PARENTAL ALIENATION ABUSES CHILDREN

INTRODUCTION: 

This research paper will show that Parental Alienation Syndrome [PAS] is a real phenomenon that deserves therapeutic recognition and judicial recognition in child custody cases and determinations.  Furthermore, the paper will show that when PAS is diagnosed and testified to by experts in the mental health field, their testimony should be admissible and their recommendations should be followed by the court.  PAS infliction upon a child should preclude an award of sole or joint custody to the parent who engages in it because this is in the child’s best interest.  It should be considered an abuse of a judge’s discretion to ignore the mental health experts’ recommended treatment for the afflicted PAS child.  However, PAS is controversial when therapists diagnose it in children of divorce, and PAS is even more controversial when placed in a legal context.  I will argue that the surrounding controversy should not preclude using PAS theory to help determine the best interest of the child for purposes of custody and placement.  Left unheeded, PAS can potentially result in the brainwashing of a child, thereby precluding the formation of a healthy relationship with one parent.  PAS causes significant mental harm to a child.               

Lawyers enlightened about PAS often seek to have qualified therapists testify as experts in court as to its existence in particular custody cases.  These experts put forward their opinions of the diagnosis, and recommend suitable remedies to be employed by the court (for the best interest of the children involved) in remedying PAS situations.  However, courts have historically been extremely hesitant in allowing these expert therapists to even express these opinions on the record, and have been even more hesitant in giving these opinions appropriate weight in their custody determinations.    

Fortunately for the mental health of future children of divorce, this is slowly beginning to change.  However, it is changing much too slowly.   I will argue that this much needed change is opposed vigorously for various reasons by specific groups who politically encourage inertia[1] in the therapeutic community, legal community and the public at large concerning PAS.         

 

WHAT IS PAS? 

 

PAS is defined as the systematic brainwashing[2] (and virtually the mental kidnapping) of a child by one parent, usually the parent with primary placement who pits the child against the other parent.  It is universally recognized that a child is better off having two healthy fit parents as opposed to just one.  Even though both parents may be found fit by the court, they usually do not equally split custody and placement of their children.  Multiple factors are considered in making these fitness determinations.       

Parents in custody disputes often disagree with the court that the other parent is fit.  Even when a court determines both parents are equally fit, and even if custody is joint, and placement equally split, the parent’s bitterness, distain, pain and fear can cause one of them to begin both consciously and subconsciously alienating the child against the other parent.  The other parent may reciprocate.  Ultimately, this may subtly or overtly result in both parents communicating their own feelings about the other parent and about the divorce to the child.  The child can often empathize with these feelings coming from the alienating parent(s).  Adding this to a child’s own need for survival and environmental happiness and considering feelings surrounding the parents splitting and divorce, a child can be swayed one way or the other to favor the custodial parent and shun the other parent.  This usually favors the parent with the most time with the child.  The strengthening of the relationship between the child and the custodial parent begins to remedy the pain from the divorce, but this comes at the expense of the other, alienated parent and ultimately harms the child.            

This form of brainwashing, when more consciously overt and systematic, is actually very abusive to the child, although PAS is usually a more subtle and systematic form of psychological abuse.  PAS can be inflicted upon a child by either the mother or father of the child and can be contributed to or encouraged by the extended family of the alienating parent.  Finally, where PAS can be attempted by a non-custodial parent, usually the alienation’s level of success correlates highly with the amount of placement time awarded to the alienating parent.  It is simply harder to successfully alienate from afar where children are concerned.  Such terms as “emotional incest,” “trauma bonds” and “Stockholm Syndrome”[3] have been used to describe the resulting symptoms in the children’s psyche.    

Dr. Richard Gardner, who first recognized and published works coining the term Parental Alienation Syndrome, defines PAS as “a disturbance occurring in children who are preoccupied with depreciation and criticism of a parent and denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.”[4]                     

The entire set of criteria[5] set forth by Dr. Gardner in his description of the parental alienation syndrome is as follows:      

1.                          Child is preoccupied with depreciation and criticism of the parent that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.

2.                          Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious factors within the alienating parent contribute to the child’s alienation from the other. 

3.                          Denigration of the parent has the quality of a litany, a rehearsed quality.  There is phraseology not usually used by the child. 

4.                          Child justifies the alienation with memories of minor altercations experienced in the relationship with the parent which are trivial and which most children would have forgotten.  When asked, the children are unable to give more compelling reasons. 

5.                          The alienating parent will concur with the children and support their belief that these reasons justify the alienation.

6.                          Hatred of the parent is most intense when the alienating parent and the child are in the presence of the alienated parent.  However, when the child is alone with the alienated parent, the child may exhibit hatred, neutrality, or expressions of affection. 

7.                          If the child begins to enjoy him/herself with the alienated parent, there may be episodes of “stiffening up” and resuming withdrawal and animosity, as though they have done something wrong.  Alternatively, the child may ask the alienated parent not to reveal his/her affection to the other parent. 

8.                          The degree of animosity in the child’s behavior and verbalizations may vary with the degree of proximity to the alienating parent. 

9.                          Hatred of the parent often extends to include the alienated parent’s extended family, with even less justification by the child.

10.                      The alienating parent is generally unconcerned with the psychological effects on the child of the rejection of parent and extended family. 

11.                      The child’s hatred of the alienated parent is often impervious to evidence which contradicts his/her position. 

12.                      The child’s position seemingly lacks ambivalence.  The alienated parent is “all bad” the alienating parent is “all good.” 

13.                      The child is apt to exhibit a guiltless disregard for the feelings of the alienated parent. 

14.                      The child fears the loss of the love of the alienating parent. 

 

Alienation tactics can significantly vary in their manifestations or degree to which they are employed, and may include the recruitment or enticement of others to engage in these same types of behaviors.  Tactics include the following:      

 

1. Alienating parent engages in various methods of interference with victim parent’s custody and/or visitation.  This could range from making joint legal decisions difficult for the victim parent to outright unilateral decision making.  This can also encompass various methods and employing various excuses geared toward the denial of the victim parent’s ordered visitation and/or placement times.

