ArticlePDF Available

When courts accept what science rejects: Custody issues concerning the alleged “parental alienation syndrome”



“Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) is unscientific and is an affront to children, women who hold the custody of children of separated couples, science, human rights, and the justice system itself. Justice, to be just, should be based on scientifically proven theories and evidence. This article describes investigations carried out to show that two of the principles that underpin PAS are false: That children lie when pressed (alienated in the terminology of PAS), and that the principle that should guide judges’ actions for the good of the child should be that for the child to always be in contact with both parents. The results of these investigations show that these two principles are false and advocates the use of truly scientific proceedings for judges to grant custody in case of dispute between parents, as well as for determining the visitation for the noncustodial parent.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Download by: [University of Coruna] Date: 11 October 2016, At: 08:36
Journal of Child Custody
ISSN: 1537-9418 (Print) 1537-940X (Online) Journal homepage:
When courts accept what science rejects: Custody
issues concerning the alleged “parental alienation
Miguel Clemente & Dolores Padilla-Racero
To cite this article: Miguel Clemente & Dolores Padilla-Racero (2016) When courts accept what
science rejects: Custody issues concerning the alleged “parental alienation syndrome”, Journal
of Child Custody, 13:2-3, 126-133
To link to this article:
Published online: 11 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
2016, VOL. 13, NOS. 2–3, 126–133
When courts accept what science rejects: Custody issues
concerning the alleged “parental alienation syndrome”
Miguel Clementea and Dolores Padilla-Racerob
aDepartment of Psychology, Universidad de La Coruña, A Coruña, Spain; bDepartment of Public Law,
Universidad de Malaga, Malaga, Spain
Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is unscientific and is an
affront to children, women who hold the custody of children of
separated couples, science, human rights, and the justice system
itself. Justice, to be just, should be based on scientifically proven
theories and evidence. This article describes investigations
carried out to show that two of the principles that underpin
PAS are false: That children lie when pressed (alienated in the
terminology of PAS), and that the principle that should guide
judgesactions for the good of the child should be that for the
child to always be in contact with both parents. The results of
these investigations show that these two principles are false and
advocates the use of truly scientific proceedings for judges to
grant custody in case of dispute between parents, as well as for
determining the visitation for the noncustodial parent.
Child protection; custody;
forensic psychology; legal
psychology; parental
alienation; parental
alienation syndrome
We do not intend in this commentary to review the concept of what science is
but we consider it pertinent to recall that since Galileo, through Newton and
up to today, scientific theories are derived from experienced facts gained
through observation and experimentation. In fact some sciences have
advanced more through observation, opting for an inductive methodology,
while others have progressed more through experimentation, following
the hypothetical-deductive method. Of course, when a scientist, even though
s/he may later use the hypothetical-deductive methodology, seeks to create a
scientific theory, it stems from the real world, usually from an observation.
Perhaps that was the starting point of the American psychiatrist Richard
Gardner (1992), when in the 1980s, he thought he would classify and coin
a term for something that, to his knowledge, no one had named so far, to
try to explain the rejection that the child exhibits when communicating with
one of his parents during family breakdown. The author created the concept
of “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS), giving preference to the syndrome’s
name, most likely because of its medical origin.
CONTACT Miguel Clemente Department of Psychology, Universidad de
La Coruña, Elviña Campus, A Coruña 15071, Spain.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
PAS tries to explain a child’s rejection of one of his or her parents, and to
do so, it follows a scheme opposite to the one well-known within science as
“Ockham’s razor,” also called the principle of parsimony, which states that
all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely.
No doubt Ockham, a Franciscan friar, would have thought Gardner’s expla-
nation about how a child might reject a parent was not the best, simply
because it is not the simplest. The simplest thing would have been (and is)
to think that the rejected parent has taken some action that caused the child’s
rejection, usually abuse, sometimes of a sexual nature. Instead, Gardner laid
out something diametrically opposed, stating that this refusal occurs as a
result of the manipulation the other parent (who is worshiped by the child)
exercises over the child, rejecting the idea that there may be other causes that
justify the rejection.
Acceptance of the diagnosis of PAS by the court systems, not by science,
automatically implements the treatment prescribed by Gardner, known as
threat therapy. This therapy aims to correct behavior, in this case the child’s
and the parent’s with whom s/he lives, so that regardless of the root causes of
the child’s rejection to visit the parent with whom s/he is not living, the child
is forced to form a relationship with the latter. To achieve this, the courts
takes a series of measures, all of which are based on threat and coercion.
