Talk:Parental alienation

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 [1]. 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." "Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome". American Psychological Association. 2005-10-28. Retrieved 2008-04-12.  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. Wood, CL (1994). "The parental alienation syndrome: a dangerous aura of reliability". 29: 1367–1415. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |Journal= ignored (|journal= suggested) (help) 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.[2] 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)

• I couldn't agree more. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 16 May 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

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 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 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:[3]

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

[4] "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

{{edit semi-protected}}

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.

Hid advocacy and instructional piece

Please see the following source:

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

Lawyers.com - http://translate.google.es/translate?hl=es&sl=en&u=http://family-law.lawyers.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)

Further reading

Per WP:FURTHER, the further reading section normally does not include works already cited in the text. The footnotes are not so extensive that it is overwhelming to find lengthier or general references within it. In addition, the sources were fairly one-sided and unskeptical.

Also, I removed Baker's book as it is about parental alienation syndrome, which is distinct from parental alienation and should not be included here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The article subject heading "Professional Acceptance" is misleading. Parental Alienation Syndrome has been explicitly rejected by both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. A better title would be "lack of professional acceptance." Naturally, contributors could still list individuals or organizations who continue to endorse the nosology. ^^^^-Dersu 12/03/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.178.129 (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2014 (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)

Article structure

I think that the organisation of this article could be improved significantly. For instance:


i) The sections “other approaches” and “symptoms” etc. should not logically come under “Developments since 2010”;

ii) There also appears to be undue focus (greater length, main titles) on the history of the term (including what is called an “overview”), at the expense of explaining more what the phenomenon actually is; and

iii) The section “symptoms” does not appear to be about symptoms, which should be what a person feels/reports - as distinct from what others observe.

I’ve taken the liberty of proposing what I believe to be a better structure for the article and would be happy to provide additional text and references wherever necessary, if appropriate.

Contents 


1 (Academic) Background [To include origin of term, history, “overview”, “professional acceptance” & “developments since 2010”]

2 How and why it occurs [To include current “false narrative”, “cause” and “mechanism”]

3 Signs and symptoms [To include distinctiveness, “loss of attachment” etc.]

4 Identifiability [To include current “Differentiation”, distinctively different behaviour of children exposed to genuine abuse, etc.]

5 Consequences [The effects of parental alienation on children, parents, families and society as a whole]

6 Treatment & Remedies [Summary of the evidence & research on treatment options and remedies, incl. current “Implications”]

7 Related concepts [Current “See also”]

8 References

9 Further reading

10 External links

Skythrops (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As Martinogk has begun improving the old structure in line with Wikipedia guidelines, I’d like to add some suggestions about overall structure. (With one or more major publications on this subject due out this year, I think much of the actual rewrite may be best done after these are available. It’s laudable Martinogk that you’re starting to make revisions to the existing text, but most of it surely needs complete rewrites rather than corrections, no?)

I agree that it’s a good idea to put History further back in the article to conform to Wikipedia protocols and focus on the actual phenomenon rather than its history. However, I think we may still need a bit of a broader introduction to put parental alienation into perspective before launching into signs/causes/treatment etc. (and before we start discussing the subtleties of alienation vs estrangement etc.) This is especially important because, unlike other diseases/conditions for which the Wikipedia structure has been suggested, the term parental alienation is used in several distinct ways (albeit all part of the same phenomenon). We need to be clear about this from the start to be inclusive and representative of the literature and to avoid confusion. I’d therefore propose including something similar to one of the paragraphs in my previous post in such an introduction (see below).

More broadly, would something like this structure be OK? … (Classification is up-front in Wikipedia’s style-guide, but could be later if preferred.)

I also think the section on parental alienation syndrome should be removed (though it would be referred to in the introduction/history).

1. Introduction

2. Classification: where parental alienation fits in (today)

2.1. In law (international definitions of psychological abuse, family violence etc.; offences/crimes (Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.); international Conventions (human rights, Rights of the Child etc.))

2.2. In psychology (brief review of latest research, DSM-V, ICD-11 etc.)

2.3. Relative to other concepts: alienation & estrangement

3. Causes & Prevalence

4. Impact/Consequences [The effects of parental alienation on children, parents, families and society as a whole]

5. Signs & diagnosis

- Presentation of child victims - Presentation of adult victims - Presentation/characteristics of perpetrators - Diagnosis

6. Prevention

7. Treatment

8. Outcomes

9. History

Advances in social science & understanding, historical figures, and outdated perspectives; social perceptions, cultural history, stigma, awareness

10. Legal & court treatment

11. Related concepts [Current “See also”]

12. References

13. Further reading

14. External links

Skythrops (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(New) Opening paragraph

I've observed that much of the recent discussion seems to revolve around the question of whether PA should be considered as a theory or as a fact. If I may add to to the discussion: it might be worthwhile considering PA in the broader framework of trauma and abuse. There is, I would suggest no doubt (and the literature agrees) that PA is attempting to define a process (or possibly an outcome) whereby a child is manipulated into holding an unreasonable/extreme view of another party. Further to this there is no doubt that this form of manipulation is wide spread - one only has to look to peer-to-peer dynamics in any situation where one party is seeking to gain advantage over another to see this in action and there is plenty of research on schoolyard/workplace/intimate/etc. bullying to support this. As such it seem that PA is simply a very specific subset of a much broad behavioural pattern and as such is not really a theory but more of a definition within a specific context. Where PA is unique is that the context in which it is almost invariably raised is the legal framework associated with relationship breakdown which involves children and the potential use of those children by one or both parties to gain advantage over the other. Returning then to trauma and abuse aspect there is no doubt that the impact on a child (or any party) of being manipulated/bullied into being a "weapon" is an abuse of that child - the long and short term ramifications are very clear across the literature.

As such I would suggest that PA is a definition, not a theory. Certainly the motivations/process/outcomes/etc are open to discussion and theory and there is much work to do here both in a research and legal context. Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for the person who edited the opening paragraph before I most recently edited it, before it was "reverted" to a prior version that really isn't very good, but.... I don't think that there is significant confusion about the fact that parental alienation exists, that it has a number of causes, and can be an appropriate response to a parent's conduct, may be inappropriately motivated, or may fall across a spectrum between those two extremes. Any controversy comes from the association of the term with parental alienation syndrome, which is discussed in that separate article, or dubious treatments.

