"Abuse of the term “Parental Alienation” and of similar concepts and terms invoked to deny child custody to the mother and grant it to a father accused of domestic violence in a manner that totally disregards the possible risks for the child must be discouraged. Accusations of parental alienation by abusive fathers against mothers must be considered as a continuation of power and control by state agencies and actors, including those deciding on child custody." - UN Human Rights Council, UN Special Procedures Experts - October 20, 2022 
Updated: November 18, 2022 

The Go-To Defense Tactic of Abusers in Family Court Since 1985: A brief history of the debunked concept of "parental alienation"​

This article examines the disturbing history of a debunked concept of "parental alienation" that has successfully extracted health, safety, well-being (and life) from safe parents and children around the globe— and basic human rights. While this issue impacts safe parents of all genders and their children, current research proves that mothers are losing custody disproportionately. We also examine the financial incentives of this "repugnant market" and how this concept birthed the "reunification camp" industry, which is actively operating in the United States (and, in fact, globally). — and what we can all do to ensure that child safety is at the forefront of custody decisions.   ​
Content warning: domestic violence, child abuse, child sexual abuse.
​"Given the correlation between the resort to the concept of parental alienation and the persistence of gender-based violence against women, the topic requires urgent attention." - UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences GENEVA (November 4, 2022)

​Let's start here: The term "parental alienation" or "parental alienation syndrome (PAS)" was created by Richard Gardner in 1985 for the purpose of deflecting the court's attention from child abuse claims against fathers. This is a debunked concept, based on Gardner's clinical observations, not scientific data, and is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the World Health Organization (WHO) or the American Medical Association. 

​Prior to his suicide, Gardner was an unpaid part-time clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. He made his money mainly as a forensic expert on a foundation of disturbing views, discrediting women and children on the basis of his debunked parental alienation theories. 
Here's a video where Richard Gardner explains the appropriate way a mother should respond to her child if they tell her they have been abused. ​
There is a large group of individuals who have repackaged Garner's original concepts of "parental alienation syndrome" and re-labeled it, "parental alienation" or, "alienation" and have benefited from the vast financial opportunities it creates within the family court system. While many do not follow Gardner’s “original version” of the concept, the repackaged variations are still used in courtrooms across the U.S. (and globally) by abusers and their attorneys, as a go-to weapon to take custody from healthy, safe parents. ​

Maralee McLean, founder of Moms Fight Back has been educating the world on parental alienation for over 30 years. She became a Child advocate, Domestic Violence expert, national professional speaker, and authored “PROSECUTED BUT NOT SILENCED: Courtroom Reform for Sexually Abused Children after she was accused of Parental Alienation Syndrome in 1987 after she brought the father's sexual abuse of their daughter to the attention of the court and lost daughter to the perpetrator. The "expert" on her case was Richard Gardner. 

Her story was featured on CNN back in 1997, 10 years after she began the fight to protect her daughter. This CNN segment also featured Richard Gardner explaining his harmful views that result in the dismissal of child abuse and often place children in the "care" of their abuser. 
Maralee's advocacy has resulted in the signing of Julie's Law in Colorado on June 22, 2021, named after her daughter,  however her heartbreaking story which began in 1987, is tragically familiar for many healthy, safe parents and their children in courtrooms today, in 2022. 

This is Addison who recently bravely spoke up about the impact a counterclaim of "alienation" had on her life after her mother tried to protect her from her father's abuse via the family court system. 
It is estimated that each year in the U.S., tens of thousands of children are court-ordered into the custody of an abusive parent. While this issue impacts parents of all genders and their children, current research proves that mothers are losing custody disproportionately, by as much as 73% of the time, when mothers allege abuse and the accused party responds with an “alienation” claim — sometimes even when the courts acknowledge that the father has abused the mother and the children. 

