship between mother and son, with only brief, improvised moments of socializing being “authorized”, devoid of the minimum privacy, comfort or emotional dignity.

Ana and her son were deprived of the right to dignified parenting, to a full and safe coexistence, in which contact is controlled by the father's constant and intrusive surveillance, during the small moments “granted” by the alienating father to the mother, without a space for affection, without intimacy, in a car park, café or doorway: “The last six months have been marked by fleeting moments of socializing in parks (when the weather allowed; which, in the middle of autumn and winter, became unfeasible) and cafés (…) (where João opened his Christmas presents), on the doorstep and in the entrance hall (of both their houses) and even inside the car (where, together with my mother and sister, we celebrated his 6th birthday between 11:00 and 12:30). These moments, for the most part, were with the father present and intervening”. It was just like that, Christmas was not spent at home, in comfort and with family, but in public, without comfort, without a home. The birthday was celebrated inside a car, in hostile conditions, for only an hour and a half, in the presence of the grandmother and aunt, embarrassed by the only way they could be with their grandson and nephew. This is a portrait of the violence of parental alienation.

One of the most common strategies of parental alienation described by Ana was the severe limitation of the time spent with the child, almost always monitored or interrupted by the constant and invasive presence of the alienating father. This presence not only conditioned the freedom of the mother-son relationship, but was also followed by manipulative actions, in which the father used the announcement of “fantastic programs” as a form of emotional reward, encouraging the distancing and rejection of the maternal figure: “During that same period, there were rare times when (on Saturdays, in the father’s city) I managed to spend more than an hour and a half with my son, which were followed by fantastic programs with the father, in an attempt to make these overlap with the experiences he had had with me and not want to return the next day”.

Another alienating behavior is the systematic restriction of communication with the child. This is a subtle but effective form of blocking, in which the child is kept inaccessible under justifications such as daily routines, distraction or simply forgetfulness. As Ana describes well, this type of practice leads to progressive emotional isolation, which gradually destroys her relationship with her son: “I have tried, since the beginning of this painful process, to call my son three times a day. However, and despite João’s father saying that he does everything to foster our relationship, he does not always answer or return the calls, so communication has become increasingly scarce (lately, there are days when I have not spoken even once).” Even when contact is sometimes “authorized”, the father reveals himself to be controlling and disrespectful, emptying any opportunity for emotional connection: “Other times, he answers to say that he will have to hang up right away and we do not speak for a minute.” These actions contrast sharply with the discourse of the alienating father, who claims to promote the relationship between mother and child, but whose attitudes reveal merely apparent cooperation. The result is a forced distancing, where the mother is progressively erased from the child's daily and emotional life.

Ana described her son’s behavior and actions as conditioned by his father’s participation, which reveals a pattern of emotional and relational conditioning in which the child only feels safe or authorized to act if his father consents, which demonstrates his loss of autonomy. The need to obtain his father’s consent to interact with his mother or to carry out trivial activities is a symptom of forced loyalty, the result of explicit or implicit pressure from the alienating father who conveyed to the child the idea that any approach to the alienated mother is a kind of “betrayal,” in a dynamic built and reinforced over time: “In the first moments we were together, João would say (in an attempt to obtain his father’s consent) that he would go if his father went too, he would have dinner if his father had dinner, he would play if his father played, … in a clear dependence instilled (unhealthily) since birth.”

The change in the son's behavior in the presence of his father, due to fear, resulting in emotional blockage (“loses his voice”), crying easily, is a clear indication that the child feels watched, pressured or coerced. Even without direct orders, the simple presence of the father is enough to inhibit any spontaneous expression of affection or desire to be with the mother. A victim of his experience in a highly controlling environment with his father, João shows a state of anxiety, insecurity and showing affection towards his mother is interpreted as a betrayal of his father: “However, in the presence of his father, my son's speech has become (increasingly) one of fear (he almost “loses his voice” and cries very easily) and, in addition to the usual “I don't feel like being with you, mummy.”, “I don't know if I want to play with you, mummy.” These are expressions that suggest a programmed rejection, often resulting from the repetition of disqualifying speeches about the mother in her absence. To please the parent or avoid emotional punishment, the child repeats learned phrases, without fully understanding their meaning.

Ana's son even mentioned the Public Prosecutor who is monitoring the case, revealing that he was inappropriately exposed to legal content and adult discourse: “I even heard phrases like: Doctor A said I didn't have to go”. In this way, João seems to be repeating his father's speeches or instructions, in a clear effort to legitimize his refusal to spend time with his mother. Even more serious is when, in a tone full of rejection and induced fatigue, his son asks: “When are you going to give up, mommy?” A phrase with enormous emotional impact, which reveals a demobilizing intention, typical of someone who has internalized the narrative that maternal love and persistence are inconvenient. This expression reveals the effects of emotional indoctrination, in which João, in an attempt to maintain loyalty to his alienating father, adopts the discourse of devaluing his mother, and it is likely that he has been led to believe that his mother's insistence represents a threat to the balance imposed on him.