Maybe we need a new section to continue this discussion -- it's difficult to keep track of discussions that occur at the top and bottom of an already long existing section. Arllaw (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@DrPax: I have started a new section for discussion of the current article lead. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following rewrite of the introductory paragraph (plus references):

Parental alienation is the process, and the result, of the psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other family members. It is a distinctive and widespread form of psychological abuse and domestic violence, towards both the child and the rejected family members, that occurs almost exclusively in association with family separation or divorce (particularly where legal action is involved). It undermines core principles of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most commonly, the primary cause is a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child, but other family members or friends, as well as professionals involved with the family (including psychologists, lawyers and judges), may contribute significantly to the process. It often leads to the long-term, or even permanent, estrangement of a child from one parent and other family members and, as a form of major childhood trauma, results in significantly increased risks of both mental and physical illness.

Rationale (concerns about current text): “Hostile aggressive parenting” is not really a synonym or alternative for “parental alienation”; it’s one of many “related concepts” and could be moved to such a section. “Parental alienation” is not a theory; it can be described as a term or a phenomenon (or as a process, and its results). The link with parental alienation syndrome may be better kept for a background/overview section. I think some of the text is a bit confusing or misleading, e.g.  “characteristics, such as lack of empathy and warmth, between the rejected parent and child are some indicators” is not an accurate conclusion of the Warshak reference provided and it implies some failure in the rejected parent; this is not a necessary (or even normal) element of the process. What distinguishes this phenomenon is precisely the fact that the behavioural displays of a child towards a parent or relative are unwarranted. The phenomenon itself is not strictly controversial; it’s widespread and readily identified by experts. It’s the history of the term and development of a psychological framework for (or theories to explain the psychological development of) the phenomenon that has been controversial. The best Wikipedia page openings manage to start with a clear, quotable definition of a term, which this currently lacks, and then to focus on the most significant aspects of it, keeping less important information and clarifications for subsequent sections.Skythrops (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the original reference to domestic/family violence, with the most recently published, peer-reviewed reference. Please discuss on this page, and ensure we have consensus, prior to any changes to this first paragraph. Thanks Skythrops (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As is suggested by the title, "Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence", your source makes plain that describing parental alienation as "family violence" is a matter of advocacy, with the mainstream legal and psychological community rejecting that characterization. That aspect of the article is advocacy, not a reflection of a consensus view that supports your modification of the article.

Despite affecting millions of families around the world, parental alienation has been largely unacknowledged or denied by legal and health professionals as a form of family violence.

Arllaw (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is an extraordinary assessment of this new study, which has been published in a reasonably respected, peer-reviewed journal. Any advocacy or ideological bias, in this instance, is not coming from the three, respected authors of this particular publication. This is a properly referenced academic study and the most recent publication on this specific issue. Nor does the quote you use support your contention: in stating that "parental alienation has been largely unacknowledged" by professionals, it is referring - as would any academic paper - to a historical and/or current position from which this paper moves forward; it is essentially stating that the idea that parental alienation is a form of family violence had not been properly considered or recognised by previous authors. If a new, peer-reviewed paper comes out successfully refuting this publication, then we should reconsider this Wikipedia text (which I wrote over three years ago).

If you have evidence of "a consensus view" that parental alienation is NOT family violence then please present it here for discussion and our own consensus. I suggest that, as with your previous assertions that the meaning of the term Parental Alienation is self-evident (which it is not) and that it had its origins prior to Gardner's coining of the term Parental Alienation Syndrome (for which no evidence was presented and, I believe from extensive research, none exists), the position you advocate here is not evidence-based either.

There is now evidence to support this original wording (which is one of multiple pieces of text you have deleted, on multiple occasions, without providing adequate evidence) not just from psychology, but from multiple sources - not least the fact that parental alienation, as defined here, readily meets the current, legal definition of "family violence" in countries such as Australia, and has even been criminalised in several others. Skythrops (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's simply not correct. The piece you cited is not reflective of change -- it is an argument for a change in the consensus view that parental alienation is not a form of "violence". As I already documented with actual quotes, the very article you cite concedes that neither the mental health community nor the legal community agree with that characterization -- that is, you have cited only one source and that source confirms my position while refuting yours. It appears that you have strong feelings on this matter, and very much want the consensus view to change, but Wikipedia is not a place for that type of advocacy. Arllaw (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Arrllaw: this page is not the place for advocacy or ideology, but for clear communication and an evidence-based approach. There is clear consensus among international experts on Parental Alienation that it is a type of family violence as well as psychological child abuse and "emerging consensus", as this paper phrases it, beyond that group. (International legal definitions of family violence have also, over the past decade, increasingly included many forms of abuse such as this.) The issue highlighted by this paper is that this is not common knowledge among non-experts, including the legal profession, who find themselves addressing, commenting, or making judgments on what is essentially a psychological phenomenon. It's not clear if you've had the opportunity to read beyond the abstract or if, perhaps being a legal professional yourself, the nature of scientific consensus/debate is being misunderstood, but the discussion (or perhaps advocacy, as you call it) in this paper is about the need for these non-experts to educate themselves appropriately; the peer-reviewed science - in a journal published by none other than the American Psychological Association - is about the evidence for Parental Alienation being a form of family violence. That's about as definitive or authoritative as you get in the field of social science. I will add further references to this point when I've time and, for a couple of in-press papers, when published. My other, previous points remain.