Even when PAS is not used as a label in the courts cases, this same type of
intervention is recommended by to many attorneys and evaluators.
The use of PAS would possibly have more relevance if it were not for the
treatment Gardner inevitably associated thereto, which is applied coercively
through the courts of many countries. However, it has been found that this
treatment, far from solving the child’s rejection to interact with the other
parent, has undesirable consequences for the children (Bruch, 2002).
It should be noted that within the terminology used in PAS’s construction,
the parent who holds custody of the child and with whom he or she lives will
be called the “alienator” and the parent whose company the child rejects, the
“alienated.” The child, in turn, is also referred to as “alienated.”
When the breakdown of couples with children occurs, in the absence of
consensus between the two parents, it is the court that has to establish
custody, as well as the system of communication between the children and
the noncustodial parent. To this end, the child’s testimony, declared directly
by him/her before the judge or through the reports of the technical bodies that
assist it, sometimes is the only evidence provided in the procedure. Therefore,
the testimony acquires great importance, especially when there is suspicion of
mistreatment or abuse by a parent regarding the children. However, the
child’s testimony as such, its relevance, connotations and consequences are
secondary; it simply disappears from the scene or is interpreted opposite to
what the child expresses when ideas that underlie the PAS nomenclature
are present during the trial.
Diagnosis of PAS
The differential diagnosis of PAS is constructed ad hoc to attribute a patho-
genic condition to the mother’s (usually) manipulation, and to interpret any
act or omission of the child in consistency with this harmful influence of the
mother on him. Custody of children is still held by mothers to a greater extent
and what’s more, abuse and mistreatment of children that lead to divorces and
child custody cases are committed to a greater extent by male parents
(Clemente & Padilla-Racero, 2015b). Gardner, when identifying the manipu-
lating or alienating parent who has custody and the alienated or rejected parent
who does not, mothers are almost automatically assigned the role of alienators
and the role of the alienated is assigned to the rejected father. The manipulated
child would also have the condition of being alienated by the mother.
The parent who is assigned the role of manipulator comes to be seen by the
court system as a harmful, toxic influence on the child, and therefore the
measures taken in the Courts will be in line with taking the child away from
the mother, to safeguard the child from dangers to his/her mental health.
Diagnosis of PAS is carried out based on the appearance of eight symptoms
that Gardner determined children to have, and treatment (threat therapy) is
set based on 10 symptoms supposedly present in the mother (usually the
alienating parent) and only secondarily depending on the child’s symptoms
(Padilla-Racero, 2013). The response or treatment is simple (and the true
purpose of the PAS diagnosis): The change of custody in favor of the father,
a victim of unfounded rejection by the child, a rejection that is presumed to be
induced by the manipulative mother.
That PAS is an ideological rather than scientific instrument is easily detect-
able in many of its approaches. For example, according to this false syndrome,
the child makes a campaign of denigration on the noncustodial parent, which is
symptom 1 of PAS in the child (Padilla-Racero, 2013). This campaign of deni-
gration against the father of the child is induced by the mother and the product
of her manipulation of the child. On the other hand, the phenomenon of the
independent thinker, which corresponds to symptom 4 of the diagnosis of
PAS in children (Padilla-Racero, 2013), refers to the role of the child in his/
her personal campaign of denigration. This personal contribution of the child
(independent of the mother’s manipulation) is what PAS advocates argue to
label the syndrome as a childhood disorder. PAS, through the rhetorical use
of language, seeks to justify hypotheses that cannot be supported scientifically,
incurring numerous contradictions, such as the one just pointed out.
Nichols (2014) explains that mental health professionals have published
dozens of reports of clinical studies purporting to support the diagnosis of
PAS during the past 20 years. All these reports, however, are based on clinical
observations and ideology rather than empirical data or peer reviewed
research. As Emery (2005) explains, authors should recognize and assume that
clinical experience, including case studies, prove nothing; case studies are
valuable for generating hypotheses, but not for confirming them.
PAS interprets the child as lying when s/he vilifies one parent (usually the
noncustodial parent is male), and in psychoanalytic theory, the child fanta-
sizes (lies) when s/he recounts memories of sexual abuse during childhood
(Clemente, 2010). In short, both PAS and psychoanalysis are ascribed to
the field of ideology, abandoning science in these situations. PAS has not been
scientifically validated because it originates from an invalid theoretical model
(Clemente, 2013).