Ana described how her son was subjected to a dynamic of forced, systematic emotional choice, sustained by fear and the need for approval from his alienating father. The “pressure of choice” placed João in an impossible position, where being with his mother means transgressing his loyalty to his father, a pressure that causes suffering, anguish and isolation. João avoids contact with his mother because he is afraid of the emotional consequences, of disapproval, even if unspoken. He is a victim of fear of the silent control of his alienating father.

But despite the forced distance, the son still verbalizes genuine affection for his mother (“he loves her”, “he misses her”, “it’s hard to be without her”). This confirms that the emotional bond has not been destroyed, but rather blocked and sabotaged by the father. It is a silent cry from the child who desires his mother, a plea for help because he feels he cannot demonstrate it openly: “In short, over these seven months, I have rarely been able to be with my son, as he has been (and is) constantly placed under the pressure of choice (in this case, of being with me or not) and he continues to show fear of leaving his father’s side to be with me. Not because he doesn’t like me (he says, every time we talk, that he loves me, that he misses me and that it’s hard to be without me) or doesn’t trust me, but because he is afraid of the reaction and lack of approval (which no longer needs to be verbal) from his parent.”

João agrees to stay with people other than his father, such as maids or paternal relatives, because he implicitly understands that these relationships are permitted and encouraged. Unlike the relationship with his mother, these presences do not violate the “loyalty code” imposed by his father. According to Ana, this logic is based on the idea that for his father, his mother was positioned as a forbidden, unwanted and disloyal figure. As Ana reports: “Nevertheless, and as a result of his father’s numerous professional commitments, my son is left in the care of maids, his paternal grandmother and relatives that his father trusts, because he feels that he is not “disrespecting” his father’s wishes and because he knows that his father consents to (and fosters) these same relationships”.

When Ana confesses to us that she feels like a “surrogate mother”, she reveals the deep suffering of someone who has been reduced to a merely functional role, useful only for the gestation, but discarded as an emotional and parental figure after the birth of her child. Her story exposes the attempt to eliminate the maternal side from the child’s life, as if any and all relationships with her had to be severed after the birth: “She simply cannot, at any time, stay or spend time with her maternal side, as if it were relegated only to the need for her birth and then, like a surrogate mother, an attempt was made to sever any connection”.

This testimony is deeply revealing of one of the most symbolic and painful practices of parental alienation, the erasure of the maternal or paternal figure from the child’s emotional universe. But there is more. Ana also told us that: “Last but not least, it is worth highlighting that the photographs that my son had with me in his room were completely removed and, in his presence, the father stated that they had been thrown in the trash”. Removing the photographs is a highly symbolic gesture of exclusion and denial of the mother’s presence. By eliminating images that refer to the emotional relationship with the mother, her memory, her place, her identity in the child’s world are nullified. It is an attempt to rewrite the family narrative, suppressing one of the fundamental protagonists. By declaring, in front of the child, that the photos were “thrown in the trash”, the father not only physically destroys the images, but also communicates that the mother, and the bond with her, is disposable, unworthy or irrelevant. This constitutes a form of psychological violence, not only against the mother, but above all against the child, who is confronted with forced loyalty and a conflict of identity.

Photographs play an essential emotional and psychological role in childhood, as they help children build their identity, recognize bonds and feel emotionally secure. Removing them breaks this emotional frame of reference, generating insecurity, guilt and internal suffering. This type of behavior is identified in several clinical and legal classifications as a direct indicator of alienating behavior, as it aims to replace or devalue one of the parents in an intentional, conscious and systematic way. Removing the mother's photographs from the son's bedroom in the father's house constitutes a deliberate behavior of depersonalization and emotional exclusion. By removing images that record moments of bonding and coexistence, the alienating father seeks to symbolically erase the mother's presence in João's life, breaking with his emotional and affective history. The seriousness of this behavior is aggravated by the fact that it was practiced in the presence of the son, with the father explicitly stating that the photographs had been thrown in the trash. This is a clear strategy of parental alienation, the objective of which is to eliminate the image of the alienated mother, through rejection and emotional isolation.

Ana expresses awareness of the extent and complexity of what she experienced, recognizing that what was exposed is only part of an even broader reality. This conveys a sense of urgency and helplessness in the face of the feeling of immediate physical danger and of something deeper and more persistent, such as the compromise of João's emotional balance, through invisible violence, often undervalued, but whose consequences are serious and long-lasting: “I am sure that there is much left unreported, but I believe that, given what I have described, my son is in a dangerous situation, since he is subject to behaviors that seriously affect his emotional balance”.

Nevertheless, Ana ended her testimony with a message of hope: “I want my son to have a healthy and balanced growth (especially on an emotional level) and I truly hope that João’s best interests will finally be taken into consideration.”