My personal feelings don't come into this, other than that I believe your previous editing of this article (to which you appear to have been attracted following my comments on the Parental Alienation Syndrome page) were not in the spirit of Wikipedia editing rules. Skythrops (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, once again your own source (the only source that you have produced) explicitly contradicts your position. You can keep pounding the table, but that's the fact. The article should be corrected. Arllaw (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverted to original 2015 text following vandalism. Please use this Talk page for discussion about legitimate, potential changes to this long-standing text. Skythrops (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not helpful to accuse other editors of vandalism, merely because they modify edits that you personally believe should be left untouched. This is a collective project and there is nothing special about edits made in 2015 that should prevent other editors from updating, revising, correcting, and otherwise improving article content. See WP:OWN. Four years after a prior discussion, if you believe that the current version is not appropriate, you should consider starting a new discussion. See WP:CON". Arllaw (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss proposed changes to this article, especially if they are controversial or disputed. I put forward the reasons for proposed changes here in 2015 and left them here for comment for a considerable period. It's not appropriate then to go in and make make changes to the article without discussion here - that's how Wikipedia is meant to operate - especially when those changes are inaccurate and/or ideologically based and no evidence has been presented to justify those changes. Please present evidence to justify each change here so it may be discussed professionally Skythrops (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the edits that other editors have made over the years. You are inappropriately undoing valid edits, and falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, neither of which are constructive approaches to editing. You do not own this article. Please respect the nature of Wikipedia as a collective project, as your approach makes it appear that you wrongly view Wikipedia as a place to advance your personal views on this subject. Arllaw (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To initiate discussion professionally and collaboratively regarding some of the changes to the first paragraph that Arllaw wishes to make ... This article does need considerable improvement overall (see proposed restructure above), but the first paragraph summarises the views of many authors in this field. The proposed new first line is extremely cumbersome and not accurate. Parental alienation is not a theory, any more than many of the words defined in Wikipedia are. It is a term used to describe a phenomenon. It is not about what 'a parent' does; parental alienation can be caused by many, different people: parents, friends, relatives, professionals - essentially anyone capable of manipulating a child into holding unwarranted views about one of their parents and/or other relatives. "It is proposed to be a form of psychological abuse" is, again, cumbersome and inaccurate. I will be happy to discuss and explain further with regards to any proposed changes to this paragraph. Please let's stick to the rules and spirit of Wikipedia by discussing these changes in advance here. Skythrops (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever your intention, your editing history and recent actions suggest that you are policing the opening paragraph to conform to your personal views and are not actually interested in consensus. When you falsely accuse other editors of vandalism, and inappropriately revert valid edits, you risk giving people the impression that you are edit-warring instead of engaging in constructive editing. Arllaw (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Constructive, collaborative editing - especially where there is some disagreement between editors as there is now, apparently - involves proposing changes here on the Talk page, awaiting input, reaching consensus and publishing. I believe that the history of my adhering to these practices is documented above over a period of four years. Having begun editing this page relatively recently, you/Arllaw have not demonstrated similar respect for other editors, according to the recorded history of edits; you have a history of making changes that fundamentally alter the article and definition of Parental Alienation without such debate and you have, I've suggested, contravened the spirit of Wikipedia's editing rules, not least the three-revert rule. Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is available online.

I'm happy to debate every word here in good faith in order to reach consensus, however long that takes, and to support my contributions with appropriate citations. I hope you may be willing to do the same. Changing a whole chunk of long-standing text (that has been supported by at least one third party, below) to something fundamentally different - and doing so repeatedly without providing any evidence in support of those changes and when there is so clearly documented a history on this Talk page - cannot be characterised as constructive or consensus-editing and is not in line with the stated intentions of Wikipedia. If you can provide reputable evidence for your proposed changes, please share it here so we can make appropriate edits. Until then, we should stick with clear definitions and statements for which objective evidence exists and engage in respectful debate on this Talk page.Skythrops (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not your role to police this article, to insist that only your preferred language be on the public page, and to require editors to seek your permission before engaging in entirely proper edits of the public article. Other editors are permitted to edit the article, consistent with Wikipedia articles, and even to do so boldly when appropriate. They do not need to check the talk page to see what you wrote four years ago. My edits to this article have been appropriate and accurate, and I do not appreciate your continuing use of personal attacks. Arllaw (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Correcting the Opening Paragraph

I see that @Krb19: has made some changes to the opening paragraph, which is a good start. But the paragraph opens with a deinition that is incorrect. The heavily referenced Dr. Warshak acknowledges that parental alienation can be justified -- for example, an a child may become alienated from an abusive parent -- so that opening is not an accurate definition of parental alienation and is not actually supported by the cited source. On Warshak's own website he provides the definition, "Parental alienation can refer to the state of a child being alienated from a parent". That's much more accurate, and Warshak should not be cited to support an incorrect definition that is at odds with his own statements.

The claim that parental alienation is a form of "family violence" is also incorrect, first because that is not a widely held position and second because it completely mischaracterizes the process of parental alienation that is justified by a parent's bad acts. Quoting Warshak again, "In some cases, children have good reasons to reject a deficient parent."

The attempt to distinguish justified and unjustified parental alienation is incorrect. All credible sources agree that parental alienation can result from causes that range from valid to unjustified; multiple causes are possible. Only after parental alienation is identified can you commence an effort to determine its cause.

Which is to say, pretty much everything in the present opening paragraph is wrong and needs to be corrected. When the paragraph is corrected, it should not be reverted based upon claims of a consensus that was supposedly reached years ago, both because it does not appear that any such consensus was actually reached and because even if there were such a consensus it does not override the greater need for accuracy.

The allusions to international conventions in the second paragraph represent opinion, not fact, and appear predicated upon the same incorrect definition of "parental alienation" that is advanced in the opening paragraph. That claim does not belong in the lead and, if included later, should be properly sourced. Arllaw (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think the term "parental alienation" most often refers to putative cases where a child has been manipulated in some way against a parent - several authors, both "pro" and "anti" P.A. as a legal/psychological framework (example), distinguish between "parental alienation" and (usually "justified") "estrangement". I.e. "parental alienation" as an English phrase means just that, but I think the term has come to mean this particular situation or theory of the case (in the midst of a child custody court battle, a scheming parent, usually the mother, encourages/manipulates a child into hating the other parent, falsely claiming abuse, etc.) A search for "parental alienation" in legal and psychotherapy journals gives results about the (in)admissibility/clinical relevance/prevalence of the phenomenon, but they do seem to agree on what it means, and contrast it with "appropriate" or "justified" estrangement of a child from a parent (e.g. in response to abuse or simply banal family dynamics, the child's immaturity, etc.).

I certainly agree that the intro could use a rewrite, to be brought into accordance with the current (mainstream consensus?) legal/psychological opinion - I was too timid to do it myself for fear of stepping on toes. Much of it sounds not NPOV, and is just unclear, and could use some context about the history of the term and its popularization as a legal defense/tactic/cottage industry. Krb19 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, there is some imprecision and inconsistency in the use of the term, likely because it has been created and defined by advocates as opposed to as part of some form of methodological process. If the article advances a definition of "parental alienation" as a term that may only be correctly applied after the cause of estrangement is determined to be the inappropriate conduct of the non-estranged parent, that should be made clear in both the lead and the article. Arllaw (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect it seems that this discussion may be introducing aspects that are not directly related and in doing so is drifting a bit away from the goal of providing a concise definition of PA - hard though that clearly is! To address what I see as the two key points that have been raised in the preceding discussion:

That alienation may in some circumstances may be justified. Firstly defining "alienation" - "the act of making someone stop supporting and agreeing with you" . I think there would be little debate that alienation is an active process of deliberately (though not necessarily consciously) stopping a relationship for selfish reasons, in this case between a child and a parent. Whereas estrangement is a non-active process whereby the behaviour (or possibly geographical/political/social factors) result in the relationship failing. The two are completely different in as much as the role of the active alienating party is absent in the second case and I think we need to be careful in the definition of PA not to confuse the two. As an aside most of the research indicates that even in the cases of extreme deficiency/abuse/etc by one or both parents the child will still seek out a relationship with that parent(s) if they are supported to do so.

