By: Emily Walker
Published on: January 27, 2025
“He said he’d take the kids away, take the money away, and tell everyone I was crazy. And he’s done all that.”
Tara Coronado’s fifteen-year relationship with lawyer, businessman, and former football player Ed Cunningham was marked by vicious, repeated abuse; yet, when it came to their custody battle, Tara was the one whose character was called into question.[1] Two cases proceeded simultaneously in Texas courtrooms. In one, Cunningham was charged for violently assaulting Coronado in 2013.[2] In the other, Cunningham’s attorney and a court-appointed therapist depicted Coronado as a scorned woman, vindictively fabricating abuse claims and manipulating her children against their father in retaliation for his infidelity.[3] Multiple therapists, paid for by Cunningham, labeled Coronado with multiple diagnoses, including “parental alienation.”[4] The judge, based on these claims, awarded primary custody of the couple’s three sons to Cunningham and allowed Coronado only four hours of supervised visitation each week.[5] One year later, she lost custody of their daughter.[6] The devastating outcome of the custody case was exactly what Cunningham had threatened to do if Coronado proceeded with her abuse allegations against him.
Parental alienation syndrome (“PAS”) is a psychological theory, almost exclusively applied in contested custody cases, in which one parent is accused of brainwashing a child to turn them against their other parent.[7] Parents who propose this theory allege that the “brainwashing” parent manipulated and lied to the child in order to ensure that they receive full custody. The theory stems from a highly criticized psychiatrist named Dr. Richard Gardner, who made his career off of testifying as a paid expert in child custody cases, where he typically testified on behalf of fathers accused of child abuse.[8]
The psychology community has largely denounced the existence of parental alienation syndrome as a recognizable mental health disorder. The American Psychiatric Association (“APA”) has declined to include PAS in the DSM-V, despite multiple attempts.[9] The United Nations Human Rights Council has called it a “pseudo-concept” and cautioned against its use in the courtroom, especially in cases involving domestic violence.[10] Notable legal authorities, including the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ”), the American Prosecutors’ Research Institute, and the National District Attorneys’ Association have all dismissed PAS as a mental health disorder and as inadmissible evidence in court.[11]
How is PAS Used in Litigation?
Parties utilize PAS in a variety of custody cases, but perhaps the most dangerous example is when PAS is alleged by a party as a defensive tactic after they have been accused of child abuse or domestic violence. Parents accused of abuse are at risk of losing a custody battle because courts often hold that exposure to violence is not in a child’s best interest. After one parent alleges that the other has engaged in domestic violence or child abuse, the accused parent can raise parental alienation syndrome in litigation to cast doubt on the accusations and paint the accusing parent as vindictive and untruthful.[12] Parents accused of abuse may turn to PAS as a defense to the alleged abuse, with the hopes that discrediting the allegations will convince a court that it is not within the child’s best interest for them to lose custody.[13]
Parents alleging PAS may hire an expert witness to testify on their behalf during a contested custody trial.[14] The expert witness will perform an evaluation of the child and attest that the child was manipulated by their parent into saying something untrue about the parent who is now alleging alienation.[15] Alternatively, court-appointed custody evaluators may diagnose PAS in a child during the course of their psychological evaluation.[16] Despite the theory’s discreditation, court evaluators continue to diagnose and allege parental alienation and judges may consider that diagnosis in deciding custody outcomes.[17]
How Can PAS Impact Cases Involving Domestic Violence or Child Abuse?