Among the ideas on which PAS is built, two stand out: the “inherent falsity in
children,” because of which they should not be believed if they accuse their parent
of mistreatment, abuse or neglect; and the idea that a parent uses the legal system
to separate the children from the other parent, using manipulative, vicious, and
vindictive nature. It was assumed that the manipulator would be a female in gen-
eral, which was the gender-biased view of Gardner. However, it is more likely that
such manipulation would be a symptom of control; issues which tends to be more
similar to a parent who commits domestic violence or child abuse. Therefore,
Gardner’s theories soon found themselves opposed by movements in defense
of children and women, in addition to the scientific community.
Acceptance of the diagnosis of PAS or is theories by the courts means the
immediate application of the Threat Therapy, which is intended to dissuade
the children and the mother from breach of visitation. This is a coercive inter-
vention, which aims to correct the behavior of the child and the parent with
whom s/he lives, using the tools of threat and judicial coercion. Such threats
are supposedly intended to be therapeutic and are implemented by the court
on the grounds that they are the most suitable for the child, from an interpret-
ation of the same interests that coincide exclusively with the interests of the
manipulator. These threats consist of a range of coercive measures ranging
from fines, house arrest or imprisonment of the parent diagnosed as manipu-
lative and harmful to the child, until the change of the child’s custody in the
favor of the rejected parent. Sometimes, this change of custody is carried out
after a period of detaining the child in a juvenile facility or “deprogramming
camp” until s/he does not go back on the accusations regarding the rejected
parent and accept the situation. Contradictorily, the court record will become
almost a clinical record. An alleged syndrome that has no place in the area of
public or mental health where it has been continually rejected is used to diag-
nose and intervene by the courts and those who promote it in the legal system.
As Gardner himself acknowledged, the differential diagnosis of PAS is not
capable of determining whether the child has been mistreated or abused by
the parent that is rejected or if it is an invention of the minor, or a product
of manipulation on the part of the alienating parent (which is attributed to
the manipulation). PAS’s lack of scientific grounding, the high probability
of misdiagnosis recognized by its creator and subsequent defenders, as well
as the legitimization of the use of coercion by the State through the courts to
impose affection are some of the ethical considerations that should prevent
the application of such threat therapy.
The consequences of treatment involving PAS diagnosis for children are
dramatic. As Nichols (2014) states, survivors of domestic violence and child
advocates argue that Gardner’s theory overshadows the legitimate causes of
estrangement between parents and children, such as abuse, neglect, or the
feeling of abandonment in the child caused by the divorce itself. Bruch
(2001) states that Gardner confounds a child’s reaction to the divorce and
the high level of parental conflict (including violence) with his approach.
The authors who devote their efforts to the defense of children fear that the
“diagnosis” of PAS within the resolution of cases of custody disputes can
result in the courts handing children over to their abusers (Dallam, 2008).
Discrediting PAS
Clemente (2013), Padilla-Racero (2013), and Rozanski (2013), among other
authors, have devoted their efforts to studying and explaining the phenomenon
called PAS. Examples are the works of Meier (2009), Nichols (2014), Pepiton,
Alvis, Allen, and Logid (2012), and Pignotti (2013). Paradoxically, this issue that
initially does not have by itself any scientific interest has come to draw in many
authors to contest it, knowing that it is highly topical because of its application
in the Courts of many countries and the certainty that this real action leaves
children in a more than regrettable situation of risk and vulnerability.
The main idea on which PAS is based, as previously noted, is that when a
minor expresses his suffering of mistreatment or abuse by one parent (usually
the father) during a separation or divorce process, this statement is false and
induced by the other parent (usually the mother). An empirical study showing
that children generally do not lie about these types of situations and that
they are also not easily manipulated has been conducted (Clemente &
Padilla-Racero, 2015a). The ideas raised by Gardner are not supported by
the data. It is rare for a child to lie about what s/he has seen or experienced.
Our research raised the ire of supporters of PAS, who even demanded its
withdrawal from publication, showing their ways of acting to be inquisitorial
(Bernet, Verrocchio, & Korosi, 2015), and was contested by the authors who
carried out this work (Clemente & Padilla-Racero, 2015b).
Another important aspect to investigate was to determine the importance
of PAS ideas given by judges to the various reports submitted as evidence
in family courts. Clemente, Padilla-Racero, Gandoy, Reig-Botella, and
Gonzalez-Rodriguez (2015) tried to verify what weight the different pieces
of evidence have in court decisions regarding the determination of custody
and visitation. In some countries, as is the case of Spain, teams of psycholo-
gists working for the Administration of Justice often produce reports that are
clearly pro-PAS, which requires custodial parents to resort to psychologists
outside the Administration of Justice to determine whether the child’s testi-
mony is true. Pro-PAS mental health professionals systematically start with
the idea that the child is lying. The testimonies of the parties involved (both
parents) are part of the evidence in these trials. Given these various reports
and testimonies, combined with the principle that the judge understands to
be taken as a guide for the decision for the welfare of the child, there may
be very different decisions about the types of communication of the child with
each of his parents in the cases that concern us.