2.  Moving away from the victim parent in order to deny them access to their children.

3.  Alienating parent being unreasonable regarding the sharing of transportation or creating logistical problems concerning transfers of children. 

4.  Verbal denigration of other parent and/or encouragement [both consciously and subconsciously] of the children to also do so.  This can either be to the child directly or to others with the child present.     

5.  Sending children in old or worn clothing to the other parent’s home in an effort to have them buy and return the children in new clothing. 

6.  Putting pressure on the child and/or other parent to return all toys or clothing sent with them to the other parent’s home. 

7.  Not allowing the children access to mail or phone messages from the other parent or not allowing the children to have written or telephone contact with the other parent.  This could include discouraging the child from returning calls or not encouraging younger children to return calls to the other parent. 

8.  Feeding or not feeding the children purposely before the other parent’s visitation times. 

9.  Giving the children medication prior to the other parent’s visitation times without disclosing it to them. 

10.  Taking children to therapists, medical doctors, or dentists without telling the other parent. 

11.  Allowing for significantly fewer limits or less discipline, or providing significantly less parenting in order to become the favored parent.   

12.  Engaging in various forms of intimidation or abuse toward the child in order to promote the child disfavoring the other parent. 

13.  Refusal to communicate with the other parent about necessary issues concerning the children. 

14.  Making and/or encouraging the children to make false accusations of various forms of abuse on either themselves, or their children as being done by the victim parent.  This is often a very common and very effective alienation tactic when it is employed.  It is also the most common form of alienation tactic employed which results in the most controversial positions regarding PAS.          

15.  Allowing the children to make “their own” decisions when it is convenient for the alienating parent, but using the children’s age as a limiting factor for other decisions.

16.  Making various false claims about the other parent’s choices and decisions in regard to their children, or encouraging or recruiting others to do so. 

17.  Placing emphasis upon, and communicating with the children about what each parent can provide to their children or making comparisons with regard to quality of possessions in each home.  May also include a effort to purchase things for the child that the other parent couldn’t or wouldn’t provide for various reasons.      

18.  Disallowing other parent’s family involvement or engaging in verbal denigration of other parent’s family or friends to the child, or in their presence.  This could include new spouses, or extended family visits etc.   

19.  Encouraging one’s own family and friends to also engage in alienating behavior toward the child and/or the child’s other parent.

20.  Various subversive behaviors or comments with the intention of negatively affecting the other parent’s relationship with their children, various forms of passive aggressive behaviors toward them, promoting a campaign of denigration to others about them, etc.  This includes recruiting other people, both those involved and those not involved with the case, to also promote or justify the other parent’s alienation and non-involvement with their children.

21.  Using disclosing things to the other parent as a form of threat to the children in order to encourage fear in them.

22.  Non disclosure of children’s extra curricular activities to the other parent so that they may not attend nor be involved in them.  This could also include disallowing the children to participate in these types of activities with this intention in mind.

23.  Telling the child or children that the other parent does not love them or that they should fear the other parent for various reasons.                               

 

A simple review of the custody cases explained at the end of this paper, both before and after PAS was “officially” labeled a valid diagnosis, plainly shows its truth in existence and widespread occurrences.  Given the complex dynamics and emotions involved with heated and bitter custody disputes, common sense alone should attest to PAS being a real phenomenon.  Bearing in mind the varying human reactions and responses to such situations when desperation results from facing a loss of custody or placement time with one’s children, this also should reveal PAS as a very real phenomenon occurring in many custody disputes both before and after custody determinations are made.         

 

JUDICIAL NON-RECOGNITION OF PAS AND ITS EFFECTS ON CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS: 

 

In the contemporary United States, we currently have a variety of laws; both state[6] and federal,[7] that attempt to provide a custodial parent, the appropriate remedies[8] for the physical kidnapping of their child.  This includes the kidnapping by the child’s non-custodial parent, and also applies when the legal custody of the child is jointly shared between two parents and one of these parents kidnaps the child.  Even in the case where a non-custodial parent’s court ordered physical placement or visitation time is merely interfered with by a custodial parent, there are established laws[9] that can result in civil actions, contempt motions, motions for changes and modification in legal custody and physical placement, as well as criminal remedies.      

However, a “hole” exists where PAS is concerned as there are no statutory remedies nor is there specific case law that is routinely followed, when PAS is employed by parents against their own children.  Curiously, in many states there are either very few cases or varying and inconsistent precedent concerning Parental Alienation Syndrome [PAS].  At the conclusion of this paper I have provided a snapshot of several states’ current case law regarding PAS.  PAS is slowly being given more credence, however, custody determinations are continuing every day without the benefit many of our children would be awarded through PAS receiving the recognition it deserves in court.           

Legally, PAS being disregarded or discounted by the courts often results in abhorrent custody determinations, which sometimes includes sole legal custody and primary placement being given to reward the successful alienating parent.  This is in direct opposition toward the court’s intended “best interest of the child” standard in making custody and placement determinations.

The lack of legal authority regarding PAS is primarily due to the purported inadmissibility of the expert testimony of those professionals most familiar with the symptoms, identification and acknowledgement of PAS.  PAS determinations seem to be held to a very high level of scrutiny when determining admissibility, and an even higher standard when recommended remedies are considered.  Evidentiary standards regarding expert admissibility, such as the Frye test, often lead courts to consider only whether or not the expert’s testimony regarding the syndrome evidence is “generally accepted in the field.”  Even in states such as Wisconsin,[10] where the arguably lessened “Daubert”[11] standard applies, PAS has been rejected by the courts.  Where PAS expert testimony was ruled admissible in the controlling fourteen year old 1992 Wisconsin case, the judge simply ignored the recommendation by the expert and rejected it as a remedy.  Only in the most recent cases in many states [not including Wisconsin] is PAS slowly gaining the recognition it deserves.  Even then, the recommended remedy for the child, offered by the experts, may not be followed.             

