DESCRIBING SOMETHING AS A `SYNDROME’ IS NOT TO
DIGNIFY IT WITH ANY OFFICIAL STATUS OR CONFER
SCIENTIFIC OR OTHER RECOGNITION OR ACCECPTANCE.

IN PAS THE SYNDROME IS A _CHILD_ SHOWING AVERSION
TO ONE PARENT AND A CERTAIN UNUSUAL PATTERN OF
SOLICITUDE TOWARD THE OTHER. A _PARTY_ TO A
CUSTODY CASE IS NOT IN ANY EVENT—ESSENTIALLY `BY
DEFINITION’—GOING TO `HAVE’ OR EXHIBIT THE
SYNDROME!

IN MOST INSTANCES LEVING AND SACKS SHOULD SAY
`PARENTAL ALIENATION’ RATHER THAN `PARENTAL
ALIENATION SYNDROME’ AS A MATTER OF PROPER USE OF
THE LANGUAGE—WITHOUT ANY NORMATIVE IMPLICATIONS.

The press release links to two things, one is the 2006 edition of “Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide,” published by The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1700 family court judges are members). The Leadership Council provide an excerpt which claims the APA have said that “… there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome …”. The APA’s web site has a verson of the statement which reads “An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called “parental alienation syndrome”, and raised concern about the term’s use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome.” (Their emphasis).

The one relevant survey cited is ten years old, the APA say there is a lack of data to support the syndrome, not that there is no data, nor that studies have shown it to be nonexistent, and they have no official position on the matter. Nevertheless, the Judge’s guide deems this to mean that the APA have “discredited” the syndrome and while it recognizes that children can be manipulated into criticism of a parent it also says “Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and/or stricken from the evaluation report”. That is, the alienation of a parent cannot be described as such and a psychologist who does so risks worsening the situation of the alienated parent.

The other link from the Leadership Council’s press release is to a new paper by Jennifer Hoult (look her up, really) which systematically attacks the use of PAS as a defense in court both from its record in the courts and with claims that it derives from theories intended to excuse pedophilia and is thus used by pedophiliacs as a means to remain in contact with their victims. The paper is problematic in many ways, much of the reasoning is distinctly suspect. I sincerely hope that someone with some authority is able to examine some of its problems because it looks alarmingly like hysteria mongering and patriphobia dressed up in formal, academic terms.

Check out, in particular, the last paragraph of section V. The word “patriarchy” is liberally spread around and PAS is explicitly described in gender specific terms, which it is not. The effort to demonize proponents of PAS is clear.

Some of the science behind PAS so far may have its problems, and PAS may have been used inappropriately in court, but that does not mean the phenomenon of parental alienation does not exist nor that it should be rejected out of hand. To do so is to betray good parents and leave children in the hands of abusers. It is frightening that such heavyweights have come out against it.