This line of research was intended to highlight the importance of child
sexual abuse from a different point of view, which is the way to treat it from
a judicial perspective. Clemente (2013) and Padilla-Racero (2013, 2015, 2016)
sought to verify how important the different professional testimonies and
reports are to judges according to how they understand that they must act
for the good of the child and based on the existence of statements in the
reports. It has been found that the reports of the teams assigned to the courts
are second in terms of credibility given to them, which makes us reflect on the
importance of their development; professionals have to be guided by knowl-
edge and techniques that have a scientific backing, abandoning unscientific
constructs, such as PAS. Data from this study show how effective different
judicial behavior is depending on the variables analyzed, and how the reports
of the psychosocial teams are specifically second in being taken into account
to support court decisions on children.
The main conclusion is that faced with the event itself, which would be the
story or account presented, judges make a decision that is influenced by variables
that are manipulated, with the professional evaluations embodied in the Admin-
istration of Justice’s technicians’ psychosocial report being of great relevance
among such variables. Unfortunately, in most cases, these reports state that there
is PAS or follow the same principles even if they do not use the label.
PAS advocates, to this day, have not produced any evidence or empirical data
demonstrating its existence. What they mean by scientific evidence is bound
solely to the merely theoretical circulation of Gardner’s work, the creator of
the PAS concept. The authors cited by proponents of PAS as alleged research-
ers are mere disseminators of PAS, not actual researchers who have published
in peer reviewed research journals.
The data obtained in our research allow us to affirm that in general, chil-
dren do not lie about abuse they have experienced, and they are not easily
manipulated. These data refute, therefore, one of the main ideas on which
PAS is based. By not being based on sound theoretical principles and not
being able to be verified, PAS and its framework cannot generate a diagnostic
tool. Consequently, you cannot establish an intervention program for a
suspected syndrome that cannot be diagnosed, because it is impossible for a
diagnostic tool to be derived from it, with it not being supported in a valid
theoretical model. Without a solid theoretical model, one cannot make a
diagnosis and possible treatment for it. In short, you cannot measure what
does not exist and that is what is happening with PAS.
The social utility of science is to deliver justice between individuals, which
is why when scientific instruments or techniques such as PAS are used, it
constitutes social injustice (Clemente, 2013). The followers and believers of
PAS promote threat or coercive treatment/intervention, and removal of the
child from the person who may have been the primary caretaker. It is not
possible to derive a treatment from a theory that is not falsifiable, and even
less, if an instrument that meets the appropriate psychometric requirements
is not derived, for without such an instrument, it is impossible to verify
whether the treatment produces improvement in children. PAS is ideology,
not science. It is a whole system of ideas based on a mirage of equality, which
does not stand up to any scientific, legal, or social analysis.
PAS projects on the women the suffering of mental disorders, and on
children the presumption of being liars and easily manipulated; and quite
unfortunately, because of the undeniable weight of these two pseudosciences
in our society, both theories correspond to subjective approaches of interpreting
reality and of undeniable gender bias.
The testimony of minors must be duly taken into account in these proceed-
ings, since it is empirically verified that children tend to tell the truth and that
furthermore they are not easily influenced or manipulated to give a false
testimony, but quite the opposite. Therefore, if you want to ensure the good
of the child, you cannot do it without their testimony being heard and duly
taken into account in judicial decisions that concern them.
PAS is a false attribution, a cause–effect relationship that does not exist,
unprovable, unscientific, but generates three types of victims, two of them
custodial parents (usually mothers) and children. The latter, who sometimes
suffer abuse, including sexual abuse, sometimes only find a single solution in
their lives, suicide. The third victim is society, which instead of defending the
existence of a more just society for all, allows the opposite to occur. For the
sake of the child, we must struggle to conceive PAS and those who follow
and promote its principles as what it is: False.
Bernet, W., Verrocchio, M. C., & Korosi, S. (2015). Yes, children are susceptible to
manipulation: Commentary on article by Clemente and Padilla-Racero. Children and Youth
Services Review, 56, 135–138. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.004
Bruch, C. S. (2001). Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong in
child custody cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35(3), 527–552.
