The core claims of parental alienation theory are refuted by a wealth of significant empirical research
Claims of parental alienation are not only made in cases where abuse exists. However, when the two coexist, cases become particularly dangerous and potentially harmful. The misuse of the concept of "parental alienation" as a strategy to counter allegations of abuse has been described extensively in the literature (Hunter, Burton and Trinder 2020; Meier 2009; Milchman 2017; Silberg and Dallam 2019). However, beyond the criticism related to abuse, it is necessary to examine in detail the studies that are systematically cited in the relevant literature in order to support the scientific validity of parental alienation theory.
"Parental alienation" as a weapon in child custody court cases
Forty years have passed since parental alienation theory first appeared in the USA, with Richard Gardner, yet there is still no unified clinical or scientific definition (Johnston and Sullivan 2020). The way it is described very generally in the literature is the idea that a child's fear of and rejection toward one parent (usually the one who does not have custody) stems from the malicious influence of the preferred parent (who usually has custody). Most scholars of this theory acknowledge that the hypothesis of "parental alienation" should only be considered if the child's avoidant behavior has no reasonable cause, including, among others, abuse (Bernet et al. 2018).
At the foundation of parental alienation theory lies an undeniable truth: parents do, indeed, sometimes try to turn children against the other parent, especially in conditions of separation. However, as long as the concept of "alienation" was not surrounded by a veneer of scientific legitimacy, this common human behavior was not considered to entail the "catastrophic" consequences described in parental alienation theory. The view that children subjected to such behaviors are permanently and irrevocably marked, and lose, possibly permanently, their relationship with the "alienated" parent, became commonplace in courtrooms only after parental alienation syndrome and "parental alienation" began to be discussed more widely as "scientific" concepts (Meier 2021).
Before the psychiatrization of undesirable parental behavior (Milchman, Geffner & Meier 2020), reports by parents and children of domestic violence were not automatically considered evidence of the existence of parental alienation, as happens today (Kansas City Star Editorial Board 2020; Meier 2020). Furthermore, the fact that parents sometimes use their children to harm the other parent does not mean that an "expert" can objectively know when one parent's negative views of the other are legitimate or illegitimate, nor can they know whether, and to what extent, these views may have caused a child's "alienation" from the other parent. Such bold claims should be considered credible only if confirmed by reliable scientific research (Meier 2021).
Rejecting "parental alienation" as a valid scientific theory does not mean that a parent's attempts to turn children against the other parent should not be taken into account in custody court cases. It does mean, however, that judges should be particularly cautious when assessing the impact of such behaviors, when examining the reasons why children display avoidant behavior toward the non-preferred parent, and especially regarding the ability of any third party to accurately assess these situations. And, finally, it means that no treatment for "parental alienation" can be considered scientifically valid and justified (Meier 2021).
Amy Baker's attempt at scientific documentation of the claim that abused children do not reject the abusive parent
When "parental alienation" experts are asked how they distinguish "alienated" children from abused children, they cite a series of arbitrary criteria. One of these is that abused children tend not to reject their abuser and wish to maintain their relationship with them, while "alienated" children do the opposite, that is, they reject their abuser and align themselves with the safe parent.
Amy Baker (2020), in her attempt to support the idea that abused children wish to maintain their relationship with the abusive parent, cites a study by Rosenblum & Harlow (1963).
According to Baker, this study—which involved baby monkeys who, although raised by abusive mothers, tended to cling to them more than non-abused baby monkeys did—proves the hypothesis that children who reject a parent do not do so because that parent has been abusive.
Even setting aside for a moment the fact that the subjects of this experiment were not human children, Baker does not mention in her article that the role of the mother in this experiment was played by plush surrogates with built-in bottles, to which the baby monkeys clung when subjected to abuse by the experimenters. Both this particular study and a small additional number of empirical studies cited by Baker (2020) to support parental alienation theory have serious flaws, both in their design and their implementation (Mercer, 2021). Illustration of the Rosenblum & Harlow (1963) monkey experiment, used by Amy Baker (2020) to support the claim that abused children do not reject their abuser.
Rowen & Emery's study on parental alienation as one-sided behavior resulting in the breakdown of the relationship with one parent
Robert Emery, a psychologist, researcher, and former social science editor of the Journal of the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC)[1], together with his colleague Jenna Rowen, sought to empirically test the core assumption of parental alienation theory: that the "alienating" parent succeeds in turning the child against the other parent as the result of a one-sided smear campaign (Rowen and Emery 2018).
The study's findings were striking, as they did not support the core assumption of "parental alienation" regarding the one-sided breakdown of the child's relationship with the "alienated" parent. What the results showed was that when one parent disparages the other, this is almost always a mutual—not one-sided—behavior, which works against the parent who behaves more aggressively. The child does not turn against the parent who is being disparaged, but against the parent who disparages more frequently and more intensely (Rowen and Emery 2018).
☞ As Rowan & Emery state:
In order to consider the concept of "parental alienation" as proven according to the strict criteria of science, it is imperative that there be empirical substantiation of the claims that support it. The initial work we completed on "parental alienation" calls into question fundamental assumptions of "parental alienation," particularly its supposed one-sided nature, as well as the breakdown of the relationship with the parent being disparaged as opposed to the parent doing the disparaging. (Rowen & Emery 2019, 207)
The results of the Rowan & Emery study, which refute a core assumption of parental alienation theory, have not yet been addressed in the literature supporting the theory.
The study by Fortin, Hunt & Scanlan and the child as an independent thinker
The study by Fortin, Hunt and Scanlan (2012) confirms that the reasons why a child resists contact with one parent can never be explained as the result of one-sided manipulation by the parent with whom the child lives (more often the mother is cited as the manipulating subject in parental alienation theory).
The study's findings showed that when children resist contact with the non-custodial parent, they have valid reasons, which they have formed themselves, independent of the mutual smear campaign the parents engage in against one another (Fortin et al, 2012). The reasons cited by children may relate to a parent's indifference, rejection by a new partner, or even practical factors such as distance or the parent's professional obligations.
Fortin et al, in their study, recorded attempts at manipulation by the custodial parent only in very rare cases and in very young children. The study's findings do not justify questioning a child's wishes in a court case without a very careful investigation of the underlying reasons why the child resists contact, in order to ensure that significant factors in the child's relationship with the parent have not been overlooked.