Courts rely on the “best interest of the child” standard when making custody determinations, so if one parent successfully paints the other as intentionally manipulating their child against the other parent, the courts may find that it is not within the child’s best interests for that “manipulative” parent to have custody.[18] In situations of domestic violence and child abuse, it is generally believed to be against a child’s best interest to live with the parent accused of abuse.[19] Ironically, alleging that the other parent is abusive can increase a person’s likelihood of losing custody, because it opens the door for parental alienation claims.[20]
A 2020 study[21] on the relationship between parental alienation and abuse claims in contested custody cases demonstrated a clear common theme: alienation trumps abuse.[22] In cases where a mother alleged that the father perpetrated any kind of abuse[23], and the father cross-claimed parental alienation, courts were more than twice as likely to disbelieve the mother’s abuse claim than if fathers made no alienation claim.[24] This statistic jumps up when mothers claim child abuse: when fathers cross-claim alienation, courts are almost four times more likely to disbelieve the child abuse allegations than if the father did not make the PAS claim.[25] One data point that is hard to conceptualize is that in cases where courts believed the father to be abusive, but also believed the mother to be alienating, some mothers still lost custody.[26]
It is hard to understand the “why” behind this trend in the data. Perhaps, as one expert theorized, parental alienation is the easier narrative to accept: a court would rather believe that a parent would lie, rather than a parent would abuse their child or partner.[27]
PAS Should Be Inadmissible in Contentious Custody Cases, Especially Those Involving Domestic Violence or Child Abuse
Courts in the U.S. should refuse to admit testimony from psychological evaluators who diagnose parental alienation syndrome, both in expert witness testimony and in testimony from court-appointed custody evaluators.[28] Parental alienation syndrome should not be considered in child custody cases for two main reasons.
First, the theory fails to meet legal standards for admissibility. The NCJFCJ released a report regarding custody and visitation evaluation in cases involving domestic violence.[29] In this report, the authors concluded that testimony invoking PAS fails to meet evidentiary standards, based on the multi-factor test established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[30] The Daubert standard requires courts to consider a proposed scientific theory’s peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and widespread acceptance, and PAS does not meet these basic elements of scientific validity.[31]
PAS has been widely criticized and dismissed by psychology experts, failing the acceptance prong of the Daubert test. The APA declined to include it as a diagnosis in the DSM, stating that it is merely a relationship problem and not a mental disorder[32]. The Presidential Task Force of the APA on Violence in the Family stated that no data supports PAS, [33]and the UN Human Rights Council denounced the theory and its use in courts.[34] PAS has not been peer reviewed to the extent required by Daubert to demonstrate scientific validity.[35] The articles Dr. Gardner offers as providing peer review almost exclusively cite to his self-published works and contain no citations to any empirical evidence.[36] Another shortcoming is the failure of proponents to produce experimental evidence that can be replicated to demonstrate the existence of PAS, the diagnosis of which relies purely upon clinical observation of ambiguous criteria.[37]
Second, using this theory in custody cases goes against public policy because it is often used against survivors of domestic violence to call into question their experiences of abuse and villainize their motivations when they seek custody of their children. Courts should exclude testimony diagnosing PAS because it may discourage women from reporting abuse, putting them and their children into dangerous situations. When women who report domestic violence are disbelieved in court due to PAS, their children are more likely to be placed with an alleged abuser.[38] Further, evidence of PAS makes a court four times as likely to disbelieve child abuse claims, which puts children at a great risk of being placed with a parent who has already abused them.[39]
The key question in custody cases is what outcome is in a child’s best interests. When a parent is accused of child abuse or domestic violence, courts must diligently investigate those claims and conduct a thorough analysis to determine the healthiest custody arrangement for the family. This cannot be accomplished if false science is admitted to discredit real dangers to a child, paint a non-abusive parent as manipulative, and potentially lead a court to place a child in a harmful environment. Courts should prohibit the admission of parental alienation syndrome in all custody cases to ensure that judges are making the safest possible custody determinations and that those decisions are based on the facts at hand, not on a psychological pseudoscience.
[1] Kathryn Joyce, She Said Her Husband Hit Her. She Lost Custody of Their Kids, The Marshall Project (July 8, 2020, 6:00 AM), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/07/08/she-said-her-husband-hit-her-she-lost-custody-of-their-kids.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Hannah Dreyfus, Parental Alienation: A Disputed Theory With Big Implications, ProPublica (Aug. 19, 2023, 5:05 AM), https://www.propublica.org/article/parental-alienation-and-its-use-in-family-court (hereinafter “Dreyfus I”).
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Custody, Violence Against Women, and Violence Against Children, United Nations Hum. Rts. Council (June – July 2023), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g23/070/18/pdf/g2307018.pdf.
