Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018

Abstract

Courts have been dealing with alienating behaviors in high conflict family litigation for hundreds of years. Experts in the behavioral sciences have been writing about mothers and fathers manipulating their children to disparage the other parent for more than seventy years. But in the last two decades some social scientists and legal professionals have questioned the legitimacy of parental alienation as a concept and its admissibility in child abuse and child custody litigation. This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible. Thirty‐four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value in the litigation. Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibility in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with recommendations for future research.

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

“…Labeling the case an alienation one implies that causes other than alienation have been affirmatively ruled out when this may not have been done (Meier et al, ; Milchman, ). Unfortunately, this practice is common in our experience, as confirmed by national studies (e.g., Lorandos, ; Saunders et al, , ). Moreover, the practice is supported by those PAS/PAD/PA researchers who attribute their findings to alienation when they have not searched for evidence that the relationship problems their subjects report could have other causes (e.g., Baker, ).…”

“…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 terms used to refer to the concept of alienation have changed over the years from PAS to PA, then to PAD, and now back to PA (see Harman, Bernet, & Harman, ; Lorandos, ; Warshak, ). However, these name changes have not been accompanied by changes in behavioral criteria for PAS/PAD/PA (Geffner & Sandoval, ).…”

“…The behavioral criteria for alienation have not changed significantly since Gardner () first proposed them (see Geffner & Sandoval, for the history of PAS/PAD/PA). Some alienation activists invoke the use of the different names as evidence of the prevalence of the phenomenon, which they say shows that alienation has been recognized by multiple observers coming from different cultures (Lorandos, ; Lorandos et al, ). The multiple names suggest more wide‐spread support than a single name would suggest, particularly discredited names such as PAS.…”

Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation

“…46 Further, the use of PAS/PAD is now considered inadmissible in a number of courts (Hoult, 2006), as it does not meet the established legal standard for the admissibility of expert testimony (Bond, 2008). 47 In reply, this statement is apparently purposefully misleading; in fact, hundreds of trial and appellate courts in the U.S. have admitted and considered testimony regarding PAS or PA. 48 In summary, there is no accepted theory or research supporting such a syndrome (PAS) or disorder (PAD), nor the recommendations proposed by their promoters. 49 In reply, PA theory has been acknowledged and accepted by the following professional organizations in the United States: the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; 50 the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; 51 the American Academy of Pediatrics; 52 and the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.…”