Talk:Parental alienation/Archive 1

Value of the term "syndrome"
I have doubts about this part of the text:

''There has been much legal and medical argument about whether the term syndrome should be allowed in connection with this type of emotional abuse of children. However, given its prevalence there has been a move to have it recognised as a specific syndrome - parental alienation syndrome. This is a position first advocated by the late American psychiatrist Dr. Richard A. Gardner, who makes the point that inclusion of the word syndrome is specific as regards the cause of the child's alienation, whereas omission of that word is not.''

The word syndrome does in my opinion not look at the absence or presence of causes. Compare to things like down-syndrome ( originally not labelled to a cause). I just wrote a short note on that problem in Dutch. Helas I'm not good enough in English to translate it. --Joep Zander 15:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joep, the whole idea of 'syndrome' seems absurd to me too. I listen to Psychiatrist William Glasser on this. He does go to cause and effect and suggests that all (non-organic) behavior is a choice 'crazy' or not as an attempt to meet internal needs common to all people. However these 3,300 and counting syndromes are big business in the United States.

Anacapa 02:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Claims that fathers are evil
A recent addition was: Some legal scholars assert that the concept of 'parental alienation' shifts the analysis away from the best interests of the children to the rights of the parents This is a false characterization of existing legal practice, and it is also implying that the "best interests of the children" are to keep the father away. Also, why is this referred to as "syndrome" in some sentences and not others? Please create an account and don't trash the article anonymously. DanP 11:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The previous round of editing by DanP cut out citations to relevant scholarly literature, and introduced a citition to a website containing supposed quotations made by women (but not specifically referencing parental alienation at all). This reference was deleted in this editing solely because it did not support the proposition for which it was cited: i.e. "These efforts have been met with criticism from women's rights groups who are critical of the need for a father in the family." That sentence has been edited out since the proposition is not supported by citation to any scholarly research or literature and appears to be an ad hoc assumption made by the prior editor. I see no reason to slam women's groups for criticizing the syndrome. It would be just as inappropriate to edit references to men's groups by adding a phrase 'men's groups who believe that women make up all abuse allegations and support the elimination of child support.'

For this reference to be useful, it needs to provide information about the theory, cititions to research supporting the theory, and provide critiques of the theory, including citations and research. To do otherwise is to deny the readers access to useful relevant information and violates the neutrality premise.

It is concerning that the prior editor chose to delete references to scholarly research; the principle of neutrality governing Wikipedia is that both sides of the debate should be presented and that relevant citations should not be edited out or deleted. I thought that the recent edits introducing citations to other scholarly works were interesting and provided information to readers about why parental alienation is a controversial theory. Why not let readers go to the citations and read them for additional information? As I understand it, there is also interesting scholarly research in the legal/psychological fields supporting PAS; I'll look for a good survey article and post a reference to it as well. Perhaps the editor who first introduced the citations can come up with something as well.

Merger with PAS
Why was this transferred to PAS? I have reverted for the time being. This redirect was not a valid action, even by references of Garner. If you run a Google search, one can easily find parental alienation -- totally separate from the syndrome. PAS is the syndrome and it focuses on the child, and "parental alienation" is the actions of the parent, not necessarily the syndrome. DanP 23:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I will have to read more about this. My impression was that, despite Garner's bias, he has done a great deal to formalize the subject. Do we really have to have two pages with so much overlap? Is there really a well-understood notion of "parental alienation" that is quite distinct from what Garner wrote about? Gardner obviously had NPOV issues, but he is dead now. He gets his bio page and there should be a PAS page. He does not own PAS, we all do. There are other voices and it is best to compare them directly with Gardner. Why do we need a PA page as well? I think the reader would benefit from seeing the PA/PAS stuff all together on one page and then let them make their own judgements. If there are laws and rules on PAS but not PA, fine. Note them and move on. There has got to be a way to unify this stuff. Amorrow 22:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I have a wikipedia account, this is such dangerous stuff in the courts, that I will post anonymously. I specifically went to a Ph.D Child Psychologist on the Roster of Parental Advocates for Maricopa County. After describing my situation to him, he assured me I need to google for "Parental Alienation" and not to describe what was happening to my children as "Parental Alienation Syndrome." They are in fact seen as different things. My understanding is that Parental Alienation may lead to Parental Alienation Syndrome. As an example, Parental Alienation is one parent badmouthing the other parent. Parental Alienation Syndrome is a child that has undergone Parental Alienation now coming to turn against that targeted parent. 130.76.64.16 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed !!

Facts vs fights?
From the notes above and from a glance at the PAS discussion I can see this is a loaded subject. As a child (and ongoing now) I was alienated by both parents against the other, my mother the 'obsessive' alienator and my father the 'active' alienator. This did such terrible trauma to me and my clan (sibs) that I doubt I will ever forget it. I would like to see non-sexist language here because both female and male parents alienate. I would also like to see PA (the conduct of alienating parents) separate from PAS (the conditions/conduct induced in alienating children). Last I would like us to focus on the conduct of alienating parents (the science) rather than on political and legal fights here and let the chips fall where they may. To assist in that I have found and added articles in the external links that closely match what I know about PA from the child's point of view. Anacapa 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also an adult who was severely alienated, but only against one parent. I was not so much brain washed to believe that my "target" parent was guilty of what they were accused of (Daily -- sometimes hourly) but tortured mentally to behave in ways contrary to my beliefs and in line with the alienating parent. Failure to be "loyal" were dealt with severely. The result was what is described as Parental Alienation Syndrome on my part. The knowledge that you are half of each parent and that one maintains a position that the target parent is not worthy of getting air, undermines a child's self confidence and self-esteem. Trust issues are not uncommon. 4honor

I am a parent currently being in my belief alienated from my daughter.This is very hard to prove in the courts eye when as a parent i know that is how i feel, alienated.I have seen my daughter 3 times in a year and a half.And when I last saw her she didnt know who i was, nor was she comfortable talking to me. I was nervous as was she it felt im sure as though she were talking to a stranger as i know that is how i felt.Further actions need to be taken by the courts to recognize that this is a serious condition in which parents and children alike are suffering from.SBOYCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.249.35 (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Losing the Rational
I have grave doubts about this text a whole, although especially this part:

''Extreme forms of parental alienation include obsessive brainwashing, character assassination, and the false inducement of fear, shame, and rage in children against the target parent. Moderate forms of parental alienation include loss of self control, flareups of anger, and unconscious alliances with the children against the target parent. In its mildest forms, parental alienation includes occasional mild denigration alternating with a focus on encouraging the children's relationship with the other parent.''