Which leads into the second point relating to whether PA is abuse or not. There is no question (either in literature or from commons sense) that the ideal situation for a child is to have a healthy, conflict free and meaningful relationship with both their parents (and indeed as many other significant people as possible). The health outcomes for child with only one parent are well demonstrated to be lower than those with two. Therefore to deliberate alienate a child from relationship which is clearly in their best interests is detrimental to the child and, by extension a form of abuse (especially as the process of alienation requires manipulation of the child). There is at lease one paper that I am aware of that specifically identifies PA as abuse - I'll dig it out.

I think we all agree that the definition of PA has to be done within the context of family breakdown and any resultant legal interventions as this is the primary area in which it is dealt with (though the alienation dynamic, as I noted previously, is generally applicable to any peer-to-peer relationship where one party is seeking advantage over another). As such I don't think we can ignore the question of whether it constitutes abuse, especially as the literature is quite clear on long term impacts of PA

I'll propose some edits to the introduction in a little while (actual paid work calls unfortunately!) and post them here for discussion prior to putting them up on the main page. DrPax (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You can provide an accurate summation of the term's meaning without rendering it unusually long. Turning to the dictionary definition of half of the term is not inherently unreasonable, although it is something that can be risky with any compound word let alone a term of art; but the dictionary definition does not require that the cause of alienation be something external or caused by a third party. So "He was alienated from his father" could be said even if the cause was the father's history of abusive behavior. But as you ultimately end up by asserting, "we need to be careful in the definition of PA not to confuse the two", that's pretty much the point I made that seems to have triggered your exposition.

In terms of whether parental alienation automatically translates into abuse, while you may be able to dig up a paper from somewhere or other that presents that argument, how fine of a line do you want to draw on the question of intent? Are you asserting that the article should take the position that acts that cause a child to become alienated from a parent cannot constitute "parental alienation" unless they are otherwise definable as acts of abuse, they are intended to cause alienation, or both? Because a parent can cause alienation that is entirely unjustified through acts that are made entirely in good faith. What label do you propose that we use to describe that sort of scenario, if not "parental alienation"? Arllaw (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for you comments @Arllaw:, to address your second point (I believe the first point is agreed?): I think you are approaching the question of intent from the the wrong direction. Any act that results in mental or physical damage to a child has to be considered as a potential abuse, irrespective of whether it was malicious or not. Manslaughter is probably a good example here, just because you didn't mean to kill the person doesn't mean you aren't guilty of the offence! In the context that PA is generally discussed - i.e. the legal intervention into family breakdown, I think you would agree that it is generally recognised that there is an overt amount of intent most of the time! I'm struggling to think of scenarios where long term PA would occur on the basis of "acts made entirely in good faith" for the simple reason that if somebody unintentionally created PA believing they were acting in good faith then, once they were informed of the damage being done (and generally the targeted parent will be active here) they would soon act differently (as they have no intent, just ignorance and good faith - the act was unintentional, they are not seeking custody, etc). Agreed?

Okay, back to the definition, I did a bit of additional research and thinking and, on reflection I feel that the original definition is actually quite good. Perhaps a bit over the top in quoting the UN declaration but otherwise defendable and representative of current research. After some head scratching I’ve reached the conclusion that one of the main problems with defining PA is that there are at least three distinct ways of looking at it: PA as the result in the child from one perspective (Gardner, Bernet, et al), PA as the process (Baker, et al) and PA as the result on adult victims from a third (most often alienated parents). As such the first sentence of the original definition is actually quite a succinct way of encapsulating all these perspectives. So I'm going to propose the following:

Parental alienation is the process, and the result, of psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other individual(s). It is most often identified in association with family separation or divorce, particularly where legal action is involved, and is commonly caused by a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child (though other family members or associates, as well as professionals involved with the family - including psychologists, lawyers and judges - may contribute significantly to the process). . It often leads to the long-term, or even permanent, estrangement of a child from one parent and other family members or associates. It is a distinctive form of psychological abuse and family violence , towards both the child and the rejected family members. In children, it causes an adverse childhood experience and childhood trauma that results in significantly increased lifetime risks of both mental and physical illness.

Notes: I've broadened the definition of the potential targets for alienation to allow for the inclusion of non-family members (step parents, friends, etc). I've removed the reference that suggests that PA occurs exclusively in the legal context as I (and the literature) think that the process of alienation (parental or otherwise) can and does occur in a multitude of environments, it's just that it often ends up under the microscope during legally assisted family breakdown (pun intended!). I hesitated over the use of the word “estrangement” in the middle of the definition on the basis of my previous concern about not confusing PA and estrangement. However after some consideration I think it is accurate to say that estrangement between the targeted parents and child often occurs after a period of PA. I've removed the references to the UN Declaration but cited some additional sources linking PA directly to abuse. I've also cited a some additional sources in relation to the mental and physical health impacts of PA (there is a particularity interesting study just done on the impact of children's lifespan when losing the connection with a parent (father in the case of this study) as measured through telomere length. PA can literally shortens kid's lifespans!)

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If you define "abuse" by the outcome, without regard for the act or the intention of the actor, then you deprive the term of any meaning, and you convolute the entire notion that "parental alienation" results from wrongful action. Let's say a mandatory reporter forms a good faith belief that a child is abused, makes a report as mandated by law, and as a result of the report and investigation the child becomes alienated from a parent. By what reasonable definition is the mandatory reporter guilty of child abuse? Let's say that the same reporter on the same facts makes the same report, but the investigation does not cause the child to be alienated. The act and basis for the act are the same -- so is it child abuse or not? How does tossing in the word "potential" change anything?

Also, the literature indicates that acts that could be alienating are common in divorce, but that children nonetheless rarely become alienated from a parent.

You popped into this discussion with no editing history, but you appear to have a strong connection to this subject and far more familiarity with wiki code and practices than one would expect from a new editor. Do you edit here under a different username? What's your connection to this subject? Arllaw (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks @Arllaw: for your comments. To answer your second question first: no, this is my first and so far only foray into contributing to Wikipedia (my background includes scientific research and some programming experience, hence the technical competency). You are also correct in your assessment that I have a strong connection with the topic, I have been involved with PA for many years now. It seems obvious that you also have a strong connection, perhaps a personal story? I’d be happy to communicate further with you privately if you want to contact me directly?

