Parental alienation theory is a discredited pro-pedophile theory that places children in abusers homes. We must stop the promotion of this theory so more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system.

See Dr. Phil promoting the discredited parental alienation theory from 2008-2015?

• Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 2 of 2
• Conclusion

  PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system.
• 
  Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2
• Conclusion

  At best, PAS is a nondiagnostic “syndrome” that only explains the behavior of the child and the mother when there is a known false allegation.20 It is a courtroom diagnosis befitting adversaries involved in legal sparring. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V.

  In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.

  Prosecutors and other child abuse professionals should educate themselves, their colleagues and clients when confronting PAS in the legal realm. Part 2 of this newsletter will address the case law on this subject. For more in-depth and comprehensive treatment of these issues, contact the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.
• Use of Inappropriate Syndrome Testimony
  As early as September of 1989 Dr. Gary Melton and Susan Limber in an article entitled "Psychologists' Involvement in Cases of Child Maltreatment" [American Psychologist Vol. 44, No. 9, pp. 1225-1233] commented on the inappropriate use by therapists of syndromes that are not found in the various versions of Diagnosis and Statistical Manual. There have been a proliferation of such syndromes over the last several years. At this point using syndromes which are not appropriately researched or acknowledged by the profession is below the standard of care. Among the syndromes which are controversial and which should not be represented as accepted in the therapist community are Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, Parental Alienation Syndrome, [Wiederholt v. Fischer 169 WIS 2d 524, 45 N.W. 2d 442 (1992)], False Memory Syndrome, and Malicious Mother Syndrome. http://www.kspope.com/ethics/malpractice.php

• Department of Justice Report Demands Custody Court Reforms Part II
• Excerpts see Challenging Evaluators
•        If the evaluator issues a report based on PAS or even alienation, there is strong research in the Saunders’ study to challenge it.  We can start by asking the evaluator if he agrees that sex between adults and children is improper.  Then ask if there is any research not based on the belief that sex between adults and children can be appropriate (this is what PAS is based on), that “alienating” behavior creates a safety risk.  Are you aware the DOJ study found that PAS, including by any other name has no scientific basis?  Are you aware PAS was rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V because it has no scientific basis?  Are you aware that the Saunders’ study found that evaluators with inadequate training tended to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations but alienation theories, particularly those used to separate children from their primary attachment figure are based on a belief that most dv and child abuse allegations by mothers are false?  Are you aware that evaluators are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS?  Do you know if that is because they are in affect creating a diagnosis that does not exist?  You can also ask questions comparing the harm of separating a child from their primary attachment figure with the harm of negative statements about the other parent.  Ask for any research findings because there is no scientific support for these standard biased practices.
• • Criminal Rewards: The Impact of Parent Alienation Syndrome on Families Andraé L. Brown
  • Excerpts see conclusion

   To be clear, PAS is not a legitimate diagnosis and should not be admitted into the courts. Overwhelmingly, it is used against mothers to raise suspicions of their psychosis and unfitness as parents. Users of this strategy do not seek custody for the safety and welfare of children. Instead, their sole mission is to create a legal shield of protection and silence and an unobstructed pathway to continue their abuses of power. When PAS is used as a legal strategy in divorce cases, families are negatively affected; the women are demonized, and the children are at a grave risk of further abuse.

• Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: A Research Review Joan S. Meier
• Excerpts page 4 first paragraph section Gardner’s pro-pedophilic and misogynistic beliefs "Despite his assertions that pedophilia is widespread and harmless, he asserted in a filmed interview that a child who tells his mother he has been sexually molested by his or her father should be told “I don’t believe you. I’m going to beat you for saying it. Don’t you ever talk that way again about your father” (Waller, 2001).3 This response – and his beliefs described above – suggest that the animating intention behind the PAS theory’s denial of the validity of child sexual abuse reports is not a genuine belief that child sexual abuse is often falsely reported, but rather a belief that such reports should be suppressed."
• • The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy Jennifer Hoult
  • Abstract:      
    
    Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome ("PAS"). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS's admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny.
    
    This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS's evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS's admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science. This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS's admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS's scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards. The article also analyzes the writings of PAS's originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner - including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible - finding that these materials support neither PAS's existence, nor its legal admissibility. Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS's admissibility through an analysis of PAS's roots in Gardner's theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.
    • What is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)?
    • Excerpts second paragraph "Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child's estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent (usually the mother under PAS) as an evil "alienator" who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent (usually the father under PAS).
      The simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. Despite the fact that many of the assumptions underlying PAS theory have repeatedly been disproven scientifically (see below), Gardner believes that judges should back up PAS-trained therapists' conclusions with the full force of the law and impose fines, permanent loss of custody, and jail terms to parents (mainly mothers) who do not comply. 
      Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called "alienator's" behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved."
      • The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is It Scientific? by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Dallam, S. J. (1999).