For starters brainwashing, could be stated to occour as a natrual occurance, in human beings. We all watch TV, and read newspapers, and listen to what is stated in them often as fact. So Brainwashing can occour as both extreme, nutral and mild. The same can be said of the smyptoms listed above. Flareups, anger, shame, can all be mild, moderate, or extrem. The whole of this paragraph, should be either (i) scrapped, or (ii) rewritten.

I have severe doubts about the authentisity of this artical as a whole. --User Martin 00:11, 31 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Parental aliention can occur for a variety of reasons. Assuming it's the father who is being alienated from the child (still the more common situation,) one possible reason could be, for instance, the fact that the father physically abused the child. Many such instances of course occur, quite genuinely. Little wonder that the father becomes alienated from the child, and the fault is of course his.

However, there are also cases in which although the father is not abusive at all, he is accused by the mother of being so. Usually the accusation is one of sexual abuse. She makes this accusation either because she believes for whatever reason that such abuse really did occur, or, more commonly, as a deliberate and malicious ploy to drive a wedge between father and child. Having made the accusation, the mother then goes on to "program" or "brainwash" the child into believing that the abuse really did indeed occur, and that the child should therefore withdraw his/her affection (preferably all contact altogether) from the father.

This is a form of emotional abuse by the mother. It produces a set of symptoms in the child, identified by Gardner. And the point about PAS, as distinct from PA, is that the same types of symptoms can be seen in most (all?) children who have suffered the same type of treatment from their mothers -- ie the children are all sufferers of a syndrome.

One definition of a syndrome is that common causes in a wide variety of unrelated cases produce the same set of symptoms in the victims. AIDS is a good example of a syndrome.

Note that the Parental Alienation Syndrome refers to the effects in the children of the causes of the syndrome, not to the causes (biological, behavioural, or any other) of those effects -- ie PAS does not refer to the either of the parents involved. So the term Parental Alienation refers to the alienation of a parent from a child for any reason (including some quite genuine ones,) while Parental Alienation Syndrome refers to the effects in the child of one parent's deliberate attempts to alienate the child from the other parent unreasonably.

Branching out a little, the US publication The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used as the "bible" of psychotic disorders in the English-speaking world. Its current edition (DSM-IV-TR) does not mention PAS at all, and this fact is sometimes cited by opponents of Gardner's and others' work to "prove" that PAS therefore does not exist. Such people could have used a similar argument using with editions of DSM to "prove" that AIDS did not exist, when of course it did but hadn't at that stage been recognised. Some fifteen or more years elapse between publication of the various editions of DSM, and a great deal of new research in a whole host of topic areas is done in such a period. The next edition, DSM-V, is presently due to be published in 2011. PAS has been suggested as a topic for inclusion, and because of the research done since DSM-IV was published there is no reason to suppose that PAS will not be listed in the new edition.

--Seymour John 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the last two paragraphs of this article at all. They do not make sense and are unattributed. The Children Act embodied in statute the existing common law that in private law proceedings the welfare of the child was paramount. It also introduced the concept of parental responsibilty, residence and contact, rather than the previous concepts of custody and access. In practice the main difference in private law was an increased awareness on the part of parents that the children, not the parents, had rights and that there was an expectation that they would agree to a solution in the interests of the child. Cases of extreme hostility by one parent towards another, for no apparent reason, played out through the child, do occur, but are a small minority of cases. However, accusations of unreasonable hostility or 'parental alienation syndrome' by parents who's controlling, bullying or abusive behaviour has in fact caused the difficulties, are far more common.Fainites 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above post. The last two paragraphs have been subjected to a series of editing, by various people with a particular point of view. I have changed them slightly, but suggest that if it was looked at from a different perspective with a natural point of view it indeed may make sense. I have edited them slightly to make more sense. There are people, both mothers and fathers, that can not gain justice for the mistreatment of their children, and stand accused of 'alienation'. It is quiet common in law for someone who wishes their views to be taken seriously to be accused of 'alienation' where that is simply not the case at all. I respect the "point of view" regarding 'abusive behavior' being more common, but should it not be respected also that another "point of view" would be that 'accusations of unreasonable hostility' or 'parental alienation' being a false accusation made when another claim a diffrent accusation can be common. --Martrn 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

recent revert of PAS info added to page
I recently added this information to the page. "The parental alienation syndrome is not currently considered a syndrome in the DSM-IV and the American psychological association officially takes no position on "the purported syndrome." 	It has been stated that the parental alienation syndrome should not be admitted in court, due to evidentiary and causation problems with its theory and due to the dangerous feeling of reliability and believability in this self-published theory. I added this because the next paragraph talks about PAS. "Critics of the "Parental Alienation" defence used in custody disputes say such legal arguments are not supported by research." This was reverted because the editor felt it should go into the PAS article instead. The info I added is a brief synopsis of info from the PAS article. I believe this brief synopsis of related material should be added back to the aricle to help readers better understand the issue. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is on parental alienation. There is another page on parental alienation syndrome.  I would move your piece to that article, if I were you.--Vannin (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The New Paradigm - Support for PAS
PAS is a growing concern and often not addressed successfully by the courts. What courts most generally address are the rights of Fathers and Mothers. Each case is determined on the biases of the court and the general social norms of the time and locale. One of the current drivers of the social norms are the growing Father's Rights Groups.

Father's Rights Groups are now common. The general (and false) assumption is that mothers have the upper hand in the courtroom. But that is not true in most courts across the nation. In fact, it has become well-known that father's are often held to a much more lenient set of standards. This has resulted in fathers having increased parental time, including sole custody, and one of the results has been an increase in Parental Alienation by Fathers.