There are other readily admissible forms of once controversial “syndrome” and currently even more controversial “profile” evidence that are now routinely considered admissible by the courts such as Battered Women’s Syndrome, Child Abuse Syndrome, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder etc.  Moreover in cases involving these now recognized syndromes, the expert’s recommendation is usually followed.  These once controversial, but now more politically acceptable, alternative forms of syndrome evidence once began in their infancies as mere theories, based on limited case studies, just like PAS.  However, these other “syndromes” are simply more politically acceptable than PAS.  PAS is less generally acceptable to therapists and courts because the staunch political backing which made syndromes such as Battered Women’s Syndrome acceptable, is not behind (and is probably opposed to) accepting PAS as a syndrome.  Accepting PAS would result in more fathers receiving primary custody and placement.  Fathers are generally the target of allegations of physical and sexual spousal and child abuse and PAS recognition would help the court to better know when these allegations are false. 

Despite the backlash PAS is still becoming much more recognized by specialists and experts who are actually performing case studies.[12]    This has resulted in published works by legal professionals doing their own research resulting in law review articles[13]^{, [14]}  that recognize PAS.  The fact is that more case studies by experts would likely be forthcoming if it were not the case that one must be actually willing to place his or her professional reputation on the line to acknowledge PAS in the face of strong politically and professionally motivated opposition.  Sometimes these groups viciously attack those who promote or even acknowledge PAS and advocate that PAS not be accepted and recognized by the courts, the psychological profession, or the public at large.

A major problem is that the courts and those who are involved in influencing the court with regard to the ultimate custody and placement determinations either lack the proper resources, or they do not employ sufficient time and resources to thoroughly investigate, and uncover alienation tactics.  Therefore courts must often make their final determinations never really knowing whether (and to what degree) a parent is employing one of these previously described tactics.  Crucial information is simply not revealed to the court to enable it to make determinations that are in the best interest of the children.  The court routinely must depend on mere speculation.  Making such highly speculative, yet tremendously important and crucial determinations based on insufficient information is inconsistent with the best interest of the child standard, which should be foremost and unlimited in scope and regarding the allocation of resources. 

Significantly more resources are often allocated to criminal investigations other types of civil cases.  A child’s best interest determination is simply not based upon factors that must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt nor any preponderance of the evidence despite these determinations having crucial long term effects on our children and potential repercussions to our society as a whole.  Arguably, some reallocation of these resources in making better custody and placement determinations could actually serve to decrease some of the resources that need to be spent later after those children whose best interests are not met early enough start to affect our society as adults through crime and various social ills.    

 

IT DOES NOT TAKE TWO PARENTS TO CAUSE ALIENATION: 

 

One huge mistake often made by professionals is that a child suffering from Parental Alienation Syndrome is simply reacting to both parent’s alienation tactics.  What is most often the case is that one parent originates the alienation and in order to correct the unfounded misinformation constantly fed to the child, attempts are made by the other parent to correct the child’s misperceptions.  This in and of itself leads to the further misperception, often misdiagnosed by the controlling professionals and courts as an “equal” type of alienation attempt made by the originally alienated parent toward the originally alienating parent.  It is simply incorrect to assume that it takes two, or both parents to foster such alienation and is not realistic to presume that the alienated parent can successfully “take the higher ground” constantly by simply ignoring the alienating parent’s tactics.  This would allow the alienation to continue effectively without the alienated parent making any attempts to teach their own children the truth, or to foster a respect toward those who tell the truth.  How do you effectively teach your child, as a non-custodial or alienated parent, when you generally have less placement, what the difference is between basic right and wrong, truth and lies, respect for others, when these same children are systematically being taught that lies, manipulation, put downs, alienation and such types of behaviors are both exercised and rewarded by the alienating parent, who usually is, and will remain effective, because they have primary placement and custody?

 

THERAPY’S CONFLICT WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: 

 

Mental health therapists and counselors, who treat children for the varying effects of divorce, often also [both knowingly and unknowingly] reinforce the alienating parent’s assertions and provide “treatment” to the victim child on this basis.  This results in a deepening and galvanizing effect on the child regarding the alienation.  The unwarranted and false ideologies of the alienating parent regarding the opposing parent are simply treated by the therapist as if they are true.  These misperceptions can seem to be reinforced and justified by the therapist to the child.   

Therapeutic treatments and counseling can often further promote the alienation.  This of course is only true if the child is simply believed by the therapist as to the source of feelings and problems, and PAS is not sufficiently considered as a cause.  If the alienating parent rewards the child, bolsters his or her perceptions or manipulates or coerces the child’s perceptions toward negative views toward the other alienated parent, and the therapist also listens to or believes the alienating parent as to why the child needs counseling, the unwitting therapist may actually “aid” the alienation via the treatment process.  This child then is simply relating, parroting, and mirroring the “Stockholm Syndrome”³ effects of his or her mental kidnapping, now magnified by the therapeutic process.      

The complexities regarding the identification of the true origins of these symptoms are hard for therapists to identify in a PAS situation.  It is often the alienating parent who seeks out the therapist in the first place in a conscious or unconscious attempt to further manipulate the child’s feelings against the other parent.  Many therapists are trained to simply give credence to the patient child’s perceptions and make him or her feel better about himself or herself regardless of the truth.  More commonly, treating therapists who come face to face with PAS afflicted child patients often want to be officially involved in custody battles like they want the plague.  However, their willful blindness and non-committed involvement do a disservice to their patients and violate their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.  The children are suffering with (at best) only their symptoms being addressed and the cause being ignored.  At worst these therapists are in fact aiding the alienation.  There is significantly unjustified and unprofessional therapeutic inertia¹ involved in much of the therapist community.    

This in my opinion is much worse than even the legal injustices done in custody determinations.  In fact, there currently is no official psychological diagnosis for a child subject to this type of parental maltreatment in the DSM IV that would consider that child an actual victim of parental abuses.  Often only the symptoms are diagnosed and treated and the causes of these symptoms are never even truly established.  Without this specific diagnosis, misdiagnosis often occurs and treatment is often limited so that treatment is not administered to the degree necessary for the mental health of the child.   

 

WHY PAS IS CONTROVERSIAL, NOT GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS A VALID DIAGNOSIS, AND NOT GIVEN THE PROPER WEIGHT IN CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS.     