      • Conclusions

        In spite of its many shortcomings, many courts have accepted PAS because it apparently appears to explain a well-recognized phenomenon within custody battles - the often acrimonious fight between parents for their child's affection. However, Daubert demands that scientists conduct competent science before becoming paid experts. Gardner 's PAS theory and his various scales to differentiate true and false claims of child sexual abuse are not informed by science and have been discredited by his peers. Rather than subjecting his theories to scientific review, most of Gardner 's writings are published through his own press or in nonscientific journals. Because Gardner 's theories are based on his clinical observations and not on scientific data, they must be understood in the context of his atypical views concerning pedophilia and child sexual abuse.
        Gardner 's theories are based on his assumption that sex between a child and an adult is not inherently harmful, and his belief that there is an epidemic of false sexual abuse allegations being made by vengeful wives during custody disputes. Gardner maintains these beliefs in spite of a wealth of clinical and experimental data which prove otherwise. This is not to imply that such allegations are always accurate, or that parents do not attempt to manipulate their children during adversarial custody litigation. However, Gardner 's theories are not sufficiently scientific to be able to make cause and effect determinations, are biased against women and children, and are flawed by their failure to take into account alternative explanations for the behavior of the parties involved.
        Frustration over bitter custody battles should not tempt the legal system to blindly accept unproven theories such as PAS. Reliance on such simplified approaches to the complex problem of alleged abuse in the context of child custody disputes is likely to result in misdiagnosis and a failure to protect children. High conflict divorces take an emotional toll on children, and this toll should not be exacerbated through the use of "junk science" which may wrongly deny children a relationship with the parent who has heretofore been their primary caretaker. In the end, all psychological evidence upon which a child's safety will turn should represent the best that science has to offer, not one man's unsupported opinions and assumptions.
        • “Parental Alienation Syndrome:" Another Alarming DSM-5 Proposal Using a medicalizing label to mask child sexual abuse Published on June 6, 2011 by Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D. in Science Isn't Golden
        • ©Copyright 2011 by Paula J. Caplan All rights reserved

          Using a medicalizing label to mask child sexual abuse Excerpts see “Parental Alienation Syndrome:" Another Alarming DSM-5 Proposal Using a medicalizing label to mask child sexual abuse Published on June 6, 2011 by Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D. in Science Isn't Golden
      • The construct of PAS is unscientific, composed of a group of general symptoms with no empirical basis....
        Major professional bodies, including the American Psychological Association, have discredited PAS on the grounds that it is misused in domestic violence cases and that there is no scientific evidence of such a "syndrome." The more recent APA Online document Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence (http://www.apa.org/pi/essues.html(link is external)), particularly Issue 5, describes the tendency of family courts to miminize a context of violence, falsely accusing the mother of alienation and granting custody to the father in spite of his history of violence. The National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges' 2006 manual states that "parental alienation syndrome or PAS has been discredited by the scientific community" and "should therefore be ruled inadmissible" (p. 19). A number of prominent figures, including Dr. Paul J. Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and president of theLeadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, and Professor Jon R. Conte of the University of Washington Social Welfare Doctoral Faculty have also discredited PAS and its lack of scientific basis (see Bruch, 2001).
        Because of the use of PAS as a tactic by many CSA perpetrators to influence decision makers and the court system, abused children have been placed in the hands of their abusers (Childress, 2006). It is estimated that "over 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States" (http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html(link is external)) and that PAS was used in a large number of these cases. [2]
      • • Child custody for sex offenders By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
        • Inevitably, Gardner’s sole experimental authority for this PAS theory
          is Alfred C. Kinsey. In fact, Gardner largely plagiarizes Chapters 5 in
          Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Female (1953) to show child
          molestation is normal.

          No reputable scientific organization has validated PAS. Even the
          American Psychiatric Association rejects the scientific reliability of
          Gardner’s PAS. O’Meara further quotes numerous professional critics of
          PAS, typified by of Jon Conte, University of Washington psychologist,
          “PAS is not research-based, and it has done a great injustice to the
          family and the justice system.”

          Legal scholars are also aware of PAS’ danger. To quote John E.B.
          Myers, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, University of Pacific,
          California, PAS “increases exponentially the skepticism of society
          generally about whether child abuse exists.”

          As a further indication that PAS is nothing but pseudo science we
          need only look at some of Gardner’s other “scientific findings.” Gardner
          uses recent “sonograms that showed baby boys holding their penises in
          utero” as an example of such boys’ sexual desire or activity.

          
          Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/04/2738/#GgovIcVkXt9y8Rla.99
        • • "The Truth About Parental Alienation"
          • Excerpts see section Tragic Consequences
            
            "The results of its acceptance in family court have been tragic.  
            
            Parental Alienation fails to recognize that a parent or child may have legitimate reasons for having antipathy toward the other parent; it rejects out of hand the idea that allegations of abuse could be true.  Thus, instead of investigating allegations of abuse, PAS turns the focus of the court’s investigation onto the motives of accuser. Evidence of animosity toward the other parent is regarded as evidence of PAS. As a result of this "through-the-looking-glass" thinking, when courts award visitation or custody to the parent the child has an aversion to, in many instances, the courts are awarding custody to abusers.  
            
            Some children placed in the custody of their abusers have committed suicide; others have run away, and countless others have endured the abuse and are permanently traumatized..  "In recent years, children placed in custody of their abusers have been coming forward to tell their stories and to warn of the harms of PAS."  
          • 
            Tuesday, June 25, 2013 Why the Official Rejection of PAS Matters by Barry Goldstein
          • Conclusion 
            
            There was never any valid justification to permit the use of PAS by any name in the custody courts. The fraudulent use of PAS has been responsible for destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. This never should have been permitted by the courts, but at the same time the courts are extremely defensive to criticism of their errors and are unlikely to acknowledge past mistakes. 
            
            Accordingly, the publication of the DSM-V should be treated as a great opportunity to ask courts to reconsider the misuse of alienation theories. The other side will not make judges aware that their favorite toy has been completely discredited. The attorneys for protective mothers must make the courts aware of this decision and start a discussion of what this means to standard court practices. Courts are not permitted to accept evidence about scientific theories that are not based on authoritative and accepted scientific research. The decision on the DSM is fundamentally incompatible with the continued use of alienation theories. This is particularly true when the theories are used to deny the primary attachment figure a normal relationship with the child or to prevent a full investigation of abuse complaints. We need to tell the courts about this and file complaints against any professionals who continue to support PAS by any name now that it has been officially discredited. 
          • Protect children block the discredited parental alienation theory