Bruch, C. S. (2002). Parental alienation syndrome and alienated children – Getting it wrong in
child custody cases. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14(4), 381–400.
Clemente, M. (2010). Introducción a la Psicología Social: Enfoques teóricos clásicos [Introduc-
tion to social psychology: Theoretical classics approaches]. Madrid, Spain: Universitas.
Clemente, M. (2013). El síndrome de alienación parental: un atentado contra la ciencia, contra
el Estado de Derecho, y contra los menores y sus progenitores [The parental alienation
syndrome: An attack against science, the rules of law, and against children and their
parents]. Infancia, Juventud y Ley, 4, 48–57.
Clemente, M., & Padilla-Racero, D. (2015a). Are children susceptible to manipulation? The
best interest of children and their testimony. Children and Youth Services Review, 51,
101–107. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.02.003
Clemente, M., & Padilla-Racero, D. (2015b). Facts speak louder than words: Science versus the
pseudoscience of PAS. Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 177–184. doi:10.1016/j.
Clemente, M., Padilla-Racero, D., Gandoy, M., Reig-Botella, A., & Gonzalez-Rodriguez, R.
(2015). Judicial decision-making in family law proceedings. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 43(4), 314–325. doi:10.1080/01926187.2015.1051895
Dallam, S. (2008). Are “good enough” parents losing custody to abusive ex-partners, leadership
council on child abuse & interpersonal violence. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipcouncil.
Emery, R. E. (2005). Parental alienation syndrome: Proponents bear the burden of proof.
Family Court Review, 43, 8–13. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00002.x
Gardner, R. A. (1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal
professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Meier, J. S. (2009). A historical perspective on parental alienation syndrome and parental
alienation. Journal of Child Custody, 6(3), 232–257. doi:10.1080/15379410903084681
Nichols, A. M. (2014). Toward a child-centered approach to evaluating claims of alienation in
high-conflict custody disputes. Michigan Law Review, 112(4), 663–688.
Padilla-Racero, D. (2013). El síndrome de alienación parental no es un transtorno mental,
problema relacional ni de conducta. Es una feroz resistencia a los avances en la igualdad
entre hombres y mujeres. [Parental alienation syndrome is not a mental disorder, relational
or behavioral problem. It is a fierce resistance to advances in equality between men and
women]. Infancia, Juventud y Ley, 4, 58–73.
Padilla-Racero, D. (2015). El papel de la memoria y los recuerdos en la credibilidad del testi-
monio de los menores en las denuncias de abuso sexual infantil [The role of memory and
memories on the credibility of the testimony of minors in allegations of child sexual abuse].
Diario la Ley, XXXVI(8651), 1–7.
Padilla-Racero, D. (2016). Credibilidad de las denuncias de maltrato infantil y el falso
síndrome de alienación parental [Credibility of allegations of child abuse and false parental
alienation syndrome]. Derecho y Proceso Penal, 42, 379–395.
Pepiton, M. B., Alvis, L. J., Allen, K., & Logid, G. (2012). Is parental alienation disorder a valid
concept? Not according to scientific evidence. A review of parental alienation, DSM-5 and
ICD-11 by William Bernet. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(2), 244–253. doi:10.1080/
Pignotti, M. S. (2013). La sindrome di alienazione parentale: sconosciuta negli ospedali,
endemica nei tribunal [The parental alienation syndrome: Unknown in hospitals, endemic
in the courts]. Recenti Progressi in Medicina, 104(2), 54–58.
Rozanski, C. (2013). El síndrome de alienación parental (SAP) y otras formas de silenciar
niños abusados [Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and other forms of silence exploited
children]. Infancia, Juventud y Ley, 4, 74–80.
... Behre (2015, p. 537) argues that such arguments have been frequently adopted by fathers' rights groups who contend that most allegations of DFV are false. Parental alienation syndrome has received considerable criticism and its scientific basis has been challenged (Clemente and Padilla-Racero 2016;Dallam and Silberg 2016). It has not been recognized as a formal psychiatric diagnosis (Clemente and Padilla-Racero 2016), and the theory is often perceived to be permeated by gender bias against women (Neilson 2018, p. 9). ...
... Parental alienation syndrome has received considerable criticism and its scientific basis has been challenged (Clemente and Padilla-Racero 2016;Dallam and Silberg 2016). It has not been recognized as a formal psychiatric diagnosis (Clemente and Padilla-Racero 2016), and the theory is often perceived to be permeated by gender bias against women (Neilson 2018, p. 9). However, despite this criticism, such perceptions continue to influence practice, with Saini et al. (2013, p. 118) claiming that some child protection workers may minimize allegations made by parents due to the perception that such allegations are likely to be malicious in the context of child custody disputes. ...