  

The primary reason for the “hole” that exists in the law is due to high evidentiary standards being interpreted by those with the most politically to lose in recognizing PAS as a valid syndrome.  Taking a “politically incorrect” position [by acknowledging PAS as valid and thus ruling expert testimony on PAS admissible] as an elected official [as most of our circuit court judges are] could jeopardize their reelection.    

There is strong opposition to PAS theory by certain particular, very strongly backed and completely politically motivated, special interest and advocacy groups.  One of these groups, perhaps the most powerful politically, is the National Organization for Women.  PAS very often (and in fact most often) involves a redistribution of custody and placement away from alienating “single mothers” as the alienators and therefore PAS is not “politically correct.”  Acceptance of PAS would very likely mean that more fathers get custody.  California courts for example, are flooded with amicus curie briefs which argue that PAS is not a valid diagnosis and shouldn’t be given any weight in court.  This is true despite the fact that both fathers and mothers can in fact alienate their children and subject them to PAS.  The reality in America is that mothers are generally granted more custody and placement than fathers which in my opinion is why PAS is being so fiercely rejected by NOW.  The fact that mothers generally receive more placement and custody does bring forth another controversy that I will save for another paper but that I think clearly reveals why NOW is showing such interest against PAS.            

Admittedly, some of these harsh criticisms concerning PAS are given for reasons which can appear to be, on their face, understandably very grave concerns, such as the potential for real abusers to falsely claim PAS.  However, these criticisms should only be given credence if the historical lessons of the Salem Witchcraft Trials are forgotten, and our basic legal premise that “it is better that 100 guilty men go free, than to wrongly convict one innocent man” is completely ignored.  As you can plainly see by the number of amicus curiae filed by NOW against PAS, when these [perhaps] guilty men are accused domestic abusers and accused child abusers or possibly even pedophiles, you can understand both why there is such grave concern and also why these accused “witches” will often simply “hang,” much as those accused did in Salem. 

This is why PAS, with the potential for being a haven for some actual abusers, faces such staunch opposition, and our kids are not able to receive the necessary justice and therapy that acknowledgement of PAS could potentially provide.  This is also why those professionals who actually [and accurately] recognize PAS as a syndrome make absolutely sure to note that PAS only applies to those children who have NOT actually suffered from forms of abuse and therefore have no real substantiating reasons [or precise articulations appropriate for a child] for their views toward the alienated parent.  This is apparently not enough reason or justification for PAS’s politically charged opposition forces to accept PAS as even a possible syndrome.

The simple cure would be for therapists, courts and the public to embrace PAS for what it is, an abusive method an alienating parent [that is not gender specific] often employs in divorce situations.  The psychiatric community should try to study and recognize the host collection of symptoms in children, and employ appropriate counter therapy.  Most importantly, therapists should be eager and willing to testify to their findings in court for the children involved if required.  The inertia and fear¹ must cease for the benefit of the children of those divorced.  The time has come to put the true best interest of our children first and therefore the rule of law regarding our nation’s custody standard’s first and foremost in custody determinations. 

 

IN BALANCING THE INTERESTS INVOLVED, THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD STANDARD SHOULD ALWAYS PREVAIL IN CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS REGARDLESS OF OUTSIDE POLITICAL INFLUENCES:   

 

Because of the complex competing interests explained in this paper regarding PAS, its treatment is subject to a perilous balancing of interests by those involved.  This balance must be struck between the benefits in allowing PAS to continue “officially” unrecognized and unheeded by psychology experts and the court.  This non-recognition of PAS results in having children face victimization by bitter or scorned ex-spouses, who are completely disregarding the child’s best interests.  Alternatively, the other interest being the potential safety provided to children by the blanket treatment of every assertion or accusation made by children, made under any circumstance, as an expected and assumed statement of truth.  These assertions are currently considered true enough to be given the most legal weight in all situations for which proof of innocence is not beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is a balance regarding how the child’s best interest will most likely be served, and children suffering from PAS are the current losers.  The winners are those children whose current custody determinations take them away from possible abuse at the expense of those children who suffer from PAS abuses.  Again, this is highly speculative.                  

PAS has been raised as a defense, as well as both denied and attacked, in cases involving allegations of domestic violence, child physical abuse, parental substance abuse cases, and child sexual abuse.  This often polarizes the various mental health professionals involved in these cases away from a diagnosis of PAS and to instead treat these more recognizable forms of abuse.  Advocacy groups for mothers, fathers, children and former physical and sexual abuse victims have often been directly recruited into the [PAS] conflict.⁵   These advocacy groups often have additional interests that further obscure the recognition of PAS.        

Meanwhile, the victimized, psychologically kidnapped and brainwashed child and the innocently alienated parent are simply lost in the political bureaucracy and crossfire that surrounds the controversy of PAS as a true diagnosis and as a legally recognized and admissible syndrome.  The effects of children subject to possible or potential physical and sexual abuse are so scary and adverse in our minds, that the very institutions designed to prevent such abuse are in fact now helping to foster acceptance of a startling new form of child abuse, PAS inflicted upon children by an alienating parent, psychological parental kidnapping. 

         

MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND MY FIRST AWARENESS OF PAS CONTROVERSY: 

 

What happens when you present a child to a clinical therapist or therapy organization who either fails to know about PAS or has been told that only abusive fathers claim PAS?  Or what if the therapeutic organization is primarily funded by special interest advocacy groups under the guise of providing much needed therapy for women and children victims of physical or sexual abuse?  What happens is that the mere claim suggesting the recognition of PAS often goes completely against their organization’s charter and justification.  If you recognize it or claim your child as a victim of it, you are likely to be deemed guilty of being a possible pedophile or probable abuser.  I know this from first hand experience. 