In relation to the first point you raise: you are correct that the term “abuse” carries with it the connotation of intent or, at the very least indifference towards the target or possible plain ignorance of the impact (which again harks back to the previous discussion regarding manslaughter). However I’m not sure I quite see how this applies to the mandatory reporter example you use: If a mandatory reporter makes a report of abuse (I assume you mean abuse other than PA) and a child becomes alienated as a result (as opposed to estranged due to appropriate removal) from the abusive parents then is the reporter guilty of abuse because PA now occurs? I think the answer would be no, since it is not the reporter (or subsequent investigation) doing the alienating, it is the other parent (most often). It is the actions of that party in psychologically manipulating the child to reject the other parent that is abuse, not the act of the reporter/investigation (who’s intent is only to protect the safety of the child).

You have correctly noted that in a lot of divorce situations alienating behaviour is common (emotions are high, people do stupid things which they regret later) but this does not often evolve into full blown PA. PA occurs (in this context) when one or both parties (or indeed third parties) continue to actively manipulate the child(ren) into unwarranted rejection of the other party well beyond the reasonable time-frame of the breakdown. This is obviously where the question of intent (conscious or unconscious) enters the equation as parents who continue to actively alienate are doing so out of a personal need to exclude the other parent, without regard for the negative impact on their children and that is clearly detrimental to them and hence abuse. As noted in the existing definition the involvement of the legal process is often a significant contributor by heightening emotions, dragging out the process and focusing on unhelpful or inappropriate factors.

I hope this satisfactorily addresses the points you have raised? DrPax (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for a productive discussion with good comments, and DrPax, welcome to Wikipedia. We need thoughtful people like you and I hope that you will continue to contribute (e.g. this article needs sections on prevalence and prevention). I agree with Arllaw that the sentence about international conventions are better left to later in the article. We should of course use the established meaning of parental alienation as defined by dictionaries and encyclopedias. I like the current wording of the intro by Krb19 and I think it is in accordance with the four encyclopedic definitions that I found:

1. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology (Wiley): Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a child ... allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification. Parental alienation usually comes about when the preferred parent indoctrinates the child to fear and hate the rejected or alienated parent.
2. Duhaime's Law Dictionary: Parental Alienation Definition: A form of emotional child abuse where a custodial parent belittles or vilifies the other parent to the child.
3. Encyclopedia of Social Work (Oxford University Press): Parental alienation is the concept that a parent might encourage his or her child to choose sides against, or estrange from, the other parent.
4. Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science: Parental alienation [is] a child's rejection of an appropriate parent in the context of a high‐conflict divorce

I added two of these encyclopedic references to the intro, and also slightly rephrased the last sentence of the first paragraph. Martinogk (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Martinogk and thanks for you comments and feedback. I have added the additional references to the intro and made a minor edit to the wording of the second sentence. On reflection, and with all due respect to Krb19 I am concerned about the structure of the third and fourth sentences of the intro which currently read:

While the prototypical cause is a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child, especially where child custody is being disputed, in some cases other family members or friends, or involved professionals (psychologists, judges, lawyers) may contribute significantly to the process.[2][15][16] Parental alienation classically involves one parent manipulating a child into rejecting the other parent and it is distinct from parental estrangement due to child abuse or neglect by the estranged parent.

I tend to agree with Skythrops that the word "protoptypical" in the first sentence is somewhat more wordy that is strictly necessary. I'm also concerned that the specific link to child custody is somewhat limiting (and already described in the preceding sentence in any case) - PA can be utilised in any circumstance where one party seeks advantage over another and is certainly not limited to custody battles. I'm suggesting that we change the sentence as follows: It is commonly caused by a parent wishing to exclude another parent from the life of their child (though other family members or associates, as well as professionals involved with the family - including psychologists, lawyers and judges - may contribute significantly to the process)

I'm not sure that the second sentence adds much to the definition as it just repeats the first sentence of the definition and them attempts to define PA by something it isn't: parental estrangement due to abuse or neglect. It's worth noting as I previously did that much of the literature illustrates that, even in cases of extreme abuse, a child will generally still seek out a relationship with the abusive parent if supported/able to do so. As such I'm not sure you can accurately draw a connection between estrangement and parental abuse in the way this sentence attempts to do. In fact asserting this would imply that a child would be automatically estranged from a parent utilising them in a PA strategy (which is defined as abuse), instead the child often becomes enmeshed with the abusive parent in these circumstance! Also worth noting that estrangement is generally a result of physical separation for whatever reason. I'm going to suggest that we drop that sentence entirely.

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear DrPax: Thank you again for thoughtful comments. I agree with you and Skythrops that the word "protoptypical" is not a prototypical word in an intro section, and I prefer your revised version of that sentence. Here is some further minor tweaking/condensing: It is commonly caused by one parent wishing to exclude the other parent from the life of their child, though other family members, psychologists, lawyers or judges may contribute to the process. Regarding the next sentence, you are right that the first part is redundant. The second part is critical. When defining a term in the intro, it is common and often useful to also state what it is not, and there is often confusion between parental alienation due to behavior of the alienating parent against a fit alienated parent, as defined by the encyclopedias above, versus parental estrangement due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. It is of course true that abuse does not necessarily lead to estrangement, but parental estrangement that is caused by child abuse by the estranged parent is not a form of parental alienation. Here is a potential rewording of that sentence: Parental alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child.. Martinogk (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinogk, given the consensus around the first sentence I will update the intro accordingly. I am still concerned about the second sentence for the reason that it includes a common confusion between PA and estrangement. Estrangement occurs when a relationship between two parties (parent and child in this context) is lost. The cessation of contact between the parties is the process by which estrangement occurs. This process may be enforced (for example: appropriate removal due to abuse), unintentional/unavoidable (for example: separated refugee families or simply that parents live geographically apart and don't make the effort to keep in contact with the child) or intentional/malicious (for example: PA). The problem arises when we try to define PA as an end product rather than a process (refer back to the earlier discussion regarding the multiple ways that PA is defined - thanks Skythrops for the clear analysis on this). As noted in the final sentence of the intro PA can, and often does, result in estrangement (because one parent actively manipulates the child into resisting contact with the other parent). As such I think that saying Parental alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. is actually incorrect (in drawing a parallel that doesn't exist) and introduces confusion as parental estrangement can arise from PA just as easily as it can from any other forms of abuse or neglect. At the very least the wording in this sentence refers to a very specific sub-set of the possible causes for parental estrangement (that are not directly related to the definition of PA in any case) and as such is not really appropriate in the intro - further analysis in subsequent sections (Parental alienation versus parental estrangement) is certainly worthwhile.

Again, I'm going to propose that we drop that sentence entirely, especially as the sentence that follows it in the intro makes the link between PA (the process) and estrangement (the outcome) anyway. Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: In updating the third sentence of the intro I change the grammatical flow to make it fit better with the previous sentences (too may "It is") and also broadened the range of parties to allow for subsequent categorisation between intentional contributions (parents and friends) vs inept (physiologists, lawyers and judges). Let me know if anyone sees a problem with this? DrPax (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi DrPax: You are correct that parental alienation result in estrangement, and if my wording suggested otherwise it has to be changed. The key thing is to distinguish between parental alienation, which is a term used to describe unwarranted and unjustified rejection, versus other types of parental estrangement, which is justified and warranted due to abuse or neglect by the rejected parent. I have tried to sort this out in the new PA vs PE section. Do you have a suggestion for how we can condense that into one sentence for the lead? It is such a critical and often misunderstood distinction. Martinogk (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinogk, great to see this discussion generating such good debate! :-) With respect I think the problem is that you are still trying to differentiate between two terms that are not directly related to each other: If you want a strictly true sentence you could say: Parental estrangement that is due to Parental Alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. Whilst technically correct it seeks to define two types of Parental Estrangement (one due to PA and the other due to (non-PA?) abuse), which is pointless, as I think you would agree that PE is PE, irrespective of what causes it? Further to this and again with respect I'm not convinced that saying parental estrangement, which is justified and warranted due to abuse or neglect by the rejected parent is strictly correct either. There is some research that I've alluded to previously indicating that abused children generally do not reject an abusive parent, even in the face of extreme abuse a child will still seek out a relationship if the opportunity exists (there is a whole other area of study into the motivations for this behaviour and the impacts it has on long term health and well being which, whilst being fascinating/horrifying, is well outside the scope of this article!). PE often occurs in situations of abuse because the child is physically (and appropriately) removed from the abusive parent(s) but again it is not the abuse that directly causes the PE, it is the subsequent ceasing of any contact that leads to the PE. If having a sentence in this area is important then something like PA is one of several types of abuse that may lead to PE would be more accurate, but that is already stated in the current definition.

There is the added complexity that if we say that PA is abuse, and we have all agreed that is it, then looking at the sentence you have proposed: Parental alienation is distinct from parental estrangement that is due to the estranged parent having abused or neglected the child. we have a logical conundrum in as much as the alienating parent who is abusing the child (PA is abuse) should fall under the definition of the second half of the sentence (an abusive parent) and we would then expect that they should be the one who is ultimately estranged (because they have abused the child), yet we know it is the targeted parent who is estranged.

I'm sorry but I just can't see any way that this sentence adds to the definition. Happy to be dissuaded? DrPax (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve no wish to dissuade you, DrPax; I think your arguments for deleting the recently added line in the opening paragraph are valid. The sentence is unreferenced and the first half of it is indeed a repeat of what’s said above. As for the second half, I think Martinogk is right to stress that we need to distinguish parental alienation (whereby the child bonds and/or stays with the psychologically abusive parent) from other forms of abuse (whereby the abuser becomes estranged), but this is best done in the section that Martinogk has already added to the body of the article; it’s too long and complicated an issue for the first paragraph, especially given differing understandings of the words ‘alienation’ and ‘estrangement’.

As a further point for that later paragraph, it’s unfortunate that many parental alienation academics have, as Martinogk suggests, increasingly gravitated towards defining alienation and estrangement in opposition (as being unwarranted and “legitimate” respectively). In doing so, they’ve created somewhat new, specific meanings for the terms (essentially turning the term ‘estrangement’, for instance, into a piece of jargon – a word with a meaning different from its popular usage). The popular usage of the term estrangement/estranged refers to a state of being and is silent as to the process by which it was attained. The estrangement literature refers, by the way, to other examples of third-party estrangement (in addition to parental alienation) whereby two people become estranged due not to interactions between themselves, but to actions by others. Skythrops (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I tried but obviously failed to clearly express the distinction in a single sentence. It is better not to include something than include something that is unclear, and as long as we have the "PA vs PE" section I think we are fine. I certainly agree that some of the terminology is unfortunate. It also makes it a challange for us as Wikipedia editors as we try to help the readers to understand the terminology as it it most commonly used. There is a similar issue with PA vs PAS that one of us will have to tackle down the road. Martinogk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinogk and Skythrops for your thoughts and feedback, I think we agree that this topic requires further exploration and that the "PA vs PE" sections is the vehicle for that. I'll create a new talk section to begin that dialogue and I'll remove the sentence in question from the intro in the meantime. DrPax (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: 2019 updates

In response to requests/comments above, I’ve started a new section on the opening paragraph – though this is clearly a continuation of many comments above. The opening paragraph in any Wikipedia definition is certainly important and worth spending time on getting as accurate as possible. Although everything in Wikipedia can no doubt be improved, in this instance it’s not appropriate to state that this paragraph needs “correcting”. While the remainder of this article does indeed require very substantial correction and restructuring and warrants substantial attention – see my long-standing proposals above – the first paragraph (2015-2019 version) is accurate and well-supported by evidence and citations. It is also a succinct definition and, I believe, includes the most important elements on this subject for the introductory paragraph. I spent a considerable amount of time researching it, communicating with experts and sceptics alike, before composing it. I note that it has been accepted and quoted publicly by a number of family court judges, psychologists and lawyers in the years since.

I acknowledge and accept @Krb19’s comments about my original UN convention phrase as requiring independent evidence and citation; I appreciated the courteous approach of requesting appropriate references (which do exist) rather than the subsequent deletion of the phrase. Given subsequent comments by @DrPax, however, I will await one or more stronger references before adding it back; there are findings, for instance, by the UN Human Rights Committee on this subject with respect to some family courts. This is a ‘high-level’ issue, though, and would always be appropriate for the opening paragraph as, for instance, would be a reference to the fact that parental alienation now has the status of being a crime in some countries.

I don’t think the other changes of the past week help – they either lack citations (if the above phrase warrants deletion for want of citations, so should these), are a repetition of something already said, or use unnecessarily complex words like ‘prototypical’. I think the additional references in @DrPax’s proposal are generally useful; I’d propose a few changes that could be done in situ.

I do agree with the view, contra @Arllaw’s position, that intentionality is not a prerequisite of abuse. Unless @Arllaw, in the latest post, is proposing that a ‘mandatory reporter’ has manipulated a child (in which case it is indeed abuse, whether intentional or not), the example is tangential to the issue at hand: whether or not a person who psychologically manipulates a child into rejecting a parent or others does so intentionally.

More broadly (and I’ve gone into detail here because it’s really important for all editors – especially those actively ‘policing’ this article, to use @Arllaw’s term – to have a strong understanding of the subject matter if we’re to reach consensus), Arllaw’s stated interpretation of parental alienation (and some consequent changes to the article) are at odds with the literature and evidence in some fundamental ways and we should avoid changes that incorporate such misconceptions, not least:

1) The meaning of the term ‘parental alienation’ is not self-evident; it’s a piece of jargon with a specialised definition;

2) There is no evidence that the term ‘parental alienation’ existed before Gardner’s formulation of ‘parental alienation syndrome’ before/around 1985 and there is clear evidence that some academics chose to avoid the latter term due to controversy and therefore truncated it. Some academics, to this day in fact, use the term parental alienation as a synonym of parental alienation syndrome;

3) DrPax is correct in suggesting that, if you read other definitions of parental alienation carefully (and I’ve analysed many), the term is used in several, distinct ways, including:

       1) To describe the process by which a person psychologically manipulates a child; 
       2) To describe the results of that process in the child (in which context it’s essentially synonymous with Parental Alienation Syndrome and matches the Warshak quote provided by @Arllaw); and 
       3) To describe the results in the other parent, relatives or ‘associates’, who become the subjects or victims of unwarranted feelings and rejection by that child. 

It is precisely for these reasons that the opening line defines parental alienation as both the process and the result of psychological manipulation. I would be the first to agree that this is unfortunate but that’s the inescapable reality of how this term is currently used in different peer-reviewed publications and books today;

4) Parental alienation is not a theory. It’s a distinctive form of psychological abuse – and abuse is no theory, it’s a phenomenon. Equally, though, in a popular dictionary (and Wikipedia is surely that) we should avoid using words that have different popular and scientific meanings, at least without making that explicit (see, for instance, Wikipedia's own article on "scientific theory"). “Significance”, for instance, has very distinct scientific and popular meanings and, in the case of the word “theory”, the popular meaning (an opinion that may well be incorrect) is close to the opposite of the scientific meaning;

5) Most importantly, @Arllaw has in several places suggested that parental alienation may be legitimate (i.e. a child rejecting a parent for justified reasons is one form, or on the spectrum, of parental alienation). @Arllaw suggests that Warshak supports this position, using the quote "In some cases, children have good reasons to reject a deficient parent" to argue against my definition and citation of Warshak’s work. This is quite a profound misunderstanding of the very concept we're here to define. Warshak, like all academics who specialise in this subject, recognise that children may indeed reject parents and others for legitimate reasons. This, however, is expressly not alienation; alienation is the antithesis of this – it’s when a child is manipulated (whether consciously or not) into holding unwarranted views of a parent or others, and consequently rejects them and, potentially, becomes estranged. Upon this, all experts would be united.

I hope we can clear up all such misconceptions on the Talk page before further errors are introduced into the article. Thanks Skythrops (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to start a new section -- we already have one. I recognize that you have strong feelings on this subject, but rejecting prior discussion in favor of starting your own is not actually conducive to reaching consensus. Also, your stating your personal feelings in a strong or emphatic fashion while discounting other opinions does not of itself mean that you are correct. Arllaw (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Some useful extra references DrPax. I notice you've changed the statement that Parental Alienation "occurs almost exclusively" in association with family separation ... to one that it's "most often identified" in this context. The latter is certainly true. Do you not think the stronger, original phrase is supported by evidence too? (In fact, the dictionary definition Martinogk cites - ref #7 at the moment - quotes a judge saying as much, albeit referring to PAS.) I believe that most, if not all, of the peer-reviewed papers cited in this article refer to family separations, and many to family court involvement; though, in theory, alienation could occur when parents are still together, in practice, isn't separation of parents pretty much a prerequisite? In some ways, this is what makes this such a distinctive phenomenon. Skythrops (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Skythrops, a tricky one! I think (and the literature would agree) that the dynamic of alienation is very widespread and can occur in virtually any relationship domain (professional, intimate, parental, political, etc), as any minority group or bullied school yard kid will attest to! That said, you are correct in pointing out that the literature (and judges comments) relating specifically to PA does provide strong evidence that PA occurs almost exclusively in the context of family separation, I would suggest that this is at least partly an artefact of reporting rather than being truly representative of actual prevalence. You make the point and I don't think anyone would disagree that there is no reason why PA can't occur prior to separation or indeed in families where separation never occurs. To the best of my knowledge there is no research on the prevalence of PA within complete family units, which unfortunately doesn't much help in addressing the current question. On reflection and in the absence to contrary data I think you are correct in saying that it "occurs almost exclusively" within the context of distinctive phenomenon of Parental Alienation and I was taking a slightly too high level view of alienation in general by suggesting "most often identified" - I'll rescind that edit. DrPax (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both of you for sorting this out. In reference #29 (Parental alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals, page 8), it states that We refer to “separation or divorce” because PA often occurs prior to legal divorce and in families in which the parents were never married in the first place. PA may occur in high-conflict marriages when parents are still living together in the same household. Hope this helps. Martinogk (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DrPax and Martinogk. What a delightful, professional debate about quite a subtle, though not-insignificant point. I find both your comments useful/persuasive. A further, indirect line of evidence comes from the perhaps-unique research of Baker (2010 & elsewhere) studying a randomly chosen group of people and assessing their levels of exposure to ‘alienating behaviours’ as children. Though significantly higher (and close to 50%, I believe) for those involved in family law proceedings, the figures were still remarkably high for those who avoided courts. They give an indication of a possibly broader prevalence in families; DrPax may be correct in suggesting reporting-bias, but good data/evidence is lacking.

What the current evidence does seem to suggest is that for alienation to take hold – and for children to show the well-documented and consistent signs (not, technically, symptoms, of course) – some form of separation between alienated adult and alienated child is almost essential. (Children, it seems, can’t generally hold onto strong, unwarranted feelings about a parent when constantly exposed to the real person.)

