You’ve surely have seen seen them on social media: claims that parental alienation is “junk science” used to by the “real abusers” to discredit custodial parents.
Well, the purpose of this short article is to help clear-up any confusion you may have about the difference between PAS and PA abuse, and, put you in a better position to quickly and cleanly neutralize disinformation about parental alienation so we can defeat the efforts of our adversaries to undermine social change and gaslight the public about who is responsible for the abuse.
What Is "Parental Alienation Syndrome"?
The assertion that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a diagnosable condition effecting children was originally advanced by Richard Gardner, M.D. (a psychiatrist specializing in child psychiatry). He defined it as a condition in which a child becomes estranged or alienated from one parent as a result of the psychological manipulation of the other parent. According to Gardner, PAS typically occurs in the context of high-conflict divorce or custody disputes, where one parent deliberately undermines or interferes with the child’s relationship with the other parent.
Despite his medical and psychiatric background, Gardner’s views on PAS have been widely criticized by other professionals in the field. His lack of rigorous empirical research to support his theories, combined with the controversial nature of PAS as a diagnosis, led many within the academic and clinical communities to question his theories’ credibility and their potential misuse in legal contexts.
Additionally, Gardner’s personal views on topics such as child sexual abuse (including his controversial statements that some children may falsely accuse parents of abuse during custody battles) also generated significant backlash and further tarnished his professional reputation.
Gardner identified a series of behavioral symptoms in children who were believed to be victims of PAS. These include:
- Unjustified rejection of the targeted parent, often without any clear, legitimate reason (e.g., no past abuse or neglect).
- Absurd or frivolous reasons for rejecting the targeted parent (e.g., “I don’t like the way they dress”).
- A lack of guilt or remorse for rejecting the parent, which Gardner saw as an indication of the child being brainwashed or manipulated.
- The child often aligns with the alienating parent’s views, displaying a “campaign of denigration” against the targeted parent.
Gardner believed that PAS could have serious long-term psychological consequences for the child, including:
- Distorted views of the rejected parent.
- Strained relationships with extended family (e.g., grandparents, aunts/uncles) who may remain connected to the alienated parent.
- Difficulty in forming healthy future relationships due to trust and attachment issues.
While Gardner’s credentials in psychiatry were solid, the scientific community has generally rejected many of his theories, particularly the concept of PAS because of a lack of rigorous empirical evidence and the controversial ways in which his ideas were applied in legal and custody disputes.
More specifically, in psychology and psychiatry, a syndrome refers to a set of symptoms or signs that consistently occur together and are typically associated with a particular psychological or medical condition. The term “syndrome” doesn’t necessarily imply a specific cause or underlying pathology but rather describes a pattern of symptoms that tend to occur together and suggest a particular diagnosis or disorder, and the primary objection psychologists have with respect to Richard Gardner’s Parental Alienation Syndrome diagnosis is that it lacks empirical support and is based on methodologically weak or anecdotal evidence, which makes it difficult to accept as a valid, scientifically recognized syndrome, and therefore the American Psychological Association (APA) has not officially recognized it as a formal diagnosis.
Child Abuse By Parental Alienation Is Not The Same Thing As "Parental Alienation Syndrome":
The difference between Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and a diagnosis of child abuse by parental alienation lies primarily in the conceptualization, severity, and implications of the behavior, as well as how they are viewed within the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and law.
PAS is a theoretical construct. It refers to a pattern of behaviors where one parent (the “alienating parent”) engages in actions that cause a child to unjustifiably reject the other parent (the “targeted parent”). The concept implies a syndrome or condition in which the child displays certain psychological symptoms, like unjustified rejection of the targeted parent, negative attitudes, and even the denial of any positive memories or experiences with the rejected parent.
The diagnosis of child abuse by parental alienation (often referred to as psychological or emotional abuse) occurs when the alienating parent’s behavior is seen as causing significant psychological harm to the child. In this case, the manipulative behavior by the alienating parent is recognized as abusive, because it leads to trauma or psychological damage in the child. This can include harm to the child’s emotional development, attachment, and mental health.
So, in contrast to PAS, which is a conceptual model, child abuse by parental alienation is recognized in clinical practice and in legal contexts as a form of psychological or emotional abuse.
Key Differences:
The Foundation And Through-Line Of PA Disinformation:
A key problem cited by critics of PAS is that they argue it can be used to disguise genuine cases of child abuse. For example, if a child rejects one parent due to legitimate abuse or mistreatment (physical, emotional, or sexual), invoking PAS may be harmful, as it could invalidate the child’s real experiences and potentially allow the abuse to continue, and thus the basis for the common claim that parental alienation is a bullshit allegation being made by the true abuser.
However, the flip side is that clinical psychologists know and understand (1) How to identify abused children, and (2) How to trace the source of the abuse to the person performing it. Thus, the diagnosis from a competent clinician is not PAS, but psychological or emotional abuse. Or in other words, it is not a syndrome they are diagnosing, it is the presence of child abuse.
Debunking PA Disinformation With Three Sentences:
The most common way disinformation about PA is promoted is to treat PAS and PA as if they are the same thing and thus assert that PA is junk science. The second most common tactic leans on the scientific community’s assertion that PA behavior does not produce a syndrome, and therefore alienating behaviors are not abusive. The first argument is a logical fallacy of substitution, and the second one of a failure in logical reasoning. Both approaches exploit logical errors to promote disinformation.
The correct reasoning and that endorsed by clinicians is that alienated children display symptoms of abuse is because there is a likelihood they ARE being abused- by the alienating parent.
It is important to note that when confronting disinformation about parental alienation, and no matter how persuasive and fact-based your argument is, the odds of you convincing an alienating parent or an enabler to change their view or behavior is slim to none. No alienating parent is going to admit they are a child abuser, and few politicians, judges, lawyers, forensic psychologists, or guardian ad-litems will ever admit that their policies or actions are fostering child abuse. That is just not going to happen. The fact is we need to utilize other strategies for motivating change with alienators and their enablers.
In any case, so as far the public spreaders of lies and disinformation are concerned, your goal should not be to persuade them that they are wrong. Your goal is use the post or public statement and any responses to it as an opportunity to expose the lie (and perhaps the liar) and show everyone else they are being dishonest. Nothing should make you happier when the liar you are confronting provides direct evidence that supports the point you are making, so you want them to respond without giving a rat’s ass as to whether you have won them over to your side. You want them to expose themselves to the public, and that’s how you defeat them.
Note: As soon as the poster cited in my screen shot made the response below, she muted me so I couldn’t respond to it.
I engage posters like this at every opportunity, and the results are almost always just like this one. Another common tactic after being exposed is they’ll simply delete the post so as to remove it from pubic view along with any responses to it. All this is fine, because the job of removing disinformation from public, shareable environments is accomplished while also disincitivizing the poster from posting more of them in the future.
The truth wins, mission accomplished, and it only took about 15 seconds of my time to accomplish it.