For example, I had learned about six months after the fact that my ex wife had been taking my then 6 year old son out of school weekly and bringing my child to Reach Counseling Services, an Oshkosh therapy organization that specializes in providing therapy for victims of sexual abuse.  [According to my ex wife, they also do routine “play therapy” for children, and she just “heard they were good.”]  Of course when I learned of my son being taken to this particular organization I was deeply and extremely concerned, and I was both fearful, and legitimately angry for being mislead that my son was in school during this time.  PAS is often directly perpetrated through false claims of both physical and sexual abuse toward both the mother and the child.  I also know that up until this date, my ex wife had been making every attempt at PAS she could get away with.  However, any anger, no matter how legitimate, was of course not going to be beneficial in my approaching this problem, so in my son’s best interest it was simply “let go” yet again and I decided to approach this situation very cautiously and yet very openly.    

After consulting with my attorney, and discussing things with my wife [herself a therapist] I chose to approach Reach Counseling [in Oshkosh] directly, on my own.  I wanted to simply explain that I was a father who had joint legal custody and that I was very “open” to the benefits that therapy could potentially provide to my son.  Again, I explained that my current wife is a therapist and that I fully understood the benefits and importance of therapy and I was more than willing to have my son continue in his treatment there.  My condition was that I simply wanted to be informed, included and involved with my son’s treatment.  However, by this time, many months of “treatment” had passed and my ex wife had successfully convinced them to completely exclude me.   The therapists involved [I talked to the counselor, her supervisor, and the supervisor of her supervisor all who held the same view of PAS] actually denied me access to information about previous sessions, access to future sessions and even any of the therapy notes regarding my son.  [I would learn about a year later that my ex wife had in fact been physically abusing my son for several years and of course intimidating him into providing Reach with her own negative views toward me for sake of future custody.  My son is a classic victim of attempted PAS by his mother and does suffer from it in a mild to moderate form.]      

I was completely shocked at all of their responses and tried to explain that my ex wife systematically alienates my son in every way possible against me, from disallowing my son to receive messages and return phone calls, to my ex wife telling him that she “hates me,” making him afraid not to return his clothes to her house, and rewarding him for any negative feelings expressed about our household.  I also explained that from what research I had done previously into what I could do for him about what he actually faced with his biological mother, my child is a one perfect case that suffers from [mild to moderate] PAS.  He fit the mild/moderate category, as he would attempt to appease his mother [but only in her presence] by saying to her [and therefore to the Reach counselors in her presence] that “he didn’t like me” and was “scared of me,” because “I gave him consequences [consisting of time outs] when he was bad.” 

Extremely typical of PAS, my son’s mother prompted his negative comments, rewarded them, punished any dissonance and elaborated with her own bizarre and totally unsubstantiated “fears.”  My son only fit the mild to moderate category because he never fully succumbed to the pressure placed upon him by his mother by stating any of these types of feelings in my presence whatsoever.  To even hear about them was an extreme shock considering our excellent relationship together.             

The Reach counselor’s direct response to me after explaining his PAS symptoms and actually mentioning PAS by name was completely vulgar, accusatory and totally unprofessional.  I was told after mentioning PAS to her that “that is exactly what abusers say, there is no such thing as PAS.”  Her supervisor backed her decision 100% and her supervisors’ supervisor did also.  Up until this point I had no idea of the extreme backlash toward PAS by segments of the so called “therapist” community; I of course was shocked and thoroughly disgusted by these so called “professionals’” reactions and ultimately exercised my joint legal custody rights to forbid my son to continue receiving therapy from Reach Counseling.  I ultimately had to file a formal complaint against the organization to even receive almost completely “blackened out” copies of my own son’s therapy notes.  Remember, all I wanted to do was participate in the therapy process.                  

When I first “found” PAS and read up on what the criteria and symptoms and methods used by alienating parents, there was an overwhelming feeling that I had “found” what my son faced.  I was not alone.  My current wife had the very same reaction which nearly brought her to tears.  However, I had no idea that such a backlash existed toward its entire concept and such a vicious anti-recognition movement toward PAS.  This lead me to further research and interest in the subject.  After conducting internet research, I first came across “The Bible” of PAS written by Dr. Richard Gardner.³³          

 

DR. RICHARD GARDNER, THE ALIENATED FATHER OF THE PAS DIAGNOSIS: 

 

I found that Dr. Richard Gardner himself had been viciously criticized and personally attacked based on his research and publishing of his findings and for the recognition and creation of the PAS and its criterion.  Dr. Gardner has also made the mistake of entering into debates with these politically motivated entities and therefore, provided these entities with further statements to twist and take out of context.  Websites have actually been created[15] to suggest that Dr. Gardner is [with horrible and completely unprofessional and unsubstantiated implications toward his personal character simply for his case findings and subsequent publications] overly sympathetic to pedophiles.  Sadly, this is often done by taking his published words and findings totally and completely out of context and adding horrible personal character assassination attacks on Dr. Gardner.  It’s very easy to attempt to debunk research and find and exploit the weakest of flaws in research, especially without conducting any research of one’s own to actually find the opposite results.  Dr. Gardner’s detractors only true reasoning and criteria for debunking his work are [as they emphasize] that “Parental Alienation Syndrome is NOT recognized as a valid medical syndrome by either the AMA or the APA.  Gardner's work has never been up for peer review.”[16] Again, they are not attempting to conduct their own case studies, nor are they considering that PAS is in its infancy, primarily due to the politically motivated attacks on the character and reputations of those peers who attempt to agree with Dr. Gardner.  In fact, there have been numerous articles that acknowledge the existence of PAS; it’s just not a profitable practice professionally or for a scientist’s reputation to conduct these studies that are so vigorously opposed.  However, there are in fact studies that have been done with sample groups that support Dr. Gardner’s theories.⁵ Countless law review articles have also been published on the subject and incredibly slowly it is being accepted more and more in courts across the United States through the admissibility of PAS expert testimony.         