One of the most powerful alienation tactics is to become the Party Dad. With the more lax set of standards applied to dads and, on average, a higher income, Dad is free to become the 'best-friend' aka 'party-dad'. Now mom is not only the one making the kid eat their vegetables, but mom is also the 'party-pooper'. This does lead to parental alienation. And this, the most insidious of all alienations, is avoided by the professional experts. aka, children have a tendency to want to be with the parent that is their 'best-friend' and to avoid the other parent, the parent with the rules and regulations.

It is shocking to note the number of mom's here in Colorado that are being alienated from their children. It has become quite a fight, a very expensive and disheartening fight, to retain half-time parenting rights. And then the dads, advised by their groups, and not fearing reprisals from the experts, use sports (and other activities) to create a barrier that is quite successful in alienating moms from their children.

It is sad to note, there are not many groups that support mother's rights at this time.

MamaCoder (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material
I have twice reverted the removal of well-sourced material from this article; the edit summaries claim that the material is 'biased' (which is not an acceptable reason for deletion, see WP:NPOV) and that it is offtopic because it is about the related concept Parental Alienation Syndrome. My view is that this is a helpful paragraph which serves to distinguish between the two concepts, and is thus an essential component of the article. Unfortunately, my edit summary to this effect got lost in a mishit, so I record my disagreement with this deletion here. I ask the editor to get consensus for the deletion of material here before repeating this action.

Overall, the article is very problematic. It lacks sourcing, is not of NPOV, contains external links/jumps to an activist website embedded in the article, and appears to contain large amounts of original research. An additional problem is that a review of the literature is that the term Parental Alienation is used with completely different meanings depending on the author. For example Gardner himself used the term PA to describe situations when fear of the target parent was actually justified.--Slp1 (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The problems with the article are numerous, and the article needs a great deal of work. However, this is not an excuse to restore a paragraph that is not about the article and is not NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I couldn't agree more. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert on May 19th
I've reverted a series of changes. The Canadian Children's Rights Council is an extremely partisan men's rights group that cites only a limited subset of publications that support its viewpoint. It is not a scholarly organization by any means, and is of uncertain notability. Though we can convenience link, I think the CCRC page is a bad choice becase a) it is of dubious reliability and expertise, b) it's got a definite and strong POV c) both those claims make it possible that the news stories are partial, edited or incomplete and d) they have a tendency to highlight the "important" parts of the news stories. Each link also comes accompanied by a host of other CCRC-supporting materials that are of dubious merit. Also, the page for parental alienation syndrome is separate from this one, and they should refer to, but not discuss, each one.

I'll be linking to Bala's actual studies when they appear, we should not be citing news stories anyway when we have a scholarly source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading through the lead some more, it was mostly about PAS, not simple alienation, so per WP:COAT, I've removed it. I looked around a bit on google and had great difficulty finding anything that was about alienation without being about PAS.  I'll try to expand based on Gordon, 2008 if I can.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Very promisingly, the article about Bala's study suggests it is about parental alienation rather than PAS, which could be quite helpful in differentiating between the two. Anyone who finds it when eventually published, please post it here so the page can be expanded beyond its current stub.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WLU is correct about not using the CCRC as a source for their original content; it's not a science publication, its writers are not noted experts, and it's not a non-biased fact-checking news organization. If some of the articles it presents are valid/reliable and useful, those can be cited directly to their original sources without need to use that website.


 * In addition, unless the CCRC website has permission from the publishers of the articles it contains, those articles should not be linked, according to WP:LINKVIO. I've searched the CCRC site to look for copyright permissions and have not been able to find anyplace where they state that they are authorizeed by the copyright owners to reprint the material.  I did find [http:// [blacklisted website] .com/Disclaimer.aspx this dislaimer] on their site: "The commercial reproduction, storage or transmittal of any part of this site is forbidden, without the permission and proper acknowledgement of the appropriate copyright owner.  Copyright of visual materials resides with the copyright owners described in the credits." - they mention the copyrights but do not state they have permission to use those materials, so that does not satisfy Wikipedia requirements. If someone can find a permission statementoin the CCRC site we might be able to use the pages as convenience links, if reliability can be established.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note the arguments against using convenience links - the site does not meet WP:RS or WP:V requirements, the convenience site is (in my mind) unreliable and associated with a particular viewpoint, the CCRC was linked across a lot of pages in contexts that supported their own beliefs (making it pretty close to advertising in my mind), and it does have both comments (in the form of articles written by the contributors) and edits page by highlighting (see for example, the BBC article Infidelity 'is natural' reproduced [blacklisted website .com/Newspaper_Articles/Newspaper_Articles_2008.aspx here]). I do not think the CCRC should be linked to at all.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are also important observations. After taking yet another look at that site, I concur that it should not be used, even for convenience links. If something they reproduce is important enough for us to use, we should find and cite the original source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Joining the club. An advocacy website, that hosts copyrighted, often altered material, and who have been spamming links to their links to multiple articles, even undoing appropriate links in an apparent effort to get traffic to their site. There is no reason to believe that this is a reliable host for any materials; and the POV and likely COI editing of their supporters (or is there just one??) is highly inappropriate. --Slp1 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-contradictory article
The article reportedly sourced by Bala (this could not be checked) read as follows:

Parental alienation is caused by the other parent, but sometimes parental alienation is not caused by the other parent.