Research also shows that a mother's chance of losing her child to the alleged abuser doubles with a crossclaim of "alienation." There is no comparable loss rate when men allege abuse and women cross-claim alienation illustrating the presence of clear gender bias which research also shows is exacerbated by court-appointed experts. (Meier, Joan S. and Dickson, Sean and O'Sullivan, Chris and Rosen, Leora and Hayes, Jeffrey, Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations (2019). GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2019-56; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-56. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3448062 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3448062) 
​Let's continue with the history of this destructive conditions, the underlying conditions that still cause the outcomes to be the same in courtrooms across the U.S. (and globe), and what we can all do to ensure that child safety is at the forefront of custody decisions.   ​
​
To illustrate how the debunked concept of parental alienation is playing out in the courtrooms, below is an excerpt from the recent testimony of an "alienation expert" by the name of Dr. Robert Evan’s on January 6, 2021 in a Pennsylvania family court. Dr. Evan’s is a “alienation expert” despite the fact that it’s been discredited and dismissed by every credible organization. In other words, he is an expert on something that doesn’t exist.

Here's his recent testimony from January 6, 2021: 

Ducote: Can a parent inflict more damage by parental alienation to a child than the parent could inflict by, say, breaking the child’s bones?

Evans: Conceivably, yes.

Ducote: How about, you have a four year old child, and the parent punches the child in the face and leaves two black eyes. Could in your opinion, parental alienation be worse for the child than that?

Evans: Potentially, yes.

Ducote: Okay. How about if you have a 4yr old, and the father forces the child to perform fellatio on him. Could that be less harmful to the child than parental alienation?

Evans: Potentially, yes.

Ducote: How about the father actually fully penetrates his four-year-old daughter’s vagina with his penis. Could that be less harmful to the child than parental alienation?
​
Evans: Potentially

Full transcripts of Richard Ducote’s cross examination of Dr. Evans can be found here.
The term 'parental alienation' was first made famous in 1992 by Woody Allen. "Woody Allen used parental alienation in a public smear campaign against Mia Farrow in 1992 after she claimed he had sexually abused the parties’ then 7-year-old daughter, Dylan Farrow. Allen publicly accused Farrow of being a scorned woman because of his affair with her teenage daughter Soon-Yi Previn. At the time, Soon-Yi was 22 and Allen was 57." (Fersch, Forbes). See: Allen's Press Conference in the award-winning film Allen v. Farrow by Jane Doe Films on HBO where he uses DARVO tactics to paint himself as the victim and compromise the credibility of Mia Farrow. ​
To this very day, despite being a debunked theory, “Counterclaims of alienation" (Meier, NFVLC at GW) remain a defensive strategy for perpetrators of abusers against their victims (safe parents and children).

Abusers often lodge “parental alienation” or “alienation” claims against a safe parent as a legal strategy to cast doubt on their credibility and valid claims of abuse are labeled as “alienation” by the abusive parent as a defensive tactic. 
​
"Claims of “alienation” become the abuser’s weapon & legal strategy to deflect or minimize allegations of abuse in the family court system when it is their own behavior or actions that caused the children to reject them." - Tina Swithin, Author, Founder of One Mom's Battle and Family Court Awareness Month. 

As outlined by Dr. Christine Marie Cocchiola coercive and controlling parents engage in psychological maltreatment not readily researched or understood. She states that the abuser often will use specific tactics to harm his/her child. In some cases, this can cause the child to favor the safe parent and reject the abusive parent because of their behavior, leading to the abusive parent lodging false allegations of alienation via DARVO tactics, where the perpetrator attempts to portray themselves as the victim. 

DARVO, a term coined by Dr. Jennifer Freyd of the Center for Institutional Courage, stands for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” This occurs, for instance, when a guilty perpetrator assumes the role of “falsely accused” attacks the accuser’s credibility, and blames the accuser for being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

DARVO “turns the true victim into an alleged offender.” — in this case, an “alienator.”

The goal of DARVO is to deflect the accusations and create uncertainty about the facts. When a cross-claim of alienation is made in family court, women (speaking on behalf of themselves & their children seeking protection) are only believed 23% of the time. (Meier) — When in fact those least likely to make false claims of abuse are primary caregivers; usually the mothers. (Pollack).
In Family court there are many cases where “one parent is fighting for the safety of their child and one parent is fighting for control.” (Pollack)

As stated by Dr. Christine Marie Cocchiola, “Coercive controllers very often seek out weapons to retain or regain their control. A choice weapon is the very systems intended to protect victims and survivors, such as the judicial system. The coercive controller weaponizes these systems to further inflict harm on his target. --‘If I cannot control you, then I will use the systems intended to protect you, to control you.’”

​A counterclaim of parental alienation is the go-to DARVO tactic for a coercive controller to maintain control and continue the abuse of both the safe parent and the children post-separation through the use of the system that should be protecting them.

Emma Katz, Author of the new ground breaking book, Coercive Control in Children's and Mothers' Lives
states, "if we are to help children break free, then it is vital that the door will be open for them to actually exit their relationship with the abusive parent or greatly reduce their contact with them if the child decides that that’s what they want once they understand what is going on. 

​But if Family Court is involved, then that door is usually pulled shut. Children are not allowed to exit. They are compelled to continue contact with the perpetrating parent and people may or may not realize just how compelled children are," and this can have catastrophic consequences, in some cases leading to the 100% preventable murder of innocent children by their abusive parent.  ​

According to Dr. Jennifer Freyd, as highlighted in a recent NBC News segment, the antidote to DARVO is awareness (the more people know about DARVO, the less effective it becomes) and Institutional Courage “which is a commitment to seek the truth & engage in moral action, despite unpleasantness, risk & short-term cost. It is a pledge to protect and care for those who depend on the institution.” Imagine that.
​
“Findings show that women are more likely to be the victims of DARVO & third parties that are not educated in DARVO tend to find it effective. — The good news is that if we teach people about the concept of DARVO and the behavior they are much better able to identify it & be less swayed by it.” — Dr. Jennifer Freyd”

How does all of this impact how Lawyers advocate for their clients and their children who have experienced domestic violence/child abuse? 

For the answer to that, we refer to a recent Today Show feature on the Family Court System featuring Kate Snow.
Financial Gains via a Repugnant Market 

​As Grant Wyeth states in The Facilitating System of the Family Court, “Parental alienation” has become entrenched in the family court system because it is a gatekeeping device for psychiatrists and guardians ad litem. There is no power for these actors within the system if the reason why children are reluctant to engage with their abusive parent is obvious. If anyone can tell you it is because these children are afraid of them, then the services of these professionals are redundant.

​Therefore it is important for their careers to bring a layer of complexity into the situation. Judges need to defer to their assessments, not follow the rational & logical lines of enquiry. This gives these actors far greater power within the system, and a greater ability to influence outcomes themselves. 

The first is the economic incentives around the family court system, what Grant Wyeth calls a “repugnant market” — when a market forms around servicing the demand for something that is unethical or amoral. "In the family court’s case, the demand comes from abusive men (in most cases) not wanting to face consequences for their behavior and wishing to maintain their household authority. Lawyers, psychiatrists and professional witnesses all see facilitating this desire as a lucrative opportunity. The concept of “parental alienation” has become the best tool to service this demand."

​So although “parental alienation” has no professional credibility, it still maintains huge professional incentives.” (Grant Wyeth, 2021)

Once the court founds a claim of "alienation"  the children are removed (sometimes violently) from their safe parent and forced to reunite with their alleged abusive parent via a reunification camp.

Danielle Pollack of the National Family Violence Law Center and policy advisor on VAWA Kayden's Law explains reunification camps:  

"In private custody litigation, children are being court ordered --despite their fear, resistance, outcries --to spend time with a parent they are afraid of. In many cases they are ordered to a costly, unregulated, unsafe “reunification” camps or “treatments.” Subcontracted “transporters” come to physically take children to these camps, often directly from the courtroom where the decision is handed down. At these camps children are often threatened that if they don’t recant abuse allegations and/or “get along” with the allegedly abusive parent they could be sent to foster care, they may never again see their protective parent to whom they are bonded, or that the protective parent may go to jail. This can be terrifying and traumatic for children and it’s an abomination that family courts are still ordering children into these unregulated “treatments” without any valid support for their safety or effectiveness. VAWA Kayden’s Law restricts courts from doing this; I sincerely hope this dangerous practice ends and genuine oversight is created on behalf of vulnerable children." 
Updated: 8:22 PM PDT Nov 3, 2022

The Solution 

With proper evidence-based training, judges will be better equipped to understand these domestic violence perpetrator tactics and ensure that child safety is the top priority in custody decisions. 

Thankfully, in 2022, the United States Congress passed “The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act” or “Kayden’s Law” in the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization based on the following findings: 

“A child’s risk of abuse increases after a perpetrator of intimate partner violence separates from a domestic partner, even when the perpetrator has not previously directly abused the child.”

"Judges presiding over custody cases involving allegations of child abuse, child sexual abuse, & domestic violence are rarely required to receive training on these subjects, and most States have not established standards for such training.”

“More than 75 percent of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by a family member or a person known to the child.”

“Scientifically unsound theories that treat abuse allegations of mothers as likely false attempts to undermine fathers are frequently applied in family court to minimize or deny reports of abuse of parents and children.”

“Approximately 1⁄3 of parents alleged to have committed child abuse took primary custody from the protective parent reporting the abuse, placing children at ongoing risk.”

​“With respect to cases in which an allegedly abusive parent claimed the mother ‘‘alienated’’ the child, courts believed only 1 in 51.”

“Empirical research indicates that courts regularly discount allegations of child physical and sexual abuse when those allegations are raised in child custody cases.”

“Many experts who testify against abuse allegations lack expertise in the relevant type of alleged abuse, relying instead on unsound and unproven theories.”

“Child abuse is a major public health issue in the United States.”

“Total lifetime financial costs with just 1 year of confirmed cases of child maltreatment, including child physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect, result in $124,000,000,000 in annual costs to the economy of the United States.”
“The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act” aka Kayden's Law in VAWA incentivizes U.S. states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children by:

1. Restricting expert testimony to only those who are appropriately qualified to provide it. Evidence from court-appointed or outside professionals regarding alleged abuse may be admitted only when the professional possesses demonstrated expertise and experience in working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse.

2. Limiting the use of reunification camps and therapies which cannot be proven to be safe and effective.
No “reunification treatment” may be ordered by the court without scientifically valid and generally accepted proof of the safety, effectiveness and therapeutic value of the particular treatment.

3. Providing evidence-based ongoing training to judges and court personnel on family violence subject matter, including:
​
​(i) child sexual abuse;
(ii) physical abuse;
(iii) emotional abuse;
(iv) coercivecontrol;
(v) implicit and explicit bias;
(vi) trauma;
(vii) long and short-term impacts of domestic violence and child abuse on children; and
(viii) victim and perpetrator behaviors.

​4. Requiring that family courts consider the existence of protection from abuse orders when making custody determinations.​

NFVLC leadership were the architects of Kayden's Law and are now providing the technical assistance to states working to adopt its provisions. ​

What do so-called, parental alienation "experts" think of Kayden's Law?

Lynn Steinberg, a self-proclaimed 'parental alienation expert' adamantly opposes "The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act" aka Kayden's Law.

Below is an excerpt from her website outlining her opposition to Kayden's Law. In September 2022, Lynn Steinberg also issued her own press release celebrating the defeat of Piquis Law (SB 616) in California, which drew parts of Kayden's Law, but was incomplete. 
Note: In August 2022, Piqui's Law unanimously passed in the California Assembly 64-0 before it headed to the Senate Judiciary, where the California Judicial Council and Lynn Steinberg helped to block the bill. Please note, previous reports published by the California Judicial Council validated many of the issues Piqui's Law addresses; their stance on this bill was in direct contradiction to their previous findings. (See: Achieving Equal Justice for Women and Men in the Court (Final Report), Judicial Council of California, Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Court, July 1996).

This was a direct statement from the California Judicial Council's Conclusions and Recommendations in 1996: 

"Perhaps the greatest need documented by this chapter was the need for greater education. The committee recommended that judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and other personnel involved in the legal system be educated on domestic-violence issues, so they understand that domestic-violence victims are often terrified to speak up against their abusers and may be reluctant to pursue court intervention once the immediate threat of violence has passed. Because domestic violence is a crime against society, as well as an injury to the individual victim, the committee concluded that the judicial system needs to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem and its responsibility for effective response so that the cycle of domestic violence may, at last, be ended." (Judicial Council of CaliforniaAdvisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts, Page 12) This report is currently on the California Courts court.ca.gov website. 

What side of history will you be on? 

The National Safe Parents Organization is catalyzing Advocate Groups, legal professionals, experts, lawmakers, and concerned citizens and joining forces to organize global advocacy efforts for evidence-based policies which put child safety and risks at the forefront of child custody decisions. 

In closing, protection is not alienation. It's love and care. 
Please join us in advocating for evidence-based policies which put child safety and risks at the forefront of child custody decisions, starting with the Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act (aka Kayden's Law). 

Resources &  Research

INFOGRAPHIC: Child Custody Outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations in U.S. Family Courts: Infographic from the National Family Violence Law Center at GW: DOWNLOAD HERE and see below. 

STUDY: Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2712&context=faculty_publications  ​

Danielle Pollack, Policy Manager at the National Family Violence Law Center at GW & the originator of Kaydens Law explains the dangerous outcomes that counterclaims of "parental alienation" (as a defense tactic to abuse allegations) continue to create for children/safe parents. twitter.com/safe_parents/status/1576586006710878208

Overview of Kayden's Law and how it addresses parental alienation: www.nationalsafeparents.org/take-action.html  

The folks trying to get parental alienation into the DSM: www.familyaccessfightingforchildrensrights.com/monthly-webinars.html

The Facilitating System of the Family Court: grantwyeth.medium.com/the-facilitating-system-of-the-family-court-cf4ee5a3b30b 

Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner's Opinions on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse: www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html 

Spain: UN experts denounce child custody decision that ignores evidence of sexual abuse: www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/02/spain-un-experts-denounce-child-custody-decision-ignores-evidence-sexual

Intimate partner violence against women is an essential factor in the determination of child custody, say women’s rights experts: www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/SR/StatementVAW_Custody.pdf

They will use the systems intended to protect you, to control you. This article examines Post Separation Abuse, Coercive Control, the abusive tactic of parental alienation counterclaims and the Family Court System. Written with contribution and advisement from Dr. Christine Marie Cocchiola, Doctor of Clinical Social Welfare, Coercive Control Educator/Researcher, and Dr. Emma Katz, Global Coercive Control Expert and Author of “Coercive Control in Children’s and Mothers’ Lives”. custodypeace.medium.com/they-will-use-the-systems-intended-to-protect-you-to-control-you-c94670c6acdb

It is not up for debate: Family Court needs to be reimagined... And Kayden's Law is the next step: This article examines the findings from U.S. Congress, the Department of Justice, the California Judicial Council, the United Nations, and countless other researchers, along with the consistent underlying factors that cause the outcomes to be the same, regardless of the decade or the location of the courtroom. custodypeace.medium.com/it-is-not-up-for-debate-family-court-needs-to-be-reimagined-just-ask-u-s-12373b25c7d9 

Videos 

We urge everyone to raise their awareness around the disturbing roots of the debunked concept of "parental alienation," its impact on the outcomes in custody cases, the financial incentives, and the operation of something called "reunification camps", which are actively operating in the United States (and, in fact, globally).
One Moms's Battle: Reunification Camps: Exposing the Alienation Industry - In the Family Court System, reunification camps are very much the "troubled child or troubled teen industry" however, these are not troubled children or troubled teens. These are children who want to be heard, who deserve to be heard and who become a threat when they try to use their voice to advocate for themselves. We need to stop infantilizing children and teenagers -- and we need to place their safety at the forefront of family court decision making. We need to place children's rights above parental rights. Children's rights are human rights. ​

This episode of the Allen v Farrow Discussion Series features a discussion on parental alienation and the family courts.  on Parental Alienation Syndrome & Family Courts. TRIGGER WARNING: This panel includes discussion about child sexual abuse. ​

PANELISTS include:  Joan Meier (Moderator), Founder & Director, National Family Violence Law Center - Maralee McLean, Author, Speaker, Child Advocate, Domestic Violence Expert - Richard Ducote, Domestic Violence & Child Abuse Litigator, Law Reformer - Annie Kenny, Mother, Child Safety Advocate - Suzanne Chester, Managing Attorney, The Child's Advocate Legal Aid of North Carolina


​Quick Research Stats