(Some of) What I Learned at PASG

By Don Hubin

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending the Parental Alienation Study Group’s conference in Toronto. For those who don’t know, PASG is the premier parental alienation research organization in the world. I expected much from the conference and I wasn’t disappointed. I want to highlight here just a few of the important things I learned more about at this important event.

Parental Alienation Theory: Official Synopsis

Dr. William Bernet and Don Hubin

PASG has published the First Edition of Parental Alienation Theory: Official Synopsis. Dr. William Bernet, a world-renowned researcher in the area, noted a number of important features of this publication. First, digital copies are free on PASG’s website. They want this vital information to be distributed as widely as possible. Second, the book is short—less than 150 pages of text. They want the book to actually be read by people. Third, the author of the book is the PASG organization itself and the contributing authors are all either current or former members of the Board of Directors of PASG. PASG is indicating that this is really an official document. Fourth, the book uncharacteristically is designated a ‘First Edition’. That is unusual. Second and subsequent editions are always noted, of course—but never first editions, because typically one never knows that there will be any other editions. By labeling this ‘First Edition’, PASG is signaling that this will be updated as new information comes to light. This book is required reading for divorce professionals and parents who are experiencing alienating behaviors by the other parent of their child(ren).

Winning Your Alienation Case Without Expert Witnesses

Judge Jon Van Allsberg and Ashish Joshi

Attorney Ashish Joshi and Judge Jon Van Allsburg (Ottawa County, Michigan) gave a very interesting presentation, "Proving Alienation Without Experts: Storytelling in the Courtroom." Their engaging presentation was replete with examples where courts had spoken about the nature of parental alienation and the ability of courts to determine its existence without assistance from expert witnesses. For example, in Malhotra v. Henhoeffer (2018 ONSC 6472) the court wrote: “Parental alienation is a legal concept as opposed to a mental health diagnosis. As such, it is my view that the court can make a finding of alienation based on an analysis of facts alone without expert evidence.” Sidestepping debates about the diagnosis of parental alienation as a syndrome, the Michigan Court of Appeals wrote: 

“[Mother] … essentially contends that ‘parental alienation’ is junk science. While there may be a dispute in the scientific community about whether there is a diagnosable, pathological condition called parental alienation syndrome … there is no reasonable dispute that high-conflict custody disputes frequently involve acts by one parent designed to obstruct or sabotage the opposing parent’s relationship with the child” (Martin v. Martin, Michigan Court of Appeals No. 349261, January 28, 2020).

The bottom line for parents is this: if the other parent is engaging in sustained alienating behaviors, in order to get the court to take action, you should “let the facts do the heavy lifting”--by which is meant: don’t try to advance a diagnosis of the other parent; simply present the facts of repeated and serious behaviors that serve to obstruct or sabotage your relationship with the child(ren).

The Scientific Rigor of Parental Alienation Research

Those who have followed the research by experts like Drs. Jennifer Harman, Demosthenes Lorandos, and William Bernet and compared it with that of the critics of parental alienation, know that there is a vast gulf between the high quality of the first group and the agenda-driven nature of the latter. (A handy summary of the differences is available on the NPO website here.) The difference between the two is apparent and stark, making the charge of critics that parental alienation research is “junk science” laughable. But is there an objective measure of the scientific rigor of parental alienation research?

It turns out there is.

Joshua Marsden, who is completing his Ph.D. studies under Professor Jennifer Harman, analyzed parental alienation research using a standard tool for evaluating research rigor, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. What Marsden concluded, based on a review of hundreds of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies is that parental alienation research “exhibits a high level of scientific rigor” (emphasis in original).

Parental Alienation and Other Abuse

Dr. Amanda Sharples

Critics of parental alienation research claim that the whole idea of parental alienation is a bogus scientific concept. (They sometimes shorten that to ‘bogus concept’ and, as a retired philosophy professor, I have to admit that, while I understand what bogus science is and, so, what a bogus scientific concept is, I have no idea what a bogus concept is. Is it something that seems like a concept but isn’t really one?!) They claim that allegations of parental alienation are simply tools that abusive parents use to wrest custody from protective parents. 

Of course, parental alienation is child abuse. But what are its connections with other forms of child abuse. Are parents who complain of their children being alienated from them by the other parent more likely to be abusive than the parents who are being charged with alienation.

Dr. Amanda Sharples designed research to answer this question. It turns out that, based on two large studies, “alienating parents, regardless of gender, had a greater probability of having a substantiated claim of abuse against them, compared to the parents found to have been alienated from their children” (emphases added). Furthermore, “parents alienated from their children had a greater probability of having unsubstantiated claims of abuse made against them than the parent alienating the children” (emphases added). 

This indicates that, for some parents, alienating behaviors are part of a pattern of wider child abuse.

The Importance of Parenting Time Enforcement

Dr. Jennifer Harman and Don Hubin

Robert Garza and Don Hubin

Professor Jennifer Harman presented work done with Dr. Richard Warshak, Dr. Amanda Sharples, and Joshua Marsden that underscored the importance of parenting time enforcement. Some researchers have alleged that parental alienation is rare because alienating behaviors typically backfire, leading to the child(ren) defending the targeted parent. While this certainly happens in some cases, we know that alienating behaviors are often successful, especially when the child’s contact with the targeted parent is limited. When children are directly cared for by both parents for a significant portion of the time, it is more likely that alienating behaviors will backfire. Interfering with parenting time of the targeted parent  is a strategy that increases the alignment with the alienating parent and makes alienating behaviors more likely to be successful. This is one of the most important connections between presumptions of equal shared parenting and the avoidance of parental alienation. And it underscores the importance of appropriate mechanisms for handling parenting time interference, such as Missouri’s Family Access Motions, the “Time Taken, Time Taken Back” and the “Three Strikes” approaches championed by Robert Garza.