Full-text available
Coercive control is increasingly recognized as fundamental to women’s experiences of domestic and family violence (DFV). Systems abuse is also being increasingly recognized by researchers as a tactic of coercive control in the context of DFV. This article explores the phenomenon of abusive partners or ex-partners making malicious false reports of child maltreatment to child protective services as an aspect of coercive control and systems abuse. The article draws on interviews with 65 women who have been victims of DFV, focusing on the experiences of 11 of the interviewees who have been maliciously reported, or received threats that they will be reported, to child protection services by an abusive ex-partner. Those interviewees who had been the victim of malicious reports of child maltreatment by an abusive partner or ex-partner experienced substantial negative impacts. The article concludes that improved investigation processes and investigating both parties, where the reporting party has been found to be a perpetrator of DFV, may better support victims of DFV and deter perpetrators from this form of abuse.
... Seorang anak yang teralienasi didefinisikan sebagai orang yang mengekspresikan, secara bebas dan terus-menerus, perasaan dan keyakinan negatif yang tidak masuk akal (seperti kemarahan, kebencian, penolakan, dan atau ketakutan) terhadap orangtua yang secara signifikan tidak proporsional dengan pengalaman aktual anak dengan orangtua itu. Anak, pada gilirannya, juga disebut sebagai "alienated" [9,10]. ...
Full-text available
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a process in which one parent (Aligned Parent) teaches his children to reject or antago- nize other parents (Rejected Parent) which results in disruption to the relationship between children and parents. PAS can be a central issue in child custody disputes and is a form of emotional abuse to children that can disrupt the process of growth and development of children and cause mental disorders in the children's future. Although there are differences of opinion about PAS, the impact can already be seen in children who are in the PAS situation. In severe PAS conditions, disorders in children can occur in the dimensions of behavior, emotions, and cognitive. In the long run, someone who has been exposed to PAS in childhood has a greater likelihood of experiencing depression, anxiety, and decreased quality of life in the future. Given the mag- nitude of the impact caused by PAS, it is necessary to do the management carried out simultaneously by mental health practition- ers, legal professionals and the court. Therapeutic interventions that can be carried out include Multi Model Family Intervention (MMFI), Family Reflections Reunification Program (FRRP), Overcoming Barriers Family Camp (OBFC), Parallel Group Ther- apy, and Family Bridges Workshop. There is no conclusion which intervention is the best. Ultimately, the goal of family therapy is to achieve and maintain healthy parent-child relationships.
Full-text available
Boşanma, kısaca, eşler arasında evliliğin hukuki açıdan sona erdirilmesi olarak tanımlanabilir. Çatışmalı ayrılık veya boşanma davalarında, ebeveynlerden birinin öfke/kızgınlık hissiyle birlikte sözleri, davranışları ve tutumlarıyla diğer ebeveyni kötülemesi, çocuklarının bu ebeveyniyle olan kişisel görüşme haklarını engellemesi sonucunda çocuklar, hedefteki ebeveyne karşı yabancılaşma geliştirebilmektedir. Alanyazında ebeveyn yabancılaşması (ebeveyne yabancılaşma sendromu), özellikle yüksek çatışmalı boşanma davalarında çocukların ebeveynlerinden biriyle (yabancılaştıran ebeveyn) güçlü bir şekilde ittifak kurması ve herhangi bir meşru gerekçe olmaksızın diğer ebeveyniyle (hedefteki veya yabancılaşılan ebeveyn) ilişki kurmayı reddetmesiyle sonuçlanan dinamik bir süreç olarak kavramsallaştırılmakta ve çocuklar açısından bu sürecin duygusal istismarın bir türü olduğu belirtilmektedir. Bu derlemede ebeveyn yabancılaşması sürecinde etkili olabileceği düşünülen faktörlerin dinamik etkileşimlerinin ekolojik sistem kuramı perspektifiyle gözden geçirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda çalışmada, ebeveyn yabancılaşması kavramının genel özellikleri üzerinde durulmuş ve her bir sistem düzeyinde (mikrosistem, mezosistem, ekzosistem, makrosistem, kronosistem) ebeveyne yabancılaşma sürecini etkileyebilecek risk faktörleri ile yabancılaşmanın çocuk üzerindeki genel etkileri gözden geçirilmiştir.