The article needed to be fixed. Part of the prior article (not the first sentence) is correct, parental alienation is not always caused by the other parent. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I've got Bala, and that's the definition it provides - I checked it quite carefully after your last set of edits. The article states that parental alienation is caused by the alienating parent, while realistic estrangement is caused by the abusive parent.  If you want Bala, send me an e-mail and I will forward the PDF to you.  And if I haven't said it before, what makes an article correct is the adherence to reliable sources, not our opinion about the article or topic.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You've created an article that states that parental alienation is caused by the alienating parent, except that sometimes parental alienation is not caused by the alienating parent.
 * In this article you have overemphasized the phenomena of parental alienation syndrome, but on the parental alienation syndrome talk page, you have stated that the phenomena of parental alienation syndrome does not exist. Michael H 34 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Regards your first point, I don't think I have but just in case I have adjusted the lead, and now in the Differentiation section. Now it says "parental alienation is caused by the alienating parent, but rejection is caused by an abusing parent."  I hope that's sufficiently clear and thanks for the suggestion.
 * I don't see how, this page mentions parental alienation syndrome once in the see also section. Regards your second comment, I've since expanded the page, and now PAS is covered in the overview.  I think this more clearly states that parental alienation is a blanket term and PAS is more specific (and more controversial).  If you have any other suggestions for clarifications based on appropriate sources and weight, feel free to make them.  I'm reluctant to suggest you edit directly, but if you do, be aware of WP:BRD.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I think this more clearly states that parental alienation is a blanket term and PAS is more specific (and more controversial)."

Gardner suggested use of the term parental alienation (the condition of a child chronically alienated from a parent, which is either irrational or rational) as a more general term as compared to the more specific term parental alienation syndrome (the condition of a child irrationally and chronically alienated from a parent resulting from the influence of the other parent and in part resulting from the contributions of the child.) The term parental alienation has evolved and includes two meanings. The term parental alienation is now more specific than the term Gardner suggested: irrational and chronic alienation of a child from a parent resulting from the influence of the other parent with possible contributions from the child. It is now essentially the same as the definition of parental alienation syndrome without the label of syndrome. The second meaning of the term parental alienation refers to the alienating behavior of the alienating parent.

I disagree with your statement I highlighted above. The evolved definition of parental alienation (not the definition that Gardner suggested) is NOT more general than the definition of parental alienation syndrome. Sources state that the distinction between parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome is that with parental alienation there is more focus on the behavior of the alienating parent, while with parental alienation syndrome there is more focus on the condition of the child. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * Thank you for stating your objection clearly. I do not think that the sources I have seen highlight this as the difference between the two.  Please supply verbatim quotes supporting your point, including reference to the specific paper.  Please verify with sources and not your opinion that parental alienation has evolved into two meanings.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not object to your edit, I was only providing commentary on your statement. I may look for the sources I mentioned above at another time.  I have accepted your recent changes to this article.  Michael H 34 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Source
Regards this edit, everything is taken from Bala's article and there is no reason for removal. It's controversy is quite relevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that the source cited by WLU indicates acceptance of the phenomena of Parental Alienation Syndrome. The phenomena Parental Alienation Syndrome is nearly universally accepted, but the label used for the phenomena of Parental Alienation Syndrome is Parental Alienation rather than Parental Alienation Syndrome.  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * From Bala et al 2007 "Perhaps the most challenging family law cases involve high-conflict separations with difficulties in enforcing visitation rights. Over the past decade or so, lawyers and judges in Canada have begun to use the concept of "alienation" ot characterise these cases.  In this context, alienation refers to situations wehre a parent's hostility and negative feelings toward a former partner influence the child and lead the child to reject a parent, thereby making access difficult or impossible to exercise.  However, there is still controversy among legal and mental health professionals about alienation, both in general and in its application to specific cases.  There are continuing debates over such questions as whether alienation is a 'syndrome,' how to define and identify it, and how frequently it occurs.".
 * From Bow et al 2009 "Many published articles have examined the pattern of one parent’s intentional manipulations of a child’s feelings and beliefs about the other parent and many authors have offered different labels to describe this phenomenon. These labels include, but are not limited to, parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome, and child alienation. The lack of a single definition has contributed to an ongoing debate about the existence, etiology, and characteristics of alienating dynamics and, in the case of specific formulations of alienating behavior, whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support the use of the term 'syndrome' when describing alienating behaviors...Darnall (1998, 1999) used many of Gardner’s ideas but avoided the term syndrome, simply referring to the concept as Parental Alienation (PA). Darnall defined PA as any constellation of conscious or unconscious behaviors that might induce a disturbance in the relationship between the child and the target parent. He distinguished PA from PAS, noting that PA focuses on the parent’s behavior whereas PAS focuses on the child’s behavior...The vast majority of respondents indicated their awareness of the controversies surrounding the term “parental alienation” and perceived a lack of empirical research to support the concept. Nevertheless, they acknowledged the existence of alienation dynamics within the child custody field, and almost all viewed it as a multi-dimensional construct...Respondents did not view parental alienation as a 'syndrome' as defined by Dr. Richard Gardner."
 * Parental alienation syndrome is not a phenomenon, it's a syndrome, an "...association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others." The sources explicitly distinguish between parental alienation as a phenomenon (i.e. something that happens) and a syndrome (i.e. a regularly co-occurring set of recognizable features which can be used to establish the existence of a constelation as well as etiology and treatment).  Scholars treat the two differently.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It really is quite difficult to follow what your point is, Michael, and part of the problem is the repeated use of the term "phenomenon", which as WLU points out above, has multiple meanings. Can you restate your position without using the word "phenonema" for the purposes of clarification. --Slp1 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Parental alienation syndrome is not a phenomenon, it's a syndrome, an "...association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others."


 * The Warshak and Bernet sources are clear that there is something about parental alienation syndrome that is accepted. They're not wrong and they are not lying.  However, for a proposed diagnostic category to be accepted as a syndrome, it must also (1) be accepted as an abnormal disturbance and (2) be accepted as a helpful diagnostic category.  PAS is not accepted as a syndrome.  However, I will describe what is nearly universally accepted using the words from WLU's definition of syndrome.


 * The "...association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others" associated with parental alienation are nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals.


 * The "...association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others" associated with parental alienation syndrome are nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals. These are the same recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together accepted for parental alienation.  However, there is disagreement with respect to the second and third hurdles for acceptance of parental alienation / parental alienation syndrome as a syndrome: is it (1) a description of an abnormal disturbance and (2) is it a helpful diagnostic category?  Michael H 34 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I have big problems with the assumption that they are not wrong, lying or trying to make a convincing case while lacking the relevant community support and data to do it. Many of these publications, as Bow says, are definition documents, rallying cries and descriptions and not the convincing studies required to demonstrate something real is happening here.  Also, one of the major sticking points in the literature I recall reading is the assumption that if you have one of the eight aspects of PAS Gardner describes, you automatically have some version of the other seven, can understand the etiology, and know how to treat them.  Faller in particular is explicit on this I believe.  It has not been demonstrated that all eight occur together, for the same reasons, with the same patient histories, and the same treatment, which is why parental alienation syndrome is not a syndrome.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

More than one reliable source reported the "nearly universally accepted" view, and you have not found a source to contradict them. This is the nearly universally accepted view:

The "...association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others" associated with parental alienation syndrome are nearly universally accepted by mental health professionals. These are the same recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together accepted for parental alienation. However, there is disagreement with respect to the second and third hurdles for acceptance of parental alienation / parental alienation syndrome as a syndrome: is it (1) a description of an abnormal disturbance and (2) is it a helpful diagnostic category? Michael H 34 (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Okay, I finally understand what you are trying to say, and sadly it is just plain incorrect. Noone, not Warshak, not Bernet makes the claim that you are making: that PAS has clearly climbed one of the three hurdles to syndrome-hood that Warshak named. This is synthesis pure and simple, as you combine a cherry picked quote from Warshak with a cherry picked quote from Bernet to make a point that PAS is making progress towards approval as a syndrome. In addition, Warshak's exact phrase  has nothing to do with "recognizable features, characteristics".  The first hurdle he sets is that "the phenomenon exists". He and Bernet certainly claim that it does, but it is clear from Bow and even from Baker, that very few people agree that the "phenomenon (ie PAS) exists" per se.  Many people agree that some of the characteristics occur in divorcing families, but that is a very different matter.  And this is all quite apart from WAID's excellent point that the whole "how to" aspect is inappropriate. --Slp1 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Slp1 asked for an explanation using words other than phenomenon. Slp1 then claimed that the different words were not included in the source.  Slp1 first claimed that Warshak did not state that "PAS has clearly climbed one of the three hurdles", but then Slp1 stated that "The first hurdle [Warshak] sets is that "the phenomenon exists". He and Bernet certainly claim that it does....").


 * Without doubt, Warshak is CLEARLY stating that PAS has climbed one of the three hurdles to be accepted as a syndrome. I invite the wikipedia community to evaluate the sources.  Michael H 34 (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * "Bow and even from Baker, that very few people agree that the "phenomenon (ie PAS) exists" per se"


 * This an incorrect reading of these sources, and you will not be able to provide a quote to support this claim. The wording "phenomenon (ie PAS)" is an improper conflation of two ideas.  The acceptance of the phenomenon for which the syndrome is a diagnosis (only one hurdle) is not the same  as acceptance of the syndrome (all three hurdles).  Michael H 34 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * PAS is not a phenomenon or a diagnosis, it is a syndrome. Parental alienation is one name used for the phenomenon, which is different from PAS.  PAS is a specific theoretical formulation of the phenomenon of parental alienation used by Gardner and rejected by most scholars.  Parental alienation disorder is a different formulation, a diagnosis, that also falls within the parental alienation phenomenon.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "PAS is not a phenomenon or a diagnosis, it is a syndrome."


 * I agree.


 * "Parental alienation is one name used for the phenomenon, which is different from PAS."


 * I agree.


 * "PAS is a specific theoretical formulation of the phenomenon of parental alienation used by Gardner and rejected by most scholars."


 * It's accepted by some scholars and it's used by more than Gardner. I'll agree that PAS is rejected by some scholars.


 * "Parental alienation disorder is a different formulation, a diagnosis, that also falls within the parental alienation phenomenon."


 * I disagree. The only difference between PAS and PAD is the difference between a syndrome and a disorder.  Except for the differences between syndrome and disorder, they are identical.  Michael H 34 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Here Gardner discusses whether or not to use the term syndrome or disorder:

Undent. Your third point is only true if PAS and PA are the same thing, which they are not. Therefore you are wrong. Bow also rebuts your statement that PAS is rejected by some scholars. The correct term is "most". Your final line is your own opinion, not backed by sources, so that's wrong as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(If it's a Michael H 34 opinion, it must be wrong.)Michael H 34 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * "DSM-IV states specifically that all disorders contained in the volume are "syndromes or patterns" (p. xxi), and they would not be there if they were not syndromes. Once accepted, the name syndrome is changed to disorder. However, this is not automatically the pattern for nonpsychiatric disorders. Often the term syndrome becomes locked into the name and becomes so well known that changing the word syndrome to disorder may seem awkward. For example, Down’s syndrome, although well recognized, has never become Down’s disorder. Similarly, AIDS (Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome) is a well-recognized disease but still retains the syndrome term." Michael H 34 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34
 * I don't think that something is wrong because it is your opinion, I think it is wrong because it is an opinion. If the sources are not explicit, then any extrapolation should be avoided if at all possible, and if any analysis is required, it should be done with full consensus and only in the rarest of instances.
 * As for Gardner's statement, PAS hasn't been accepted (Bow, 2009 - please e-mail me so I can forward it on to you, as apparently the abstract isn't convincing you) and isn't the same thing as PAD (Bernet, 2008). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the description of a syndrome changes if its name is changed to disorder. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Does anyone have achild that has delt with parental alienation??? I am not sure if my child id expering syndoms of this or not we don't talk badly about the other parent but he seems to want nothing to do with the other parent will not visit the other parent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.36.221 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article not objective; e.g. claim about fathers is counterfactual
The article is biased to the extreme and not uppto the stanndards of Wikipedia. The claims are even counterfactual. I've discussed the topic with a specialist in parental alienation. According to her, targeted fathers are typically (too) soft. Many sources describe the parents alienating their children from the other parent to feature extreme characteristics. My own experience with my (alienated) children is the same. Psychologists have evaluated my parenthood positively and my children's mother's parenthood negatively. The article gives the opposite idea. For example, targeted fathers are described as follows:

"Rejected parents (often fathers) tend to lack warmth and empathy with the child, engage in rigid parenting and critical attitudes, and are passive, depressed, anxious and withdrawn - characteristics which may encourage rejection."

The article needs serious rewriting. It should be opened for editing.

I hold mmyself a PhD (not from psychology, though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imin2 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with this statement and characterization. It is contrary to my own survey of existing research and intuition (fwiw.)  It is also poorly referenced and gender biased in a way that, at first blush, appears quite POV.  Can the person who added it specifically cite which of the two references provided for the entire paragraph it appears in actually support it and, if it is the book reference, the page where it appears?  Pending such citation and verification I am removing this offensive statement that appears to blame the victim for their own alienation and runs counter to the rest of the, not so great, article.--Cybermud (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, disagreeing and intuition is not sufficient justification for deletion of cited material. The sentence concerned is sourced to two scholarly journals at the end of the paragraph. Neither is a book reference. If you have some scholarly articles or other high quality reliable sources to suggest for inclusion, it would be great to hear about them. --Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fortunately my disagreement and intuition are not the reason for my edit -- something I was careful to make clear in my comment as to the validity of the references and something you have chosen to ignore in your misrepresentation of my edit as being for "personal disagreement." You are ignoring my clear question as to which of the two references support the claim that I disagree with.  As this section indicates I am not the only to disagree.  Unless you can tell me which of the two actually support this (and it's as clear as mud) this should be removed as a contentious and unsupported addition to the article.  Furthermore, if it's the book that supports this I have requested that a page number be added to facilitate it's verification.--Cybermud (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. It may be contentious (to you) but the material is supported by two scholarly journals (which are clearly reliable sources). Once again, neither is a book. Apparently you don't believe that these citations are accurate. It's fair enough to express your doubts, I suppose, though not the height of assume good faith. On the other hand, unless you have some evidence that the material is not in the sources cited, (which you evidently don't) then it is inappropriate to remove the text.
 * I'll get back to you within 24-36 hours since I don't have the articles to hand at present. --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I did not go far enough to AGF. I looked through the talk page and article history (clearly too quickly) and didn't see that you had worked on either prior to your revert and assumed you, like I, had never seen the references in question either (and were making assumptions as to its content as equally invalid (or valid) as mine.)  I also looked at reference #3 and thought it was an ISBN number (hence the inference it was a book.)  Looking again I do see that you have commented on the talk page before.  I changed the relevant section again to only remove the parenthetical (and men) because it gives the impression that (1) men are more likely to have their children alienated.. which itself is not controversial given the prevalence of mothers have primary custody, and (2) are, by their nature as men (heartless), at least partially responsible for their children's alienation.  If this is what the references say I'm, of course, fine with it staying pending contradictory references, but it doesn't pass the sniff test for POV pushing and looks very much like WP:Syn.--Cybermud (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. I appreciate it. I'm actually not sure who added the material here, but I certainly know the literature. I'd still say that unless you are certain that well-sourced material is false (or unless there are BLP implications), it is better to ask for the quotations first, before deleting material you don't believe for whatever reason.  Here are the quotes you asked for.
 * from Bala: ..."However, certain characteristics of rejected parents may influence or encourage a child's rejection. Rejected parents, generally fathers, tend to be lacking in warmth, empathy and an understanding of the child's viewpoint. They may engage in emotionally abusive behaviour with their former partners or children, and often have difficulty with depression, anxiety and management of emotional responses." p. 89
 * from Bow "The behavior of the rejected parent may contribute to the alienation process as well, according to Kelly and Johnston (2001), such as passivity and withdrawal, counter-rejection of the child, harsh and rigid parenting, a critical and demanding attitude, and diminished empathy for the child may all play a role."
 * And from Johnston, here "The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law" "According to clinicians’ ratings, the typical family dynamics of children who show little or no pleasure in spending time with their fathers and who resist or refuse visitation include a father who tends to be deficient in parenting capacities—lacking in warmth, empathy, and cognitive understanding of the child’s viewpoint. He is less able to communicate with the child, less involved in the child’s daily activities, makes fewer attempts to enrich the child’s life, and tends to have less pleasure, joy, or fun in relating to his child. Whether the father’s limitations in parenting are largely a reaction to his child’s rejection of him could not be determined in this study. In the very least, the father has not been able to respond well under the circumstances."
 * I hope that helps. --Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to add those quotes. They are quite clear.  I have undone my previous "compromise" edit to re-add the "usually fathers" qualification which is clearly supported by the referenced sources.--Cybermud (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slp1, I think we should change the current version of "often fathers" to "generally fathers" which is what the source says. I think it's best to stay as close to the sources as possible to avoid accusations of being "counterfactual." Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 25 November 2011
Hi. Your definition of Parental Alienation is wrong. Parental Alienation is what the alienating parent does to cause Parental Alienation Syndrome in the child. Parental Alienation IS NOT what happens to the child. The SYNDROME is what happens to the child. For example: a mother who has residential custody of a child may engage in Parental Alienation. She becomes the ALIENATING parent. The father becomes the ALIENATED parent. The child gets Parental Alienation Syndrome as a result.

Please see the following source:

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Lawyers&#8203;.com - http://translate.google.es/translate?hl=es&sl=en&u=http://family-law.lawyers&#8203;.com/visitation-rights/Parental-Alienation-Syndrome.html&ei=7XrHToSKKonc0QGAw6Aa&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CGMQ7gEwBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dparental%2Balienation%2Bsyndrome%26hl%3Des%26rlz%3D1R2ADRA_enUS452%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D571%26prmd%3Dimvns As a divorced parent, you worry when the other parent makes derogatory remarks and tries to give your child a negative image of you. But, when do mere derogatory remarks turn into a harmful psychological phenomenon that psychologists have labeled the "Parental Alienation Syndrome?" Parental Alienation Syndrome occurs when one parent's efforts to consciously (or unconsciously) brainwash a child combine with the child's own bad-mouthing of the other parent. In severe cases, the child will not want to see or talk to the alienated parent. Once the alienation reaches such a point, it is difficult to reverse, and permanent damage is done to the child and to the relationship between the child and the alienated parent. Warning Signs of Parental Alienation (PA) How can you tell if your ex is attempting to alienate your child? Here are some Parental Alienation techniques and warning symptoms that psychologists have observed in children suffering from Parental Alienation Syndrome, according to Dr. Douglas Darnall, Ph.D:

• Giving a child a choice as to whether or not to visit with the other parent. • Telling the child details about the marital relationship or reasons for the divorce. • Refusing to acknowledge that the child has property and may want to transport possessions between residences. • Resisting or refusing to cooperate by not allowing the other parent access to school or medical records and schedules of extracurricular activities. • One parent blaming the other parent for financial problems, breaking up the family, changes in lifestyle, or having a girlfriend or boyfriend. • Refusing to be flexible with the visitation schedule in order to respond to the child's needs, or scheduling the child in so many activities that the other parent is never given the time to visit. • Assuming that if a parent has been physically abusive with the other parent, it follows that the parent will assault the child. This assumption is not always true. • Asking the child to choose one parent over the other. • The alienating parent encouraging any natural anger the child has toward the other parent. • A parent or step-parent suggesting changing the child's name or having the step-parent adopt the child. • When the child cannot give reasons for being angry towards a parent or gives reasons that are vague and without any details. • Using a child to spy or covertly gather information for the parent's own use. • Arranging temptations that interfere with the other parent's visitation. • Reacting with hurt or sadness to a child having a good time with the other parent. • Asking the child about the other parent's personal life. • Physically or psychologically rescuing a child when there is no threat to their safety. • Making demands on the other parent that are contrary to court orders. • Listening in on the child's phone conversation with the other parent. What Causes Parental Alienation? What causes a parent to want to damage the relationship of his or her own child with the other parent at his or her own child's expense? Intentions differ from one parent to the next, but psychologists have suggested the following as potential motivators: • An alienating parent may have unresolved anger toward the other parent for perceived wrongs during the relationship and may be unable to separate those issues from parenting issues. • An alienating parent may have unresolved issues from his or her childhood, particularly in how he or she related to his or her own parents, which he or she projects onto the other parent (whether or not it is factually accurate). • An alienating parent may have a personality disorder, such as narcissism or paranoia, which makes him or her unable to empathize with the child's feelings or see the way his or her behavior is harming the child. Such personality disorders may also make the alienating parent more likely to be jealous of the other parent's adjustment to the breakup and cause the alienating parent to have extreme rage toward the other parent. • An alienating parent may be so insecure as to his or her own parenting skills that he or she projects those concerns onto the other parent, regardless of reality. • An alienating parent may be so wrapped up in his or her child's life that he or she has no separate identity and sees the child's relationship with the other parent as a threat. • Sometimes new spouses or grandparents push the alienating parent into inappropriate behavior for their own inappropriate reasons, and the alienating parent is not strong enough to resist them.

What causes a child to buy into the alienating parent's brainwashing? The child may: • Feel the need to protect a parent who is depressed, panicky or needy, • Want to avoid the anger or rejection of a dominant parent, who is also often the parent with residential custody, • Want to hold onto the parent that the child is most afraid of losing, such as a parent who is self-absorbed or may not be very involved with the child. In choosing to go along with the viewpoint of the alienating parent, the child can avoid conflict and remove him or herself from the constant tug-of-war. How Does Alienation Occur? The alienating parent may use a number of techniques, including but not limited to: • Encouraging the child to pretend that the other parent does not exist. This can range from not allowing the child to mention the other parent's name to refusing to acknowledge that the child has fun with the other parent. • Leading the child to believe it is his or her choice as to whether or not to spend time with the other parent. • Attacking the other parent's character or lifestyle, such as job, lack of job, disability, living arrangements, planned activities with the child, clothing and friends (particularly new romantic partners). • Putting the child in the middle, by encouraging the child to spy on the other parent or take messages back and forth. • Emphasizing the other parent's flaws, such as an occasional burst of temper or not being prepared for the child's activities. Normal parental lapses are blown out of proportion and the child is repeatedly reminded of them. • Discussing any court battles between the parents with the child and encouraging the child to take sides. • Making the child think that there is reason to be afraid of the other parent. • Lying about how the other parent treats the child. If this is done frequently enough, the child may begin to believe even preposterous suggestions. • Rewriting history, such as suggesting to the child that the other parent never cared for him or her, even as an infant. The child has no memory of prior events and so cannot determine whether the alienating parent is telling the truth or not. What Does An Alienated Child Look Like? A child who has been successfully alienated: • Disparages the alienated parent with inaccurate, distorted descriptions or even uses foul language. • Offers only weak or frivolous reasons for his or her anger toward the alienated parent. • Professes to have only hatred toward the alienated parent, and cannot say anything positive about him or her. • Insists that he or she is solely responsible for his or her attitude toward the alienated parent, and that the alienating parent had nothing to do with his or her attitude. • Supports and feels protective toward the alienating parent. • Does not show any empathy or guilt regarding hurting the alienated parent's feelings. • Does not want anything to do with the alienated parent's friends and/or family. • May not want to see or talk to the alienated parent. What should you do if you fear the other parent is trying to alienate your child? If you are a parent who is a victim of the Parental Alienation Syndrome, it may have struck without warning and you are wracking your brain trying to figure out what happened. Many alienated parents find it difficult to control their anger and feel hurt over being treated so poorly by their child and ex-spouse. Experts on alienation suggest the following as ways to cope with the problem: • Try to control your anger and stay calm and in control of your own behavior. • Keep a log of events as they happen, describing in detail what happened and when. • Always call or pick up your child at scheduled times, even when you know the child will not be available. This is likely to be painful, but you must be able to document to the court that you tried to see your child and were refused. • During time spent with your child, focus on positive activities, and reminisce with the child about previous good times you had together. • Never discuss the court case with your child. • Try not to argue with or be defensive with your child. Focus on talking openly about what your child is actually seeing and feeling, as opposed to what the child has been told to be the truth. • Work on improving your parenting skills by taking parenting courses, reading parenting books, etc., so that you can be the best possible parent to your child. • If possible, get counseling for your child, preferably with a therapist trained to recognize and treat Parental Alienation Syndrome. If it is not possible to get your child into counseling, go to counseling yourself to learn how to react to and counteract the problem. • Do not do anything to violate any court orders or otherwise be an undesirable parent. Pay your child support on time and fulfill all your parenting obligations to the letter. • Do not react to the alienating behavior by engaging in alienating behavior toward your ex. This just makes things worse and further harms the child. • If you are not getting court-ordered time with your child, go back to court and ask that the parent violating the court order be held in contempt of court. The sooner the court knows about the violation of the court order, the more likely it is that the problem can be stopped before it becomes permanent and irreversible. If your custody order is not specific as to exact times and dates you are to be with the child, ask the court to make the order very specific so that there can be no doubt what is required. • Your child did not create the situation and desperately needs your love and affection. Questions for Your Attorney • Is it okay to say negative comments about the other parent in front of my child? • What if my child says negative comments about the other parent? Should I try to stop him or her? • How can I stop the other parent from saying negative comments about me?

I hope this is useful to you.

R kutney (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome are different things, and both are hypothetical. The definition used on this page is sourced to Bala, 2007.  Parental alienation syndrome isn't accepted as an actual syndrome.  Parental alienation has slightly more acceptance, and should not be edited towards a version that links the two more heavily.  Idiosyncratic translated pages and advocacy pieces are less reliable than journal articles.  I've hidden the above content because it's too close to an advocacy piece for my tastes, and far too instructional.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ► 21:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge PAS passes now the Frye Test
Hi, My data shows that some instances already consider this passes Frye test. See here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-iOqOKLc35PY1pjUHg0QzBuQzQ/view or http://www.jmichaelbone.com/articles_frye-test.html This wiki article claims the opposite. But this is probably outdated. Thansk to the Admin of the page if you could review and implement the needed changes. I am not an native english writer this i would prefer someone with more language skills properly phrase this. Catalin Bogdan (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The New Opening Paragraph
I like the new opening paragraph Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Proposed New Organizaion
While I do not necessarily oppose a reorganization, I do have some concerns about the proposal 1. A term that may address the concern about "symptoms" is "diagnostic criteria", even possibly "medical diagnostic criteria". 2. The newer approach of defining rigorous diagnostic criteria using existing standard psychological terms and then describing a psychological mechanism based on standard psychological constructs that causes those criteria really did come after 2010. That is not to say that there should be no reorganization, but rather that the existing structure may not be "illogical" per se. 3. Reenactment and personality disorder dynamics such as splitting, projection, and decompensation into persecutorial delusions probably only come with severe parental alienation. Implications such as DSM-5 V995.51 may be most easily argued for severe parental alienation, since developmental, personality, and psychotic criteria are undeniably and patently harmful to children. The diagnostic criteria of certain NPD/BPD criterion and fixed false beliefs probably only come with severe parental alienation. In other words, if a parent does not have a personality disorder, the child is probably not going to display those "personality disorder fingerprints". Other definitions of child abuse may apply more easily to lesser degrees of parental alienation. 4. Enmeshed perverse triangulation probably only comes with moderate or above. 5. This is not to say that a new organization could not be made to accommodate these concerns, but that it may be helpful to note how the existing organization tiptoes around these issues, though granted, it may have other downsides. 6. I do know someone who once proposed this organization: "Theory", "Diagnosis", "Treatment". This may be close to what is proposed above, where "Academic Background" is close to "Theory" and "Identifiability" is close to "Diagnosis". Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Although mention has been made of NPD, why no mention of psychopathy? Typcially the psychopath sees the child as an object to be manipulated to hurt the normal partner. Separation and divorce do not have to happen; the aim is to destroy everything that the partner values, including love from their own children. 78.151.66.107 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is response to the question of "why no mention of psychopathy", I am simply not aware of many high quality references for that. Occasionally people do mention psychopathy or histrionic, although I believe it is rare.

Admittedly, the argument and reasoning you present has some appeal .... but .... 1. The formal DSM-5 term for psychopathy would be antisocial personality disorder 2. Because there is overlap across personality disorders, there have been some academic proposal to collapse several personality disorder classifications down into one, but ultimately, psychology has not moved there, at least not yet, as evidenced by DSM-5. 3. Lack of empathy does run across many personality disorders, which is close to what you hint.

In summary, it all comes down to where are the high quality references? Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Parental alienation in popular culture
New section perhaps with references to works of fiction/true story accounts? Kramer vs Kramer, Don't Hug your Mother] ... Bogger (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Professional Acceptance vs. Acceptance by Courts
When I hear of "professional acceptance" of parental alienation, I think of mental health professionals. While acceptance within the legal or judicial community is relevant, a section on that subject might be better titled "Legal issues", "Legal acceptance", or something similar. If the current title is maintained, professional acceptance should be subdivided into (at least) two sections, one addressing acceptance by mental health professionals, and another discussing acceptance by the courts and legal system. 2601:401:503:62B0:288E:87DD:2A42:8C98 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The material on the Frye test and the current federal test needs significant revision. The federal rules of evidence do not apply in state court proceedings, nor is the consideration by the court of behaviors that are potentially alienating (the subject of this article, and never actually a matter of controversy) the same thing as a court's acceptance of PAS (an unrecognized diagnosis that has been broadly discredited).2601:401:503:62B0:288E:87DD:2A42:8C98 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Parental alienation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005021044/http://dsmfacts.org/materials/american-psychiatric-association-board-of-trustees-approves-dsm-5/ to http://dsmfacts.org/materials/american-psychiatric-association-board-of-trustees-approves-dsm-5/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130616033355/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/barbara-kay-teaching-children-to-hate-the-ex/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/barbara-kay-teaching-children-to-hate-the-ex/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Empty sections
This article has two empty sections. If addition of content is not imminent, it makes sense to delete them. Arllaw (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As there were no objections, and as the subheadings can be easily restored if and when content is added, I have removed the empty subsections. Arllaw (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)