Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

parental alienation evidence

 hello  everyone…another walking dead has hit the heap….How do I overcome the problem of there being no experts in Australia qualified or experienced to hold themselves out as having necessary expertise to quality as an expert witness on the specific question of parental alienation
I watched a Dr Phil program last year where the issue of 'parental alienation' was discussed. One of the guests on the show was a family lawyer putting forward all the usual objections about 'parental alienation', etc.

I liked Dr Phil's take on the matter - which was basically - "You don't need to be an expert, nor does 'parental alienation' or 'PAS' need to be recognised, for people to know that the behaviour of a parent brainwashing a child against another parent is harmful, in many way" or words to that effect.

So rather than get into an argument about 'parental alienation' identify parental behaviours/concerns/harms on a more fundamental level.

For example - "I am concerned that the child has been exposed to high levels of hostility while in the care of the mother and that she will be exposed to risk of emotional harm from unrestrained expressions of dislike of me by the mother, following a final determination of this matter. I am not confident that the mother could adopt a less adversarial position following final determinations in the Family Court. I am there concerned that exposure to such hostility will adversely impact upon our childs emotional welfare and cognitive development"

For example - "I am concerned that the overprotective nature of the mother has distorted and undermined the development of our child's relationship with me, and has impeded my alibility to participate effectively in the co-parenting of our child to any meaningful extent. I am concerned that the overprotective nature of the mother has distorted and undermined the development of our child's relationship with me, and has impeded my alibility to participate effectively in the co-parenting of our child to any meaningful extent."

For example - "I am concerned that further exposure of our child to parental disputes and family court matters will adversely affect our child's psychological and emotion wellbeing and I am not confident that the Mother or the maternal grandparents could shield our child from parental disputes or court matters following final determinations in the Family Court"

For example - "I am concerned that our child is becoming aligned to the Mother and maternal grandparents, and that further alignment could develop should our child continue to reside or remain predominately in the day-to-day care of the Mother, or remain substantially in their sphere of influence, resulting in a permanent or substantial breakdown in our child's relationship with me. I am concerned that such a breakdown could increase the likelihood of difficulties for her later in life, i.e. risk of illicit drug use, high risk taking behaviour, problems in her adult relationship with other male partners. I am concerned that the disruption to our relationship to date has undermined child's developmental processes, through deprivation of normal cognitive, emotional and social stimulation through interaction with her father".

And you could go on and on… raising concerns. Once these concerns have been put in evidence (via affidavit) the court has to consider these concerns.

If you have an expert witness in the matter or family consultant - you put these concerns to them in cross-examination - and get them to acknowledge/concede all the possible harmful affects of alignment, the mother behaiour, etc, without even mentioning 'parental alienation'. You don't need to.

Obviously - each of these 'concerns' needs to be link to solid evidence (verifiable examples) to behaviour/s of the mother that lead to these concerns. I hope this makes sense. My 6 year old interrupting me.

Last edit: by 4mydaughter

Thanks mate. I last saw my 12 year old daughter in July 2010. The alienator mother acknowledges I had a close relationship with my daughter twice in a report by her psychologist  issued 7 days before I last saw my child in July 2010.The alienator acknowledges in the single expert psychiatrist report issued in March 2011 that I had a "wonderful" relationship with my daughter. Last week i asked for a 2 hour supervised contact session on my birthday with a Reg 7 reporter who has known the mother for 12 years and the reply was my daughter doesnt want to see me ,doesnt want to ring me for my birthday and doesnt want to send me a birthday card. Totally irrational alienation behaviours from a child I has a very close relationship 8 months earlier aside from being a stay at home Dad until last 3 years.I raised my girl. I immediately filed an Application in a case  for urgent contact orders and handed up the leading social science research papers . I needed that last factor of outright rejection to satisfy the raft of alienation behaviours identified in the literature. My daughter has become severly alienated.

 The FC judge was not aware of the current research making some disparaging comment to me along the lines of oh you dont suggest Gardiners theory's hold water. I informed him the body of knowledge has come a long way since Gardiner and he knew nothing of this and i mentioned  4 cases since R v R in which  the literature was considered and he didnt know the cases….WTF… I filed my App in Case 14 days ago and still havent received a hearing date for interlocutory determination of urgent contact orders arguing necessity to intervene to break the cycle of alienation before the alienation became irratractable.In brazil PA is a criminal Canada its crushed by the Fam court…here the feminists amongst court reporters and psychologists and social workers are keeping the lid on it because woman are the major perpetrators of PA.