The socialization that parents and society exercise on children instills in them a set of values towards parents. Some of these values are not lying, feeling affection for the parents, and wanting to have contact with them. In this work, we attempt to determine whether these values change in the face of intrafamilial abuse. To that end, an incidental sample was used, consisting of 2730 minors aged between 6 to 18 years, who had never suffered abuse. They were asked to put themselves in the place of the main character of a story. The story varied depending on the conditions to be studied: observation and direct suffering or account of the abuse by another, type of abuse (physical or psychological), who perpetrated the abuse (custodian or non-custodial), and who received it (the other custodian or the minor). The results show that, as a rule, children lie to conceal both parents’ abusive behavior; they love their parents and want to have contact with them, even in the presence of abuse. Notwithstanding that in the presence of abuse by one of their parents, children still love them and want to have contact with both parents, a significant number of children, however, stop loving them or want to have contact with the abusive parent. These results undermine what is defended by theories like PAS with no scientific evidence, and underline the need to use scientific procedures to test the reliability of minors’ testimony based on the idea that children tell the truth.
Scientific literature has pointed to a growing body of empirical studies that contribute to an accurate mapping of parental alienation. This descriptive literature review of empirical research on parental alienation - in peer-reviewed scientific journals between January 2000 and December 2018 – seeks to characterize the research methodologies and to provide a summary of the main research themes. Several academic databases (B-On: Online Knowledge Library–Search, Ovid, ProQuest, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO and Google Scholar) were systematically searched and the review followed the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Forty-three studies were included, the majority of them following a quantitative, retrospective and cross-sectional design. Parental alienation was mainly associated with divorce and child custody dispute contexts. Results also revealed the main themes targeted by empirical research: Development and use of assessment measures for parental alienation; Parental alienation patterns; Validation of the parental alienation syndrome construct; Parental alienation impact; Parental alienation viewed as child abuse; Professionals’ voices and maps on parental alienation. Limitations and recommendations for future research on parental alienation are discussed, highlighting common themes and research gaps.
This work focuses on the ethical dilemma involving whether to defend children and obey the law when a judge determines that a parent should deliver the child to the other parent although the parent is aware that the child is being abused by the other parent, which could not be determined by the justice system. A study was conducted based on the Milgram Experiment regarding obedience to authority. The participants comprised 480 adult mothers who had not experienced having had custody of their children revoked by the justice system. An ad hoc questionnaire was created to gather socio-demographic data to present a fictitious situation extracted from real legal cases in which a mother’s custody of her daughter was revoked, and the SCL-90-R scale. The results demonstrate how women who are separated from their children display the same behavior that would be displayed by any mother defending her children. Milgram’s paradigm of Obedience to Authority (OTA) would not work, and the results are more consistent with the so-called Relationship Condition. Taking children away from their mothers causes serious psychological damage and unscientific theories should not be used to address child abuse.
The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA‐ from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child's rejecting stance. By contrast, multi‐factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children's rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi‐factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention‐focused prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions.
For over fifteen years, Spain has seen the promulgation of feminist-inspired legal frameworks to combat male violence against women and, as a result, Spanish law contains a variety of mechanisms that target male violence. However, the parallel dissemination of the pseudo-scientific concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), especially since 2004, has become a tool to stall the enforcement of gender equality legislation. Specifically, PAS is causing severe harm in legal procedures related to marital breakdown. Both the government and the General Council of the Judiciary have taken a stand against the deployment of PAS in the legal system, but the notion of parental alienation is still widely used in family courts. This article analyses the contemporary significance of PAS in Spain. It grounds itself in an examination of key government reports and law cases, and draws on qualitative survey data from interviews with 20 women who have been either formally accused, or threatened with accusations of parental alienation.
Background: Allegations of child sexual abuse provide complex challenges to family court systems. Objectives: Despite being highly criticised in the academic research, this analysis examined whether and how the gendered concepts of parental alienation syndrome or parental alienation more broadly are still being used to rebut allegations of child sexual abuse in family court cases in Australia. Parental Alienation is broadly understood as the deliberate actions of one parent to disrupt and prevent children's ongoing relationships with their other parent, in this case through allegations of abuse. Methods: We examined 357 publicly available judgements of the Family Court of Australia between 2010 and 2015. Judgements were analysed qualitatively for key themes using N-VIVO software. Results: Five themes emerged in the data, including use of the concept of parental alienation, coaching, mothers as manipulative, mothers as mentally ill, and impact of the best interest of the child. Conclusions: Results indicate that judgements made in the Family Court of Australia are both similar and divergent from those made in other jurisdictions internationally. The complexity of responding to allegations of child sexual abuse for parents is discussed.
