My son called me recently and asked “What do you know about Parental Alienation Syndrome?” (PAS) He explained that he asked because a friend is going through a divorce and is alleging that his estranged wife is attempting to turn the children against him. My son observed that he had often seen his friend with the children and that, at least on the surface, he appeared to be a loving and dedicated father. The friend was looking for an attorney familiar with PAS.
The problem, as I explained to my son, is that there is no such thing as “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” It is a widely debunked pseudoscientific theory that, depending on what state litigants live in, is not infrequently promoted in contentious custody proceedings. It is not an accepted scientific theory in Michigan, which has real world consequences, the most significant of which may be that a court will not permit expert testimony regarding the alleged existence of PAS in a given custody case. Experts in both the fields of psychology and family law have reached a consensus that not only is there no such thing as PAS, but the allegation of such a syndrome often is associated with family pathology that is unanimously recognized by experts in the legal and psychology communities, i.e., child abuse and spousal abuse.
It is important to understand that family abuse can take different forms. Yes, it can be physical, but often it is verbal or emotional. Psychologists and jurists understand that when a parent attempts to alienate a child from his/her other parent, by demonizing the other parent to the child, or by making the child feel that s/he is not safe with the other parent, or by making the child feel s/he must choose sides in the custody dispute, it is a form of child abuse. The child is being emotionally stressed and manipulated by a parent to gain an advantage in a custody battle. Psychologists, lawyers and judges recognize this as abusive and destructive behavior which is never in the child’s best interests.
I specifically mention “best interests” because that is the statutory standard in Michigan for determining a custody dispute. The court is charged with the duty to evaluate twelve distinct factors in determining what type of custody and parenting time arrangement will best serve the child’s best interests. Of the twelve statutory factors, the one that, in my practice experience, tends to tilt the scales most often is factor (j) which requires the court to determine “[t]he willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.” It should be immediately evident that the statute promotes an accepted truism in our culture: where there are two parents, the child’s best interests are served by a strong and loving relationship with each parent and if one is undermining the child’s relationship with the other, one is wreaking havoc on the child’s emotional well-being.
Clearly, a parent can be guilty of deliberately seeking to sabotage the relationship of a child with the other parent. However, that does not constitute a syndrome. It does reflect evidence of emotional abuse of the child. It may also signify continued abuse of the other parent by the perpetrator of the alienating behavior. That is, a violent spouse (parent) may use alienating behavior to continue controlling and harming the other spouse (parent). In such cases, there are two victims – the child and the abused spouse/parent .
If you believe there is alienation going on in your divorce case, you need to bring it to the attention of your attorney. It may not be a syndrome, but it is clearly a relevant consideration in the court’s analysis of the best interest factors. A psychological evaluation of the parties and the children may reveal an ongoing campaign of alienating behavior that is causing emotional harm to the child and that is important information for the court. All forms of domestic abuse – be it physical or emotional – should be cause for alarm and proactive response.