So, I’d be comfortable that either phrase under discussion is evidence-based and supported by the literature. I appreciate the changes you've made DrPax. If we identify one or two more references to support it, at a later date, we could always consider the compromise “… almost exclusively identified …” but this phrase may have had enough debate for now. There are many more serious issues with the body of the article … to which we could soon, perhaps, move on :) Skythrops (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am also comfortable with either phrase. Skythrops, you are very correct about the link between separation and parental alienation. That will be a critical thing to cover in the "prevention" section. Martinogk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia conventions

BTW, does Wikipedia express a view regarding the number of citations for a particular phrase? Should we stick to the best four references as a maximum or, in the absence of summary paper or meta-analysis, is it OK to have six or more?! Skythrops (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent question Skythrops. Here is a response as well as some other conventions:

1. One or two citations is preferable and usually sufficient for each piece of information. If a paragraph makes several points based on different sources, the total number of citations in one paragraph can be more and as many as needed. It is then best to use inline citations after each sentence or group of sentences, rather than putting them all at the end of the paragraph.
2. The lead section does not have to have any citations at all. There can be a few but there should not be a lot. The lead section should clearly define the topic and provide a brief summary of what is in the rest of the article. Hence, subsequent sections is the source of the lead section, and it is enough to provide the references in those subsequent sections where the matter is more thoroughly described. When there is potential confusion about the terminology, I may include references to dictionaries and encyclopedias in the lead section, but not much more.
3. On the talk page, it is custom to put ":" before the text when responding, to put "::" before the response to a response, to put ":::" before the third response, to put "::::" before the fourth response and so on. When reaching ":::::::", or something like that, one can start over from the beginning.
4. The lead paragraph is the introduction and background, and there should not be a separate Introduction or Background section. The lead is normally one or two paragraphs, but seldom more than that. In this article, we now have an excellent lead paragraph thanks to both of your efforts. It defines the topic and briefly describes the characteristics, causes and outcome/prognosis. That is good enough, but if we want, we can add a second paragraph to the lead, with one sentence each on e.g. history, prevalence and prevention. What is now in the "Introduction" should be in the "History" section.
5. It is good to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes structure, although it is not always 100 percent possisble. After the lead, it is logical that the description of the disease/disorder comes first in the characteristics section, as that is what most people need to know before they read the other parts, but people can of course read the sections in any order using the automatically generated Contents list.
6. One does not have to write the article in the order that it is structured. I never do.

Hope this helps. Martinogk (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

History/Background

Thanks Martinogk for starting to restructure/retitle the rest of the article. This, I believe, needs much more work than the opening paragraph.

Starting with “History” (or what I termed “Background” in my proposed restructure, above), the current text is not good. I’d propose deleting the current paragraph (multiple reasons - inaccuracy, inconsistency etc.) and starting instead with something along the following lines (with references to be added):

The term ‘parental alienation’ is derived from ‘parental alienation syndrome’, a term coined by Gardner in the early 1980s to describe a distinctive suite of behaviors, which he'd observed consistently in children exposed to family separation or divorce, whereby the children rejected and showed unwarranted feelings towards one of their parents and/or other family members.[ref] Given some objections to the use or medical validity of the term ‘syndrome’,[ref] as well as more ideological objections to the entire concept,[ref] academics in the 1990s increasingly began using the truncated form, [ref] some in a manner synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome (namely, the signs observable in child victims),[ref] others to describe the process or tactics by which this occurs, [ref] and yet others to describe the outcomes for parents and others who had become victims of unwarranted rejection. [ref]

The phenomenon itself, however, has a much longer history. The idea that children may be turned against one of their parents, or may reject a parent unjustifiably during family breakdown, has been recognised for centuries and can be found, for instance, in literary references from Ancient Greece,[ref] 18th century English literature [ref] and 19th and 20th century court proceedings.[ref] One of the first, identified uses of the term alienation itself in this context, or at least a German equivalent to it, is in the private correspondence of Albert Einstein.

TBC Skythrops (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is good Skythrops. Given the predominately legal context that PA is defined within it might be worthwhile adding a paragraph discussing the historical development in that domain. I am lead to believe that there are legal cases going back a century or more in Europe over custody which show distinct aspects of PA. I believe that Demosthenes Lorandos (https://www.joshiattorneys.com/About/Demosthenes-Lorandos.shtml) is publishing a book later this year which I imagine will be an excellent resource here. DrPax (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Skythrops: Great that you are planning to revise and expand the history section. It is needed! Your proposed paragraph is a good start, and I like that you plan to include the history from before the term was coined. Looking forward to read what you write. As the history section expands, it should be relocated to later in the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. I will do that. Martinogk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above conversations in this and other sections, I’m adding some of the above as a necessary introduction. There are so many possible/relevant references that any input as to what you think are the most relevant would be welcome. (I’ll await further, new references from forthcoming publications before rewriting the History section, though the current paragraph should probably be deleted in the meantime). Skythrops (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope I've done justice to Martinogk's reasonable desire for a reference to 'legitimate' vs unwarranted estrangement early in the piece. I think it's important to phrase this in a way understandable to those with no up-front knowledge of parental alienation. More refs/links to follow (though others welcome to add them, of course). Skythrops (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Parental alienation versus parental estrangement

Place holder for further discussion on this topic, original discussion started in Correcting the Opening Paragraph. DrPax (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

I see that @Skythops: has added an Introduction section which I think is an excellent idea for a topic that has a lot of subtleties buried below the surface of the initial description.

I appreciate that I'm jumping in whilst the pixels are still drying but can I suggest that the section regarding the various ways that PA is defined is expanded to make a clearer distinction between them and to provide the lay reader with a required terminology. Perhaps something like:

The term parental alienation is derived from parental alienation syndrome, a term coined by Gardner in the early 1980s to describe a distinctive suite of behaviours, which he had observed consistently in children exposed to family separation or divorce, whereby children rejected and showed unwarranted feelings towards one of their parents. Gardener (check?) developed some specific terminology to describe the various parties involved in this process:

1. The alienating parent - the party that is manipulating the child(ren) into rejecting the other party(s).
2. The targeted parent or party(s) - the party that is subject of the unwarranted rejection by the child(ren).

After Gardeners initial description some objections to the use or medical validity of the term ‘syndrome’, as well as more ideological objections to the entire concept, resulted in academics increasingly using the truncated form ‘parental alienation’ during the 1990s. This has lead to three distinct ways in which Parental Alienation has been defined:

1. By the signs/symptoms observed in the child, which is synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome. This mainly considers the child's behavioural responses to the the circumstances that most commonly give rise to Parental Alienation - family separation with legal intervention. It also considers the short and long term impact of those behaviours on the well-being of the child.
2. By the process or tactics by which Parental Alienation occurs. This specifically deals with the methods that the alienating parent uses to manipulate the child into rejecting the targeted parent.
3. By the outcomes for parents and others who have become victims of the unwarranted rejection. This tends to focus on the mental and physical impacts, both in the short and long term on the targeted parent/people.

Thoughts? DrPax (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)