How Parental Alienation Syndrome has been used to harm children

By MIN Ambassador, 18.09.2025

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was once termed ‘controversial’. It’s now referred to as ‘a harmful pseudo-science’ by the likes of the Family Justice Council. A local journalist, Jessica Bradley, has researched and written an in-depth piece about how it has been used in family courts. Although her focus is on Sheffield, similar stories can be found across the UK. Her powerful words shine a light on the experiences that Mums In Need are all too familiar with. As a charity working with mothers who have experienced post-separation abuse, we’ve seen the devastation the misuse of PAS in the courts can wreak on families.

You can read the full article here

https://www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/the-harmful-pseudo-science-infecting-sheffields-family-courts/

Richard Gardner. Image: The Secret World of the Very Young

How PAS found its way to Sheffield

Parental Alienation Syndrome was popularized by Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist at Columbia University. A 2022 article based on his keynote speech says: 

‘The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a childhood disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a good, loving parent...’ 

He goes on to state that 

‘When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present, the child’s animosity may be justified and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.’ 

However, this line between true abuse is blurred by the ideas of PAS. As Jessica Bradley explains, 

‘In his book, Gardner wrote that the presence of PAS “strongly supports the argument that the sex abuse is fabricated.” The fact that a child was saying clearly that they were being abused by their father meant they probably weren’t. It was much more likely, Gardner believed, that they had been “programmed” to do so.’

It’s perhaps not surprising that this ‘syndrome’ found its way to the family courts in the UK. The primary role of the family courts is supposedly to protect the child/ren. However, this offered a clear means of dismissing children’s views. A child could state that they felt unsafe with a parent, didn’t want to spend time with them, or even directly allege sexual abuse. If PAS was alleged by the abuser, then the child’s views could not only be dismissed, but the other parent considered guilty of ‘brainwashing’ the child.  

The links between domestic abuse and PAS

(Please note, we use both victims and survivors as terms to describe those who have suffered domestic abuse. Many people have their own preference and should choose which they feel most comfortable with.) 

In the majority of cases, it is fathers alleging PAS against mothers. This was acknowledged by Richard Gardner, who bluntly said, ‘This is the reality.’ It has also come to light that allegations are often used improperly to counter allegations of domestic abuse. Although this has now been recognised by the court, the shadows linger on and may do for some time. 

Jessica Bradley cites a study by Elizabeth Dalgarno which interviewed 45 mothers who were domestic abuse victims and went through private family court proceedings. 39 of the 45 were accused of PA, with the remaining six threatened that they’d be accused of it if they didn’t agree to contact. 

‘The research found that “investigation of DA [domestic abuse] in these cases was diminished or ignored due to the PA allegations”. “We found that whatever mothers raised, it was construed as alienation.”’

The conundrum such a situation creates for victims is clear. Disclosing abuse seems an obvious decision, yet can actually lead to counter allegations that cause greater harm. Women we work with sometimes talk of feeling abused further by the family court system. It’s also crucial to understand that many victims of coercive control are unable to recognise it as abuse, either at the time or after. Abuse also causes trauma, the effects of which stay with the victim long after the end of a relationship.   

Stuck in the system

Many approach the family courts with a view that it will support them and create the best outcome for their child/ren. In too many cases, this is not their experience. They get caught up in a system that does little to protect them or their child/ren, adding further harm in an already difficult situation. 

Imagine knowing that someone is hurting your child. Then being told that you have to hand over your child to that person or risk them being sent to live with that person permanently and your access to them reduced or even removed. This heartbreaking scenario plays out for too many parents. In 2021, Claire Throssell was awarded an MBE for her tireless campaigning around the issue of children being sent to an unsafe parent. Her two sons, Jack, 12, and Paul, 9, were killed by their own father despite her repeated warnings about him. They died in 2014 and yet we know that unsafe visits continue. 

Whilst not all cases will end as tragically, the damage done to victims is immeasurable. We know anecdotally of children suffering from school withdrawal and suicide attempts. Domestic abuse creates trauma in children, who have finally been recognised as victims in their own right when they are present in homes where it occurs. The effects of trauma are lasting, sometimes handed down through generations. Children deserve better protection now, and for their futures. 

‘Experts’ in the family courts

Although Richard Gardner died by suicide in 2003, the ideas he published and promoted continued to cause harm for those within the family court system. For her article, Jessica Bradley spoke with six mothers in Sheffield in which Dr Maria Downs had provided assessments and states that 

‘In each case, “parental alienation” was used to argue for fathers having access to their children in cases where abuse was being alleged.’

Dr Maria Downs did not engage with the Jessica Bradley article, although she no longer uses the term parental alienation on her website. However, others in the field have noted that many of the same arguments are being used with new language, such as ‘splitting’, being introduced. 

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent, not-for-profit organisation, has also ‘highlighted the problematic role of experts seeking to diagnose “parental alienation”.’ They point out that ‘psychologist’ is not a protected title, and that unregulated experts can be brought in at the judge’s discretion. (Current guidance says psychologists appointed by the court should be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council.)

An undercover investigation by TBIJ and Tortoise Media 

‘exposed the controversial views of one unregulated expert, Melanie Gill, whose advice has been instrumental in the removal of at least a dozen children from their mothers…

…For more than a decade she has been one of the experts at the forefront of the “complete upsurge” in such allegations in family court disputes in England and Wales.’ 

Changes are being put in place regarding the regulation of experts in the family courts, although many feel it does not go far enough. You can read more about it in The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s report from March here.

Finances and the family courts 

There is still an aversion to talking about money in the context of the family courts. Yet financial abuse is often a factor in domestic abuse and coercive control, and this can be exacerbated through the family court system. 

Child support payments and non-payment of funds are usually separated from discussions around access and parental ability. This fails to acknowledge the lack of responsibility or calculated control such actions can demonstrate. Financial control can also take other forms, from threats of not paying for a child’s activities or school, to preventing a parent’s ability to work by not sticking to agreed contact times. 

Money spent on legal advice and family court hearings also takes funds away from families and children. When a perpetrator of domestic abuse uses the family courts to retain a sense of control, or even to punish the victim, these hearings are often an unnecessary but unavoidable expense. Punitive litigation, where an abuser repeatedly orchestrates hearings, is slowly becoming recognised as a tactic in the abuser’s toolkit. 

Financial worries can cause immense stress, and this may be a consequence that is intended by the perpetrator. Making their ex-partner’s life difficult is more important to them than the care of their child/ren. 

Hope for tomorrow 

Mums In Need exists to confront coercive control and to support those suffering post-separation abuse. Survivor-led, we cannot change the traumas and injustices that have been inflicted upon ourselves and our children. However, our hope is to build a better future with greater understanding and protection.  

Slowly, changes are being made in the family court system. It is only within this year that journalists were given access to family court proceedings and allowed to report on them. At the end of last year, the Family Justice Council (FJC) published guidance about the use of parental alienation allegations in the courts. They acknowledge the lack of research evidence for it and state 

‘For the avoidance of doubt, the Family Justice Council (FJC) recognises that ‘parental alienation syndrome’ has no evidential basis and is considered a harmful pseudo-science.’

Yet children who should have been the most supported have been put at immense risk and harm. Countless victims have suffered due to discredited theories and a system that does not always protect those it claims to. So whilst we welcome these changes, we must not forget those who have already been damaged by it. The people like those in Jessica Bradley’s article, and many of those we work with day in, day out. 

If you are in a position to help us to support more mums in need (and their children), please consider donating here.