Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation

Abstract

Since parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was identified in the 1980's, there has been a remarkable amount of misinformation regarding both PAS and parental alienation (PA). These falsehoods were published in professional journals, presented at conferences, and distributed through internet websites and blogs. This article summarizes five examples of published misinformation regarding PAS/PA. Each case study includes: the false statements that were published in the medical, psychological, or legal professional literature; the names of the individuals who made the false statements; and the steps taken to refute the falsehoods and correct the record. The writers of the misinformation were from Sweden, Tunisia, Spain, and the United States, which illustrates the international scope of PAS/PA. In one example, the misinformation reached the U.S. House of Representatives and was almost included in a formal resolution adopted by that body. The article discusses various underlying causes of the high level of polarization in PAS/PA scholarship. The article also proposes steps that both mental health and legal writers can adopt to reduce the destructive polarization that has occurred. In general, however, clinicians, forensic practitioners, and legal professionals should remain vigilant when they read articles or listen to presentations about topics that might be considered controversial.

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

“…This common conception of “parental alienation” [PA] appears to be thriving alongside continuing controversy among researchers, professional organizations, family justice practitioners, advocates and parents as to the legitimate existence of the phenomena (Bernet, Boch‐Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, ; Clawar & Rivlin, ; Fidler & Bala, ; Johnston, 2003; Meier, , ; Milchman, Geffner, & Meier, ; Nielsen, ; Walker & Shapiro, ; Warshak, , ). Despite ongoing disagreement about the quality of social science research on the subject, disparities in acceptance of PA across interdisciplinary boundaries and professional organizations, and challenges to the admissibility and use of PA in court proceedings, more than three decades after its introduction (Gardner, , ), the concept of PA continues to be embraced by widening public, professional and international audiences (Bernet, ; Lorandos, ). At the same time strong proponents and strong opponents of the ideas remain stalemated over the value of PA.…”

Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique

“…A rhetorical strategy we find often within certain writers' publications and presentations is the assertion of world‐wide consensus in favor of alienation as a diagnostic, scientific, or psycho‐legal concept without acknowledging the controversy about this consensus (Bernet, , , ; Brockhausen, ; Dum, ; Lorandos, , ). However, this “consensus” is achieved by ignoring, dismissing, or trivializing significant opposition.…”

“…The CADWG chairperson even held a press conference to make the position of the DSM‐5 committee clear and public (Crary, ). Rather than admitting that there are merits to the arguments of those who oppose consensus, Bernet, von Boch‐Galhau, Baker, and Morrison () Bernet (, ) dismisses their opposition, and insists that it is based on misinformation and disinformation, which is ultimately misguided.…”

“…A better approach was exemplified by Bernet () and colleagues (Bernet et al, ) when they used “parental alienation,” without initial capitalization, to compare parent rejection to school refusal, saying both were symptoms with several possible causes. Further, Bernet () also says, without capitalization, that “the diagnosis of parent alienation relational problem should not be used if … the child was neglected or abused.” While a step in the right direction, their analysis remains problematic because it still asserts that alienation is a “diagnosis,” which in our view is just another form of labeling because it changes a behavioral description of one type of poor parenting into a specific mental disorder. Once again, this is precisely what PA advocates had proposed, unsuccessfully, to DSM‐5 (Bernet, , p. 496), as discussed above.…”

“…There is considerable scholarship that recognizes the complexity of children's resistance or refusal to have contact with one of their separating or divorcing parents and that acknowledges to varying degrees the need to assess child abuse and domestic violence, as well as other forms of parent‐provoked or sustaining child rejection (Birnbaum & Bala, ; Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, ; Deutsch, ; Drozd, ; Fidler & Bala, ; Gordon, Stoffey, & Bottinelli, ; Johnston, ; Johnston, Walters, & Olesen, ; Kelly & Johnston, ; Lampel, 1996; Lee & Olesen, ; Ludolph & Bow, ; Racusin, Copans, & Mills, ; Siegel & Langford, ). Gardner (1999) himself said cases with child abuse were not alienation cases, and Bernet () re‐asserts this and affirms that other alienation advocates agree.…”