The Family Report finds the childs language is scripted and identifies other alienating behaviours but makes no adverse comments about the negative infleunce of the mother.The FC is the mothers minion ,both of the same ilk upwardly mobile psychologists/femininists out to destroy afather in a daughters life.

 I filed a formal complaint against the FC for selective reporting on other issues. The FC cow suggested  a risk of sexual abuse on the basis that I threw a handful of my daughters clothes in the former matrimonial bedroom cupboard drawers when no sexual abuse allegations were even raised in the material by the vengeful mother or my daughter and the FC never asked me about why I put the clothes there. she just made this conclusion out of nowhere. It was because the bedroom was now a storage room which I hadnt slept in for 10 weeks and the mother left 4 weeks earlier and a simple logistical solution on the spur of the moment one morning when I was rushing around tidying up before taking the kids to school….this FC has the gall to allege risk of future sexual abuse in those circumstances. I instantly lost all confidence in this system.These young FC are using reports to undermine the 2006 amendments which gave fathers long overdue rights.

 I had no opportunitry to contribute to my childs alienation as I havent had contact due to a ex parte order prohibiting contact ( because the alienator set me up on a false abduction)  that the judge has allowed to sit in situe for 8 months thus facilitating the alienation aganda of the mother who is a leading international psychologist possessed of all the tools of indoctrination.The alienator  effected an extreme campaign against me to try and destroy me involving police lies deception ..the usual stuff and steadfastly refuses contact because "she cant cope with it". I cannot believe the inaction of the court.I am dumbfounded.  I had three court events since December last year and asked for orders without filing an applic in case because i mistakenly thought that Applic in case was only for procedural matters.The judge didnt suggest i file an Applic in case or give me any guidance and he just asked the mothers side if they would consent to the orders which they didnt and he left it at that….he has power tro intervene and make orders in best interests of child at any stage..but he has 300 cases in his docket so his motivation is limited…meanwhile all the effort and hard work and love that I put into my precious daughter has been slaughtered by a alienator propped up by the lethargy of the court…i may as well be in cell in eiddie amins uganda..I d have more rigts in quantamo bay…we are supposed to be living in a civilised society….how can all this be happening??
he has power tro intervene and make orders in best interests of child at any stage

No he doesn't. Not unless you file an application and the completing application are considered at an interim hearing.

DO NOT argue or even mention Richard Gardiner or PAS. Don't even use the words 'parental alienation.' Talk about the child being 'aligned' only.

I think you are getting far to caught up in the 'parental alienation' tangent.

And I'd caution against preaching to a FM or Judges about this 'parental alienation' stuff. They would know far more about this type of thing than you realise or they would acknowledge.

Thanks..i dont understand the phobia here about accepting parental alienation as a process.
I think what 4mydaughter says here is very important. No matter how convinced you are that the mother fits the PA criteria, if the courts/relevant professionals here in THIS country haven't come to see it as a proven issue and use it as standard terminology within their system, then to continue pushing it simply because it's accepted elsewhere and fits the bill - despite signs of skepticism from the decision maker - could amount to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you strongly believe PA to be a valid concept and wish to advance the acceptance of it as a recognised syndrome, campaign to that effect in your free time. Your case to gain time with your daughter and cling to the remnants of your relationship with her is of utmost importance now (you obviously don't need any convincing of that), and you need to work within the confines of what IS currently accepted to have the best chance of that. As 4md very succinctly spelled out, you can still raise all your concerns related to PA by focusing on the behaviour of the mother and demonstrating how each action negatively impacts upon your child, without ever using the term "parental alienation". That immediately removes all controversy over whether or not your concerns are valid or your research recognised, and focuses back on the best interests of the child.

sami said
In brazil PA is a criminal Canada its crushed by the Fam court…here the feminists amongst court reporters and psychologists and social workers are keeping the lid on it because woman are the major perpetrators of PA.

Whilst I understand and have seen the effects of alignment, by whatever name one chooses to refer to it, I find your comments above to be excessive, generalised and bordering on extremist paranoia. This is not a balanced view, and indicates an attitude of everybody being out to get you. I don't know your situation, but if your ex is well known or respected in this circle of professionals, then yes it is possible some people may have her back, so to speak. There will always be favours and deals that go on behind closed doors in the system, whether for the right reasons or wrong, and in this instance it could certainly create extra hurdles for you. This does not equate to all the females of the CPS and Family Court system supressing information for the general betterment of women and demise of fathers. What makes you think all women - or even a significant amount - agree with parental alienation and/or would want to cover it up for some kind of greater feminist good? This is dangerous thinking… take a look at Peter Nolan if you want to see where THAT can take you.

Bottom line is, if you want to be taken seriously in court and have the best chance of furthering your case DO NOT mention any of that "women are keeping a lid on it because they are the major perpetrators" type sentiment. It makes you look unbalanced and discredits your rationality. As much as you might hate it, your best chances are in playing by the rules and sticking with what is accepted. The people you are criticisng are the people you're trying to impress, so accusing the registrar, FC or anybody else of being aligned with the mother (unless you have blatant proof) probably isn't going to do you any favours.

And seriously, I undertand that your ex - possibly assisted by some of her collegues - has royally screwed you over here. But it's a big step from that to suggesting that all relevant female professionals are conspiring to suppress information so they can effectively remove father's from children's lives. You seem like an otherwise intelligent, caring father - this kind of rhetoric does you no favours.
Thanks for your comments rabbit. Its not paranoia that drives me its self protection of myself and hopefully my child.

Im not saying all women in the system are in denial over alienation behaviours..its my experience that there is an undercurrent of feminism that pervades women under 45 and there is a lot of gender tension surfacing in our society once a male becomes natural, manly and assertive when warranted, which is no longer a cool way of being in the homogenised society of today. You get judges yelling aggressively at male litigants then reporting that they observe assertive behaviour in the witness box and can see how that man would be aggressive at home ..what a farcial situation

 The fact is that there is now a recognised body of knowledge qualifying PA as an accepted process…its just that we are behind the eight ball and our kids suffer as a result in the colonial backwater

Have a look at the leading canadian case WC  v CE 2010 ONSC  3575 on Canada lii for how PA is dealt with over there. Thats a English based system of law like ours but soooo much more in tune with the best interests of children.Look at how the two other psychologists evidence was so simply hosed out into the trash in that case.

 My research established to me that most psychs and social workers here and judges are simply not up to pace with the body of knowledge so it has to be submitted into evidence to get it onto the radar.

 PAS has been submitted to DMS-5 for registration as a recognised psychiatric disorder in 2012.

 The North American research of Dr Fidler and Bala is being submitted as evidence in cases here now.  Pierce v Pierce 2010 Fmca, Berrios v Berrios FMCA etc accepted the process of alienation. The factor that shifts the child from an aligned child to an alienated child is ambivalence ..see Berrios case.  The process of alignment and the process of alienation are the same process however alienation is further along thecontinum of the  behavioural spectrum and is identified by outright refusal to see the rejected parent .At that point the child goes beyond alignment.  Its  a nomenclature debate. The research now has a list of identified alienation behaviours of child, alienator and rejected parent, so alignment analysis is passe.

But PAS isn't included in DSM-IV. And in any event, if it were, you aren't qualified to give an opinion in that regards.

Until such time that PA/PAS is in the DMS manual, its not going to be formally recognised here in Australia - and its a no go zone until then.

Judges and FM won't except discussions of PA/PAS in their reasoning because they know such considerations can give rise to successful appeals. As was the case a few years back in a very well known case - which resulted in a Psychologist being de-registered for endorsing PAS/PA.

I am in no doubts that PAS/PA is a valid concept and I've been following developments in this field for years. I support Gardiner's works.

The objective of your family court proceedings is not to win an intellectual struggle about whether or not PA/PAS exists or is valid. Your objective is to win parenting orders.

Getting involved in an intellectual struggle/argument about whether or not PA/PAS exist or is valid - WILL NOT help you win parenting orders.

Getting involved in an intellectual struggle/argument about whether or not PA/PAS exist is DISTRACTING you from running a successful strategy to help you win parenting orders.

If you want to advance the PA/PAS cause - do so AFTER you've gained parenting orders.

Let Gardiner & Co win the PA/PAS battle. That's not your fight.

RABBIT suggested that you sound paranoid. I totally get where Rabbit's coming from in this regards - but I read you differently.

When parents come into the family law system for the first time, they struggle to understand how the game is played and the roles of 'players' (including court staff, ICL, etc) in this game. Most newbie litigants don't understand much of what goes on or why people do things in the performance of their separate roles.

When parents are received with indifference - sometimes less than indifference - by some players in the system - in the absence of true understanding - they tend to believe that eveyone's against them. If they're a father - they'll likely read into this indifference that everyone is pro-mother or anti-father. Conversely - if the litigant is a mother - they'll likely read into this indifference that everyone is pro-father or anti-mother.

NEWSFLASH! The family law system and its players are indifferent to EVERYONE. It's just how they are. There is no a conspiracy.

Sami… you need to take on board what I and Rabbit have said.

I understand why you are gravitating to the PAS/PA planetoid. The PAS/PA modelling helps you make sense of your situation and helps you understand what is going on in your world but it will not help you gain parenting orders.

At the moment - the PA/PAS journey is a dead-end street - and will remain so at least until it is listed in the DSM. Even then - there is going to be difficulties with it.

Making adverse inferences about a Registrar is NOT helpful. You could end up making things harder for yourself.

Avoid jumping to adverse conclusions about the motives of players in the system. It is most likely that you are misreading the situation or their actions. Give players the benefi of the doubt and listen very carefully.

One last word - if you fear that everyone in the system is against you - then that's the reality YOU will manifest.

Last edit: by 4mydaughter

Thanks for your insight and you have that case notation on the deregistered psych?
@Sami… not at hand.

It went to the Full Court.

If when FM said to you "oh you dont suggest Gardiners theory's hold water?" or words to that effect - you now know why he was saying that. He was communicating to you a warning not to go there.

Could it be that the FM was actually helping you out? Without making that assistance overtly obvious?

I believe so. FM's and Judges communicate in code. They drop subtle hints. They will attempt to in move you in a certain direction without appearing like they're helping you.

Their starting point is that children should have the benefit of both parents in their lives. In the absence of child abuse or family violence, they're constantly trying to steer matters to that outcome.

FM's and Judges have good reasons for handling things in a certain way. Newbies don't often have the experience to read between the lines or interpret what's going on correctly. In the absence of understanding, many newbies read into situations that something sinister or malevolent is going on, when its not.


sorry but

Sorry but i have to disagree with 4mydaughter etc about PA and our court system.

Gardner/PAS is definitely a no no but PA is not … I sat in on a few cases in the FMC some 7 weeks or so ago and witnessed the Magistrate calling it for what it is, "parental alienation", yes they are the words he used to describe what the mother was doing in 2 different cases, yes 2 different instances.

If we pander to the politics of PA then we will get nowhere, stand up and call it for what it is as that Magistrate did, but let the experts call it in the court room not us individuals as we are not experts.

If we give in to the softening of the term to alignment then we are giving up, sorry but the Judges and Magistrates know full well what it is and how to recognise it, what they do after that is another story.

Last edit: by Aussie

@Aussie… yes. There are distinctions. The term 'parental alienation' is a useful and economic way of describing a group of actions or behaviours.

But if the term 'parental alienation' is advanced together with arguments around 'PAS' and Gardiner then its a no, no.

Unfortunately this use term a gotten tarred through its association with Gardiner and PAS.

Has was having a discussions about this subject matter with a Judges Associate today at the Sydney Family Court. Stay away from PAS.



Yes I agree, stay away from pas and gardner but not PA, PA is the act, alignment is the result, my own situation had the court appointed child physc also use the term PA in his report to the court, do not be scared off using it, I for one will never give in to the "policy makers" or those that think they are but then again I have always been a little bit "black & white".

The goal of brainwashing is to get revenge .There is no greater revenge than blocking the other parent from playing a meaningful role in the childs life.

 I have a ex prostitut PhD psychologist as alienator , someone who is providing CPD courses for other psychs..meantime destroying her own 12 year old daughters mind…the good Doctor that she makes herself out to be…… Behind the mask is evil incarnate… the system wants to turn a blind eye…yeah others comment I exhibit a little paranoia. If you ever have the horrific experience of seeing your child 7 months later in a s65L session absolutely alienated when you had a very very close father/daughter relationship 7 months earlier you hav enever been close to death.

The process of alienation goes beyond emotional abuse …its criminal conduct of the highest magnitude..but only in third world Brazil!!!!

There should be a royal commission into how the judiciary is allowing this to happen to Australian children when the kids in the slums in Rio are protected from such horrific experiences by force of law.

The "lost years" is a price too high for child and rejected parent.
This judgement raises argument about parent alienation but also parental rejection by children. It canvasses the latest thinking of social scientists and enlightened orders for the children to enjoy the benefits of their entitlements as set out in s 60B of the Family Law Act. "If this fails, the Court has lost its chance to achieve that… I think there must be a one last chance to try and re-open the door to a realistic parenting relationship for both parents" Cronin J, the best and bravest Family Court judge, in my view.

Prantage & Prantage [2010] FamCA 1198
Accusations of parental alienation - Interim orders to try and resume relationship of mother and children

The evidence of Mr O
378. Mr O is a clinical psychologist with more than 15 years experience. No party disputed his expertise. He provided the Court and parties with what he saw as the latest research on the issue of what has become known as parental  alienation . That research was Children resisting separation contact with a parent: concepts, controversies and conundrums by Fiedler and Bala (Vol 48 No 1 Family Law Review, January 2010). I have read and considered that material which sheds light on how difficult it is to identify the causes of child behaviour. With that background, Mr O was extensively cross-examined over two days about the behaviour of the children and what, if anything, could be done about it.

406. He looked to three specific categories of parental/child behavioural problems which he called  alienation , estrangement and enmeshment giving rise to one parent being rejected by a child. It was his view that it was unlikely that one of these alone would be the cause of that rejection. It was likely that a combination of the categories would be causative.

407. Mr O described traditional concepts of  alienation  as where one parent is actively and persistently, consciously or unconsciously, undermining the childs relationship with the other parent, in overt or covert ways. This could range from one parent telling children actively to not have a relationship with the [other] parent and to describe that parent in any spectrum of negative ways, to [covert  alienation , which can include] much more subtle ways where every time the child goes to visit with that parent, the other parent expresses disappointment and sadness.

408. Estrangement was described as being either reality or non-reality based. Non-reality based estrangement could be all in the mind of the child, and because of the child  the child may have distorted in their own mind the belief that the parent has done something or acted in a way or intention in a manner that inclines the child to not want to see that parent.

409. In contrast, reality-based estrangement could be for real reasons, such as physical maltreatment, alcohol or substance abuse, such that the child had a justifiable basis for not wanting to see the parent.

410. Enmeshment, the third concept, was explained by Mr O as a situation in which children cannot separate from the parent, and the reason they dont see the other parent is because of the over-involved other parent.

419. Mr O was clear that custody reversal alone was not the answer, and would not work; rather, intervention in this case needed to occur on multiple levels and include therapy. Third party placement custody reversal, in other words, putting the children with someone other than the parties, was very unlikely to work. He had never seen it work.

420. He acknowledged the high possibility that the children would run away if there was custody reversal but that needed to be compared to the potentially extremely poor outcomes for the children later in life resulting from a continued alienation or estrangement.

421. As for current professional thinking, Mr O said:

"What [psychologists] are becoming increasingly clear about is that when you talk about the extreme end of  alienation , the outcomes for children are extremely poor, and as adults extremely poor. These children as adults reflect back and recognise that there were forces upon them that they were unable to resist. Those children predominantly report that they wanted someone to hear them and see through what they were saying but they can only say that as adults. The relationship with the parent with whom they were aligned usually suffers significantly, as the kids get older and start to psychologically separate from their families. [At this time] they see things more clearly, but the damage done to their relationship with the alienated parent can be so profound it can be difficult to reconcile. Their growing realisation of what has transpired then damages their relationship with aligned parent.

One of the major controversies is what weight should be given to childrens preferences and to what extent their wishes should be taken into consideration when decisions are being made. Baker reported that most adults distinctly recalled claiming that they hated or feared the rejected parent and on some level did have those feelings, [but that] they also recalled they didnt want the parent to walk away and secretly hoped that someone to realise they didnt mean what they said. Whether this is an accurate account or a reconstruction of the history from an adult perspective of sadness and loss would be important to understand. As many as 80% of alienated children wanted their alienation detected and stopped. I think thats a very significant finding given the enormity of the issues."

442. This is a case where the social science literature would suggest that court intervention as an over-arching principle to ensure that the therapeutic work of the social scientists can be done, is necessary. For that reason, I propose only to make interim orders and to review the matter in one years time but with general liberty to apply to each party in the event that no progress is being made otherwise. The interim orders however will allow the social scientists control over the pace of therapy. The husband has caused much of this problem so he must contribute to the cost.
I have submitted Prantage, Udall v Udall is also a FMCA case that tackles alienation square on and R v R childs wishes hits the issue with courage as well.

The psychologists are dragging the chain..they arent up to pace with the o's research they are still floating around with dealing with the process in terms of alignment…alienation goes well beyond alignment on the spectrum

Alienation is a process that is being allowed to run unchecked. Read the canadian cases and see how it is recognised by judges as a mainstream issue in childrens cases.

The time has come for judges professionals and parents to raise the bar down under. This viscious parctice does as much real harm as sexual abuse.
sami said
Alienation is a process that is being allowed to run unchecked… The time has come for judges professionals and parents to raise the bar down under. This vicious practice does as much real harm as sexual abuse.
It seems more likely that the "bar" is being lowered by the removal of the statutory restraints on alienation, however it is termed, most notably s60CC(3)©,
"the willingness and ability of each of the childs parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent"

This reform ostensibly to protect children seems to contradict the preponderance of psychological opinion that the most destructive, and least understood, type of child abuse is emotional.

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets