Rethinking Parental Alienation: Ethical Imperatives for Protecting Children in Family Court

Author: Erika L. Gilmore, M.S.Ed, LPC, NCC, CCTP

Abstract

This post examines the misuse of "parental alienation" claims within family courts and the serious risks posed to child safety. Despite being widely discredited, alienation theories continue to influence custody outcomes, often at the expense of children’s welfare. Drawing from research literature, this post argues for trauma-informed, evidence-based reforms that prioritize children's best interests and proposes clear standards for custody evaluations and judicial decision-making.

Introduction

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), first introduced by Gardner (1985), posited that children could irrationally reject one parent due to the manipulative efforts of the other. Although PAS lacks empirical support and has been rejected by the broader mental health community, the broader concept of "parental alienation" persists in family law. Its application has led to custody outcomes that ignore or minimize credible allegations of abuse, placing vulnerable children at risk (Meier, 2020).

Children involved in high-conflict custody disputes are especially susceptible to harm when courts misinterpret trauma responses as evidence of alienation. In these cases, courts may erroneously force reunification with abusive or neglectful parents, exacerbating the child's psychological distress. Ethical, trauma-informed approaches are necessary to ensure that children's experiences are fully understood and respected within custody determinations.

Vulnerable Population: Children in Custody Disputes

Children resisting contact with a parent may exhibit behaviors—such as fear, withdrawal, or anger—that are commonly misinterpreted as alienation. In reality, these behaviors often reflect genuine emotional responses to trauma or perceived threats (APSAC, 2012). When courts attribute such reactions solely to one parent’s influence, they fail to protect children who are legitimately seeking safety.

Children from marginalized groups, including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ youth, and children with disabilities, face additional systemic biases that may distort court proceedings. Cultural misunderstandings and stereotypes can lead to flawed custody evaluations and inappropriate rulings. Thus, a culturally competent, developmentally informed approach is critical to child custody assessments.

Review of Research Literature

Extensive research highlights the dangers of using parental alienation theories to discredit abuse allegations. Meier (2020) found that courts are more likely to reject mothers’ claims of abuse when fathers allege alienation, resulting in the frequent transfer of custody to alleged abusers. Silberg and Dallam (2019) document multiple instances in which abusive parents successfully gained custody by framing the protective parent as alienating the child.

Professional organizations have responded with strong recommendations. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC, 2012) emphasizes that alienation claims should never override the need for thorough abuse investigations. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ, 2019) advises judges to exercise extreme caution when dealing with allegations of alienation and stresses the importance of trauma-informed judicial practices.

Moreover, Saunders et al. (2011) reveal that many custody evaluators lack critical knowledge about domestic violence and child abuse, further compounding the risk of inappropriate recommendations. Without proper training in trauma and forensic interviewing, evaluators may misinterpret protective behaviors as evidence of alienation.

Ethical Standards and the Need for Reform

The American Counseling Association (2014) outlines clear ethical obligations, including promoting client welfare (A.1.a), avoiding harm (A.4.a), and using culturally and developmentally appropriate assessments (E.5.b). These standards demand that mental health professionals working in custody contexts advocate for children's safety and resist court practices that place children at risk.

A trauma-informed, culturally responsive framework should be the standard for all custody evaluations and court decisions. This approach prioritizes the child's voice, emotional safety, and developmental needs over reunification at any cost.

Proposed Standards for Ethical Custody Practices

1. Trauma-Informed Assessments: Custody evaluations must include validated trauma screening tools and an understanding of trauma symptoms.

2. Prioritized Abuse Investigations: All abuse allegations must be thoroughly investigated before considering claims of alienation.

3. Evaluator Competency Requirements: Only clinicians with specialized training in domestic violence, trauma, and child development should conduct custody evaluations.

4. Independent Advocacy for Children: Children should have access to neutral advocates who prioritize their developmental and emotional needs.

5. Cultural Competence: Evaluations and court decisions must account for the child’s cultural, racial, and social background.

6. Judicial Accountability: Judges must articulate the evidence underlying their decisions, particularly when dismissing abuse allegations.

7. Cross-Disciplinary Training: Both legal and mental health professionals should receive ongoing education on trauma, forensic interviewing, domestic violence, and implicit bias.

Conclusion

The continued reliance on parental alienation theories in family courts endangers children's safety and well-being. An ethical response demands trauma-informed, culturally sensitive practices that center the needs of the child. By adopting evidence-based reforms, courts and clinicians can prevent further harm and honor their ethical obligation to protect the most vulnerable. Ensuring that children's voices are heard, respected, and prioritized is not merely best practice—it is a moral imperative.

References

American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (2012). APSAC practice guidelines: Forensic interviewing in cases of suspected child abuse. APSAC.

Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29(2), 3–7.

Meier, J. S. (2020). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations. George Washington University Law School. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3448062

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2019). Resolution regarding judicial education on domestic child abuse, child sexual abuse and custody cases. https://www.ncjfcj.org

Saunders, D. G., Faller, K. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2011). Child custody evaluators’ beliefs about domestic abuse allegations: Their relationship to evaluator demographics, background, domestic violence knowledge and custody-visitation recommendations (NCJ No. 238891). U.S. Department of Justice.

Silberg, J. L., & Dallam, S. J. (2019). Abusers gaining custody in family courts: A case series of outcomes. Journal of Child Custody, 16(2), 140–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1661328