[11] See Rebecca M. Thomas & James T. Richardson, Parental Alienation Syndrome: 30 Years On and Still Junk Science, 54 Am. Bar Ass’n Judge’s J. 3, 22 (2015); see also Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide, Nat’l Council Juv. & Fam. Ct. Judges (last visited Nov. 8, 2024), https://www.ncjfcj.org/bench-cards/navigating-custody-visitation-evaluations-in-cases-with-domestic-violence-a-judges-guide/.
[12] See Joyce, supra note 1 (reporting a story where one woman was called “vindictive” and accused of making domestic violence allegations as retaliation for her husband’s infidelity).
[13] See id. (providing an example of a father being granted custody of his children after alleging that the children’s mother was fabricating abuse claims against him).
[14] See Dreyfus I, supra note 7.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] See Nat’l Council Juv. & Fam. Ct. Judges, supra note 11.
[18] See, e.g., Ross v. Hoffman, 372 A.2d 582, 585 (Md. Ct. App. 1977) (“[T]he court is governed by what is in the best interests of the particular child and most conducive to his welfare.”); Eschbach v. Eschbach, 436 N.E.2d 1260, 1262 (N.Y. 1982)(holding that courts must make every effort to determine what is in the best interest of the child when making custody determinations); Montenegro v. Diaz, 26 Cal. 4th 249 (Cal. 2001) (explaining that the primary concern for custody determinations is the best interests of the child).
[19] See Schechter v. Schechter, 37 N.E.3d 632, 640 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (stating that there is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interests of a child for a court to award sole or shared custody to an abusive parent).
[20] Joan S. Meier, U.S. Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations: What Do the Data Show?, 42 J. Soc. Welfare & Fam. L. 92, 97–98 (2020).
[21] Id. The Meier study focused on cases of “custody switches,” where one parent started with primary custody of the child(ren) and a court decided whether to switch custody to the other. The article primarily focused on cases where a mother accused a father of abuse, as that was the most common occurrence in the data. This focus continues in this article because it is best supported by the data, but please note that parental alienation is not strictly gendered and there are situations in which a father accuses a mother of abuse and she, in turn, will allege parental alienation.
[22] See id. at 99.
[23] Id. at 94-95. The study considered partner abuse (domestic violence or “DV”), child physical abuse (“CPA”), and child sexual abuse (“CSA”), as well as various combinations of these types of abuse. When the study says, “any kind of abuse,” it is referring to cases where a party alleged at least one of these types of abuse.
[24] Id. at 98.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at 99-100.
[27] Hannah Dreyfus, Barricaded Siblings Turn to TikTok While Defying Court Order to Return to Father They Say Abused Them, ProPublica (Feb. 26, 2023, 5:00 AM), https://www.propublica.org/article/parental-alienation-utah-livestream-siblings (hereinafter “Dreyfus II”) (offering insight from Dr. David Corwin, a professor at the University of Utah, in which he characterized PAS as “an ‘easy sell’ to courts seeking an alternative explanation for abuse claims”).
[28] See Dreyfus I, supra note 7 (explaining the two ways that PAS is used in courts are (1) through privately hired expert witnesses and (2) through court-appointed custody evaluators).
[29] See Nat’l Council Juv. & Fam. Ct. Judges, supra note 11.
[30] See id.; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993) (establishing a multi-factor test for the admissibility of expert testimony).
[31] See Nat’l Council Juv. & Fam. Ct. Judges, supra note 11; Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593.
[32] Thomas & Richardson, supra note 11.
[33] Jennifer Hoult, The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, 26 Child.’s Legal Rts. J. 1, 6 (2006).
[34] Id. at 13.
[35] See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593; see also Hoult, supra note 33 (“Daubert treats peer-review as a proxy for meaningful scientific assessment of reliability and validity.”).
[36] See Hoult, supra note 33, at 13.
[37] Thomas & Richardson, supra note 11, at 24 (“Clinical observation has some uses: it can allow for description of a phenomenon. What it cannot do, however, is provide evidence of the cause of the observed phenomenon. It does not provide an opportunity for replication, one of the tenets of the scientific method.”).
[38] See Meier, supra note 20, at 98.
[39] Id. This number becomes even scarier when a father is accused of child sexual abuse – only one in fifty-one cases included in the study saw a court believe a child sexual abuse allegation once the accused father alleged alienation.