Full-text available
The authors of this article wish to respond to the criticism of Bernet, Verrocchio and Korosi, who have disqualified our research on contradictory grounds by claiming on the one hand that our methodology is flawed and the data is invalid, but simultaneously asserting the validity of our data for confirming Gardner's theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This article begins by exploring the reasoning behind the arguments of our critics given that they resort to the "Devil's Proof of proving a negative" or "probatio diabolica" in Latin. Then, the relationship between PAS, child violence, and child sexual abuse will be examined before identifying PAS as a type of abuse. Moreover, two scientific concepts that explain the Psychology of child testimony i.e., false memory and unconscious transference, will be reviewed before undertaking a general critic of PAS, highlighting it is unscientific and bears a close resemblance to psychoanalytical theory. Thus, PAS leads to legal insecurity and hinders the investigation of reports of child abuse. Finally, criticism regarding supposed errors in bibliographical references and experimental design will also be addressed, and the conclusions will focus on measures designed to enhance the protection of the child by ensuring legal decision-making is based on scientifically attested methods and theories, which are the only safeguards protecting the legal interests and wellbeing of the child.
Full-text available
Judicial Family Law proceedings are peculiar; a large number of cases are never closed, until the children reach adulthood. We selected three variables to test whether they can explain the credibility of each party and agent in the proceedings: guiding principle that orients the court's decision, confirmation of maternal manipulation in the psycho-social report, and establishing credibility of the child's testimony. An incidental sample of 169 people was used. The three manipulated variables imply very different levels of credibility for each party to the proceedings. Finally, proposed modifications to court proceedings are suggested to ensure adequate protection of children.
Full-text available
A purposed syndrome of so-called parental alienation (PAS), unsupported by any evidence-based data, unknown in medical settings, unquoted in medical books, absent in DSM and ICD, never demonstrated by controlled studies published in high scientific level journals, is rampant in Courts where it can lead to loose parental custody. During a divorce trial, almost always the mothers and the children, become joint in a sort of folie au deux, in a denigration campaign of ex-husband/father. From a review on this issue it seems evident its theoretical roots lie on a theory that justify gender violence and children sexual abuse. The bias that both of them are layers and that he children have not autonomy block their possibility of any defence in front of a Court. In severe cases, PAS becomes a new and efficient tool of intra-familiar violence. The treatment of severe cases is to stop any contact between mother and children. The resort to PAS in Courts must be strongly rejected.
In Richard Gardner’s proposed Parental alienation syndrome, children reject contact with the noncustodial parent due to manipulation from the custodial parent. We investigated whether children are, in fact, easily manipulated, and how. Half of a sample of children ages 6 to 12 witnessed an incident of verbal aggression, while the other half did not. All were asked to report what happened. Half were then subjected to high pressure, stating that the aggressor would be their future teacher. Subjects were furthermore told that the perpetrator was either a good person or a bad person. After these two manipulations they reported again what they had witnessed. The results indicate that children rarely lie, and that although 40% of those who witnessed nothing created a false memory of an aggressive incident, this outcome was not influenced by the degree of pressure or positive or negative manipulation. We found no significant differences based on gender or age. We conclude that Gardner’s ideas about parental alienation syndrome, and in particular the ease of parental manipulation of children, were not empirically verified. We recommend that this concept not be used in the legal system.
Theories of parental alienation abound in high-conflict custody cases. The image of one parent brainwashing a child against the other parent fits with what we think we know about family dynamics during divorce. The concept of a diagnosable "Parental Alienation Syndrome" ("PAS") developed as an attempt to explain this phenomenon, but it has been widely discredited by mental health professionals and thus fails the standard for evidentiary admissibility. Nevertheless, PAS and related theories continue to influence the decisions of family courts, and even in jurisdictions that explicitly reject such theories, judges still face the daunting task of resolving these volatile cases. In the midst of this highly adversarial process, children deserve independent representation to ensure that their interests remain front and center. Mandating the appointment of guardians ad litem in cases involving allegations of abuse or alienation will assist courts in conducting individualized, fact-specific investigations into such allegations to craft custody orders that serve the best interests of children.
This article examines mental health and legal responses when children resist visits with noncustodial parents. In Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children, it finds a lack of rigorous analysis that endangers children. The author concludes by suggesting better ways to evaluate new theories from the social sciences. Citation conventions are based in part on "The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation" (Harvard Law Review Assoc, 17th edn, 2001).