The Scientific Case Against Parental Alienation
A Critical Review
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22200616 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Keith Robert Head (0009-0004-0512-8166, Master's College, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 63-69 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-12 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2583-1712 • E-ISSN: 2583-1712 |
| Publisher | Stallion Publication (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.55544/ijrah.6.1.11 |
| OpenAlex | W7124827881 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 18 |
Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and its reformulation as parental alienation (PA) have gained traction in family courts despite persistent scientific controversy. This review synthesizes peer-reviewed research across psychology, law, and family studies from 1985 to 2025 to examine the empirical foundations and professional acceptance of PA/PAS. The analysis suggests that Gardner's original formulation and subsequent iterations fail to meet basic validity requirements for psychological constructs and are unsupported by research. Major medical, psychiatric, and psychological professional organizations have rejected PA/PAS as a legitimate concept. Empirical data shows a troubling correlation between PA allegations and documented domestic violence, with such claims frequently functioning as litigation strategies that redirect attention from abuse allegations. When courts credit PA claims, children face measurable harms including placement with abusive parents and subjection to unvalidated reunification interventions. These findings suggest that PA allegations often represent a form of post-separation coercive control and call for heightened judicial skepticism when such claims arise alongside safety concerns
Alienation · Blame · Empirical evidence · Empirical research · Family court · Skepticism · Family Dynamics and Relationships · Family Support in Illness · Work-Family Balance Challenges
| Highly cited | No |
|---|