The issue of parental alienation must be addressed. The source of the syndrome was a pro-paedophile doctor; Dr Gardner. He decided that there was a syndrome where mothers determinedly set about denigrating and falsely accusing the father of their children for the purpose of winning custody in the Family Court. He felt that children, who report that their fathers’ sexually or otherwise abused them, should be beaten, and mothers who listen to their children should be jailed. Essentially he decided that alienating a father was such a crime that the children should go to the father and abuse allegations should be ignored. His ideas never achieved academic peer support, and have been roundly rejected by the scientific community.

And yet, the disturbing truth is that his ideas were taken up by many so called child experts, m any of whom make reports for the Family Court of Australia.

Criticisms of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS):

• PAS is not in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM IV) or earlier versions.
• Dr Gardner’s work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal and his books are self-published.
• Not a single study has confirmed that mental health professionals can reliably diagnose PAS.
• The Diagnostic criteria suggested by Dr Gardner are similar to those for his now widely discredited test for fabricating allegations of sexual abuse – the Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale (SAL).
• The fundamental assumption at the heart of PAS – i.e. that children frequently lie about sexual abuse – is contradicted by all the major research in the area.
• The idea that false allegations of child sexual abuse, increase in custodial litigation has been contradicted by research conducted internationally.
• The PAS theory is blatantly sexist and targeted against mothers.
• PAS is not applicable if there has been actual abuse i.e. if the accusations are truthful (which studies suggest they generally are).
•  Dr Gardner’s suggested remedy of placing the child with the alienated parent risks handing an abused child over to an abuser while removing the protection of the other parent.
• Several American Courts have rejected PAS as scientifically baseless and disallowed its admission as evidence.
• The sexual abuse of children remains a crime in every state in this country.

Gardner committed suicide in a most gruesome manner, a discredited man who made a lot of money out of his anti mother strategies. Yet pro PAS Report Writers still influence Family Court decisions to this day. In fact, just last year I attended a session at the Sydney Registry. The sessions were held because, as clearly stated by Court staff session leaders ‘the Family Court of has realized it was not very good at Domestic Violence’. 

A question was asked of the Senior Mediator of the Court about PAS and its use in cases before the Family Court of Australia. This important man explained that he himself had changed his mind now, and no longer used it  but that there were still many Report Writers using PAS and he admitted ‘It would take quite a while for that influence to be completely gone!’ 

Bizarre? But true! I was the one who asked the question.

Because of PAS, when Child Representatives pursue a pro-contact agenda, they tend to offer the mother a choice between two options: allow the abuse to continue or lose the children permanently. A woman who cannot agree to the former may well lose her rights to see her children at all! I place most Children’s Representatives in the Dodgy Box – it is rare to see and hear one come out in defence of the child’s right to be safe.

If you have an interest in the well-being of children any right thinking person should write to their Federal politicians and demand three things:

1. That the courts err on the side of caution and have an ABSOLUTE presumption AGAINST access to allegedly violent parents on a balance of probabilities test.
2. The children’s voices must be heard – not muffled or misrepresented by Separate Child’s Representatives who often have not even made contact with their “client”.
3. While divorce can be on a “no fault” basis, the care of children must take into account histories of violence, drug abuse, criminal activities, and issues that have contributed to the union’s end.

For further information see Complaints, Lobbying, & Political Action (coming soon).
 
Return to Family Law page