The fact is that Dr. Richard A. Gardner was [he is now deceased] one of the most popular child psychiatrists in the country.  He wrote scores of books, lectured internationally, served as an expert witness in numerous child custody disputes, and still is regularly quoted in the press.  Soon, his authority will be formally acknowledged in what is a companion volume to the DSM-IV.  Dr. Gardner's invited contributions to the Treatment Statistical Manual of Behavioral and Mental Disorders, or TSM-I (New York: Jossey-Bass) finally begins to announce professional recognition for work that has been long overdue.  I see it as a welcome vindication of his theories and an obvious counterblow to past criticism that his assessment tools have not been generally accepted by the scientific community.  Additionally, Dr. Gardner's peer reviewed work consists of papers published in legal journals -- Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, New Jersey Family Lawyer, and similar publications.  A review of how a growing number of state courts have but only recently began to accept PAS testimony corroborates this very slow, but crucial trend toward the recognition of PAS.

 

CONCLUSION & SUMMARY: 

 

At this point, you now should be able to appreciate the uphill battle an alienated parent has to face regarding judgments made upon them either officially or unofficially.  These judgments are made by the legal system, the therapeutic community, the public at large and by parents themselves as they face hardship in fostering and maintaining a healthy relationship and bond with their victimized child.  You should also be able to see how established political forces and personal and professional dynamics become involved in the mental health and legal communities’ decisions regarding PAS and how these can hinder the recognition and effective treatment  and administration of justice for children victimized by PAS.  Most importantly however, it should be apparent that PAS does in fact exist, despite the debate over whether or not it is a syndrome.  PAS has the potential to affect children in a devastating psychologically abusive manner, and must somehow be addressed in our courts.  It needs to be stopped before its effects are even more widespread among our nation’s teens, adults, and future parents of tomorrow.

Causing mental harm to a child is a criminal offense.[17]  PAS however, is only treated in custody determinations as one “potential” factor[18] in the awarding of child custody.  Other factors like sexual and physical abuse are given significantly more weight in making custody determinations than is mental harm when PAS is present.  PAS, even when diagnosed and recognized has also never, in and of itself, been the basis for any child abuse criminal prosecutions that I could find in any of my research.              

 

OUTLOOK FOR PAS? 

 

One day in the future, I hope that all children may hopefully be relieved of such horrible psychological abuses by alienating parents; that these children will receive the appropriate therapeutic treatment for PAS recovery, and that their parents will receive the appropriate justice.  Political motivations and legitimate concerns must make room for justice; both on a case by case, and on a precedential basis. At this point in the history of PAS theory this is only a dream.  

However, much more formal awareness about, education concerning and acknowledgement of PAS is needed on a grand scale.  It is ultimately the judges and courts of our nation along with those mental health professionals actually seeking patient recovery as their primary concern, who must take an active role in permitting information about PAS to be received in the eyes of the fact finders in specific cases before PAS will be generally accepted.  PAS is now being argued in many courts and passing the evidentiary standards in admissibility much more frequently.  The final step is to hold the judges accountable when, as he did in the controlling Wisconsin case, they totally disregard the therapists’ recommendations concerning PAS.  This is not a custody determination consistent with the best interest of the suffering child.  PAS concepts and PAS CLE training should be mandatory for those lawyers, Guardian Ad Litems and Judges involved who are involved in custody determinations.      

 

A SNAPSHOT OF VARIOUS STATES’ CASE LAW REGARDING PAS: 

                 

A search on Westlaw, for “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in all federal and state cases, returns only 84 documents.  However, I have decided to attempt to compile a snapshot of several states’ approaches toward PAS and an evolution of their case law.      

 

Federal:

I found only this one case that mentioned PAS.

(2001) Edwards v. Williams, 170 F.Supp.2d 727 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Kentucky)

Court dismissed Section 1983 violation of civil rights lawsuit brought against child protection agency employees and others in their capacities as result of their investigation of allegations made by estranged wife who actually worked for child protection agency and allegedly had severely coached her daughter, and influenced the investigation through her employment position.  Father claimed PAS went completely unrecognized by investigators and his suit was ultimately dismissed.  Child Protection Agency employees were held entitled to qualified immunity.           

 

Alabama:

(1983) Hudson v. Hudson, 429 So.2d 1100 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama) Affirmed holding mother in civil contempt of court and incarcerating her [but suspending this sentence conditioned upon her compliance] for her failure to comply with the visitation schedule set out in court’s divorce decree.  Parental Alienation Syndrome is not mentioned.

 

(2003) C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 2003 WL 604048 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama)

(Unpublished Decision)  

“Dr. Kirkland explained that the concept of parental alienation has been researched by other professionals, including Joan Kelley and Judith Wallerstein, for over 20 years.  Dr. Kirkland said that he considered PAS, or, more correctly, the behaviors that form what has been labeled PAS, to be a form of parenting style that has been considered to have long-term ill effects on the children of divorce.” 

 

(2003) C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 2003 WL 21488740 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama)

(Unpublished Decision)

Application for Rehearing denied, held on rehearing that evidence did not support allegations that former husband abused and molested his children.  Dissent:  “The trial court decided this case largely in reliance on Dr. Kirkland’s opinion that the mother unjustly attempted to alienate the children from the father.”  Majority:  “This very determination-that the father has not molested his children-supports this court’s conclusion that the trial court’s judgment is not based on evidence concerning Parental Alienation Syndrome.”  Not quite a rush by this court to accept PAS, but they acknowledge its existence nevertheless.  No wonder these are Unpublished Opinions.      

 

Arizona: [0 Cases Found]

 

Connecticut:

(2003) Ruggiero v. Ruggiero, 819 A.2d 864 (Appellate Court of Connecticut)

This court mentions that, “The [trial] court made a factual finding that the plaintiff [Father in this case] had engaged in parental alienation.  The plaintiff’s claim concerning parental alienation dealt with the issue of the validity of a finding of Parental Alienation Syndrome.  The court did not address any potential mental health condition.  This opinion utilizes the court’s factual conclusion that the plaintiff’s activity as a parent alienated the defendant, and this court makes no decision concerning the validity of such a syndrome.”   

 

Illinois:

(2003) In re: Marriage of Bates, 794 N.E.2d 868 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2^nd Dist.)

Following a Frye hearing, the trial court ruled that PAS had gained general acceptance in the field of psychology and that Dr. Richard Gardner and other experts would be able to testify regarding PAS in this case.  Ultimately however, the trial court explained that because it construed the factors under section 602(a) of the Act and that number 8, the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the parents and the child, was applicable, it would “throw out the words ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ and follow this language instead.  Where this may be considered a possible compromise approach, I would ask if throwing out the words ‘Battered Woman’s Syndrome’ would be considered a compromise in applicable cases and how well this would be accepted.       

 

Louisiana:

(2003) White v. Kimrey, 847 So.2d 157 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit)

In trial court, psychologist testified the presence of PAS and gave his recommendation.  This finding was quoted in this appellate decision but the recommendation to award sole custody to father was not followed by the court.  Instead, the father was awarded joint custody, with primary placement.   

 

Minnesota:

(1987) Theisen v. Theisen, 405 N.W.2d 470 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota)

Custody Modification transferring custody to father, affirmed:  Mother had “consistently engaged in a pattern of unwarranted and willful interference with Father’s right of visitation and has made repeated attempts to alienate the children from their father.” 

“The children’s emotional development was also found to be in jeopardy.  In addition to alienating from their father, mother has been deceptive, misleading and manipulative in her dealing with medical providers, school personnel, mental health professionals and religious instructors, where an accurate personal history or circumstances of the family or children would have been helpful in meeting the physical and emotional needs of the children.  Mother has engaged in a pattern of manipulation and deceit to achieve her own personal monetary, emotional or social gains, and said conduct has affected adversely the emotional development of said children.”  PAS is not directly mentioned in this case.  Recognition of PAS behavior without using the PAS label is progress in the right direction, however, without PAS labeled as a syndrome does not lend properly to its weight in applicable cases.      

 

Mississippi:

(2003) Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So.2d 806 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi)

PAS expert testimony was allowed to be admissible, ultimately resulting in finding alienating mother in contempt of court, and resulting in remand for alteration of custody and placement schedule.  Court cited authority that they were not bound by the wishes of a child as to the visitation rights of the parents and correctly stated that “they are nevertheless children and, thus, more interested in the desire of the moment than in considering the long range needs for the development of a healthy relationship with both parents where that is possible.”  It was held that mother’s interference with father’s visitation was hindering his ability to nurture a close, affectionate relationship with his daughter.      

 

Missouri:

(1983) R.D.L. v. J.G.S., 659 S.W.2d 324 (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District)

“For an undisclosed period of time after the dissolution, when the father came for the child, the mother would tell the child the father did not love him.  The child wanted to hide.  In the presence of the child, [mother] had threatened to kill herself.  The child was said to suffer recurrent nightmares about the possibility.” 

Judgment affirmed custody modification awarding custody to father by trial court. 

PAS was not mentioned in this decision.

 

New York:

(1995) Young v. Young, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957 (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2^nd Dept. New York)

Like the controlling Wisconsin case, the trial court in this case [after one and a half years] dismissed the expert’s recommendation [and the Law Guardian’s recommendation] and awarded custody to mother in 1994.  This trial court took the preferences of the children into consideration when making their decision and as the court mentioned was noticeably silent as to the mother’s persistent interference with visitation.    

Unlike Wisconsin however, this case was further scrutinized and went to appeal. 

Ultimately, the original custody order was reversed and remitted. 

The N.Y. Supreme Court, en banc stated in its unanimous opinion:    

Such interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent can take many forms, the obvious being the outright denial of visitation by making the child physically unavailable at the appointed time.  However, the instant case involves a more subtle and insidious form of interference, a form of interference which, in many respects, has the potential for greater and more permanent damage to the emotional psyche of a young child than other forms of interference; namely, the psychological poisoning of a young person’s mind to turn him or her away from the noncustodial parent.  In this case, if left with their mother, the children would have no relationship with their father given the mother’s constant and consistent single-minded teaching of the children that their father is dangerous.  She has demonstrated that she is unable and unwilling to support the father’s visitation; and it was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the father’s petition for a change of custody.      

 

(1997) People v. Loomis, 658 N.Y.S.2d 787 (County Court, Suffolk County, New York)

Defendant involved with divorce proceeding with wife was charged with crimes stemming from allegations of sexual abuse.  Defendant held not to be able to compel alleged child victims or their mother to undergo evaluation by defendant’s psychiatric expert to evaluate whether reports of sexual abuse were fabrications which were motivated by “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”  Court stated “no cases have been found in New York allowing for the admission of testimony concerning the “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”  Apparently, these court officials did not view the previous case.

 

(2002) Zafran v. Zafran, 740 N.Y.S.2d 596 (Supreme Court, Nassau County, New York)

Wife was allowed to proceed with Frye hearing to demonstrate that theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome had gained general acceptance in its specified field, so that expert testimony based on theory would be admissible with respect to child custody issues.         

 

North Dakota:

(1992) Haus v. Haus, 479 N.W.2d 474 (Supreme Court of North Dakota)

Mother “would not accept the fact that [Father] was given custody of [daughter]” and in an effort to substantiate her claims against [Father] subjected [daughter] to multiple intrusive examinations by medical professionals, and at least one male non-professional.  Both the trial court and appellate court found that [Father’s] mental health was superior to [Mother’s] and that [Father] would provide [daughter] with a more stable home.  PAS is not mentioned in the opinion, but court affirms custody to father.  In fact, it was noted by the court it’s concern over a report of inappropriate sexual contact between [Mother] and [Daughter.]    

 

Oregon:

(1993) In re: Marriage of Spurgeon, 849 P.2d 1132 (Court of Appeals of Oregon)

Despite husband spending the first two and one half years caring for the youngest children (seven and three years old) at home and assuming principal responsibility for the care of the children and parties’ home, the trial court awarded custody of the three children to wife and required husband to pay $360 per month in child support.  The court’s own designated custody study resulted in a recommendation that was totally ignored and not followed by the same court.  The trial court ultimately held “the fact that Husband has a poor relationship with [the oldest, 14 year old daughter] would be a strong factor in granting custody of all three children to Wife.”  PAS was never even considered as a possible contributing factor.

 

Pennsylvania:

(1983) Hall v. Mason, 462 A.2d 843 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania)

Evidence indicated that Mother had made obscene telephone calls to father on a regular basis and that the child was present with her on at least one occasion.  Mother often used obscene, vulgar and abusive language towards the child.  Because of mother’s instructions, the child was fearful of returning from visits with father in clothing other than that in which he arrived.  Mother engaged in vilification of Father telling the child that he was a drunk; he smoked marijuana, was a liar and did not love the child.  Mother told child that his father was the cause of their separation.  Mother referred to Father’s new wife as a whore in front of the child.  Mother told child that her new husband was child’s father not his biological father.  Mother and new husband often rose late in the day relegating the child to watching television until they arose.  Mother lacked diligence in preparing child for pre-school, resulting in his often missing the bus.  Mother’s new husband engaged in inappropriate games with the child including spitting and passing gas.  Mother and new husband engaged in inappropriate discipline of the child.  As to preference, the child answered differently to each psychologist concerning where he would like to live.  PAS was not mentioned in the opinion.       

 

(1983) Nancy E.M. v. Kenneth D.M., 462 A.2d 1386 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania)

Accusations by Mother that Father [who had been awarded custody] was “turning the children against her.”  Oldest child is adamant in his desire to stay with his father explaining that this feeling stems from his mother’s disparaging remarks about his father.  Expert testifies that child is “unable to express his feelings about his father to his mother for fear that it would upset her.”  PAS is not mentioned anywhere in this case.  Court affirms father’s custody of children.

 

Wisconsin:

(2003) Finster v. Finster, 2003 WL 22005755 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin)

(Final Publication Pending)

Court found that “for the past nine years this court has been responsible for refereeing the ongoing unreasonableness of two educated people who absolutely refuse to allow a blend of maturity, tolerance, patience, common sense, and intelligence to govern their conduct toward each other and with regard to the manner in which they parent their children.”  However, strangely enough, it was also found that Mother “had engaged in a concerted course of conduct resulting in “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”  As is often the case in Wisconsin the court immediately dismisses PAS in favor of accusing both parents of simply not getting along.  Only very hesitantly is PAS even acknowledged.   

 

(2002) Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nichols, 253 Wis.2d 149

(Supreme Court of Wisconsin)

Attorney’s license was suspended for six months, and costs assessed, after his filing a frivolous action against psychologist’s malpractice insurer who testified on behalf of the child’s father that he saw evidence of Parental Alienation Syndrome.  Curiously, this is Wisconsin’s closest published decision that nearly formally recognizes PAS.

 

(1992) Wiederholt v. Fischer, 169 Wis.2d 524 (Court of Appeals in Wisconsin)

In this, the controlling case in Wisconsin which is the only case that the actual controlling statutes and Wisconsin Practice Pleading Forms refer to, court denies father’s motion to the court to transfer primary placement of the three children to him.  The basis for this motion being that the children suffered from Parental Alienation Syndrome.  During the time mother had primary physical placement and “the girls were reluctant to go with [father] for temporary placement and would run away and climb trees when he came to pick them up.”  The court found that “the three children were alienated from their father and that the alienation was attributable to both parents.  The court also declined to order counseling for the parties or the children.  This fourteen year old case is still the currently followed case law in Wisconsin, where PAS experts are occasionally heard but their recommendations rarely followed by judges to date regarding custody determinations.             

        

Works & Cases Consulted: 

 

 

1. Wiederholt v. Fischer, 169 Wis.2d 524, 485 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. May 20, 1992). 

 

2. Zafran v. Zafran, 191 Misc.2d 60, 740 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y. March 14, 2002).

 

3. White v. Kimrey, 847 So.2d 157 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. May 14, 2003).

 

4. Ruggiero v. Ruggiero, 76 Conn.App. 338, 819 A.2d 864 (Conn. App. April 22, 2003).

 

5. In re: Marriage of Bates, 794 N.E.2d 868 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. July 9, 2003). 

 

6. Drucker, David H., (December 12, 2001), Fog of War, http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/14651/86938 [Suite 101 news website]

 

7. Finster v. Finster, 2003 WL 22005755 (Wis. App. August 26, 2003) [Final Publication Pending].

 

8. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nichols, 253 Wis.2d 149, 645 N.W.2d 270 (Wis. June 14, 2002). 

 

9. Young v. Young, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957, 212 A.D.2d 114 (N.Y. App. 2d Dept. June 26, 1995). 

 

10. Edwards v. Williams, 170 F.Supp.2d 727 (U.S. Dist Ct. E.D. Ky. October 31, 2001). 

 

11. Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So.2d 806 (Ms. Ct. App. March 18, 2003).

 

12. People v. Loomis, 172 Misc.2d 265, 658 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. March 20, 1997). 

 

13. R.D.L. v. J.G.S., 659 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. Ct. App. So. Dist. Div.2, September 30, 1983).

 

14. Hall v. Mason, 316 Pa.Super.160, 462 A.2d 843 (Pa. Sup. Ct. July 8, 1983). 

 

15. Nancy E.M. v. Kenneth D.M., 316 Pa.Super. 351, 462 A.2d 1386 (Pa. Sup. Ct. July 15, 1983).  

 

16. Theisen v. Theisen, 405 N.W.2d 470 (Minn Ct. App. May 12, 1987). 

 

17. Haus v. Haus, 479 N.W.2d 474 (N.D. January 9, 1992). 

 

18. In re: Marriage of Spurgeon, 119 Or.App. 59, 849 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. March 31, 1993).

 

19. Hudson v. Hudson, 429 So.2d 1100 (Ala. Ct. Civil App. April 6, 1983). 

 

20. The Federal Rules of Evidence:  Rule 702 Testimony by Experts:  If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:

 

1. The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
2. The testimony is the product of reliable principals and methods, and
3. The witness has applied the principals and methods reliably to the facts of the case. 

 

21. "Although the dispute is symbolized by a 'versus' which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of the line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well-being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it.  Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child's right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents' wisdom, judgment and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce." 

 Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, 
Georgia Court of Appeals, 
"In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child," July 2, 1993

Endnotes: