At the 8th International Parental Alienation Conference, PASG 2026[1], held in Perth, Australia, I argued that parental alienation should remain the name of the field. The room cheered. That response was not evidence that every use of the term is sound. It did, however, show that many people understood what we would lose if we abandoned the name.
The parental alienation field concerns parent–child relationship ruptures in which the conduct of a parent, carer or other person is alleged to have materially contributed to a child’s rejection of a parent. The child’s rejection is an observation. Parental alienation is a proposed explanation and must be tested against abuse, neglect, deficient parenting, developmental factors, ordinary alignment, and other competing explanations.
The name remains a flash-point in debates about the parental alienation field. Some people within and outside the field want to abandon it or absorb it into concepts such as coercive control. Others argue that its history with parental alienation syndrome and its possible misuse in cases involving family violence have made it unacceptable. Those objections require a direct answer. They do not require surrendering the name.
Parental Alienation Is Not Synonymous with Parental Alienation Syndrome
Parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome share a history, but they are not synonymous. Parental alienation syndrome was proposed as a diagnosable condition identified through a cluster of features in the child. The diagnostic pathway is not limited to that formulation. A child’s presentation may be considered through existing clinical or relational-problem categories, and future diagnostic formulations may be proposed. Any such diagnostic pathway is contestable and must be judged on its evidence.
A conduct-based causal approach asks a different question. Parental alienating conduct and behaviours concern what a parent or carer does. Parental alienation, in this approach, concerns the proposed process and relational outcome when specific conduct is shown to have contributed materially to a child’s unjustified or disproportionate rejection of a parent and to resulting harm. Like the assessment of family violence, the inquiry examines conduct, context, effect, risk and causation rather than inferring a condition from the child’s presentation alone.
Contesting the diagnostic pathway does not mean that parental alienating conduct cannot occur or cannot cause a parent–child relationship rupture. Nor does proof of particular conduct and harm establish a diagnosis. The two approaches may examine related circumstances, but they ask different questions and require their own evidence.
The 2024 Family Justice Council guidance for England and Wales[2] illustrates the problem. Its introduction associates parental alienation and alienating behaviours with parental alienation syndrome, which it describes as discredited, and questions whether related terminology lends the syndrome legitimacy. Yet the same guidance defines alienating behaviours, requires evidence of conduct and causation, and acknowledges that the resulting harm can be significant and enduring. Whatever view is taken of the diagnostic pathway, its operational framework depends on conduct-based causal analysis. Criticism of the diagnostic pathway therefore cannot substitute for examining whether the alleged conduct occurred and what harm resulted.
Why the Name Should Remain
The name therefore serves two related purposes. It provides continuity for clinical inquiry into presentations associated with alienation, and it identifies a conduct-based causal proposition that can be assessed whether or not a diagnostic formulation is accepted.
I support retaining the name for ten related reasons.
- It is the organising name of a defined field of inquiry.
The 2025 publication of Parental Alienation Theory: Official Synopsis[3] by the Parental Alienation Study Group consolidated the field’s core definitions, theoretical propositions, assessment approaches, research, prevention, intervention and legal implications. The synopsis distinguishes parental alienation, alienating behaviours and other parent–child contact problems rather than treating them as interchangeable.
Its publication does not make every proposition settled or establish consensus beyond the contributing field. It does demonstrate that parental alienation is the organising name of a substantial and developing body of theory, research and practice. Abandoning the name would fragment that body of knowledge and make its propositions harder, rather than easier, to examine critically. - It names a specific causal proposition.
Parental alienation describes the proposition that conduct by a parent, carer or other person has materially contributed to a child’s unjustified or disproportionate rejection of a parent. It is not established merely because a child refuses contact. The prior relationship, the alleged conduct, the child’s experience, competing explanations and the causal link must all be examined. The adjective parental identifies the relationship being disrupted. It does not imply that only a parent can contribute to the rupture or that only parents can be harmed. In fact, the effects may extend beyond the parent–child relationship to the child’s rejection of other family members associated with the targeted parent. - It distinguishes an alienating process from realistic or protective estrangement.
Estrangement describes the state of a relationship; it does not, by itself, explain how that state arose. Some estrangement may arise for reasons that are not immediately apparent but are nevertheless grounded in the child’s experience. An unexplained rupture is not, by itself, evidence of parental alienation. Where a child’s rejection is a proportionate response to abuse, neglect or seriously deficient parenting, the explanation is realistic or protective estrangement, not parental alienation.
Alienation refers to a process in which the child’s relationship with the parent, and the parent’s place in the child’s identity and family story, is progressively displaced or eliminated. I describe its most severe form as an annihilation of parental identity. Coercive control may describe some of the conduct involved, but it does not by itself name this distinct parent–child process and outcome. - It can coexist with other clinical and legal descriptions.
Retaining the term parental alienation does not prevent the specific parental alienating conduct established in a case, or the harm shown to have resulted from it, from also being described as psychological abuse, coercive control, family violence or a caregiver–child relationship problem when the relevant criteria are met.
These descriptions address different questions. The possibility that the same facts may support more than one description is not a reason to remove the term that identifies the alienation process and relational outcome. The priority is to identify the alleged conduct, the child’s experience, the resulting harm, competing explanations and causation.
Existing clinical and legal descriptions should also be used when their criteria are met.
Using names and labels appropriate to the context is compatible with retaining the organising name of the field; it does not require surrendering it. - It supports conduct-based and gender-agnostic assessment.
Gender agnosticism means a neutral starting point when considering evidence, not a gender-blind analysis. Research has identified reported alienating conduct affecting mothers and fathers[4] and may identify population-level differences in the prevalence or choice of alienating behaviours and in their effects on children and parents. Those differences should be considered when the evidence supports them. They cannot determine who is credible, who has engaged in abuse or why a child has rejected a parent in an individual case. Those conclusions must follow from evidence of conduct, context, effect and risk. - The name carries an obligation for evidence.
An allegation of parental alienation is not a finding. A sound assessment must examine the child’s account, the conduct of both parents, the history of each relationship, evidence of abuse or seriously deficient parenting, and other possible explanations.
The Five-Factor Model[5] is one framework for structuring that inquiry. It does not remove the need for differential assessment or independent evidence.
The same discipline must apply to every allegation. Family-violence concerns require timely and competent investigation, but an allegation should not automatically be treated as a final finding. Equally, a protective estrangement must not be mislabelled as parental alienation. An avoidable rupture should not be allowed to harden into permanent estrangement without review. - Contesting the name requires discipline rather than erasure.
Parental alienation, coercive control and family violence all involve disputes about definitions, thresholds, evidence and causation. Contesting theories,practices or research is normal in the social sciences. The proper response is to state what a term means, what evidence would support it, what evidence would not support it and what alternative explanations must be considered. Contesting the name alone is not a reason to abandon it. - Criticism should be stated accurately and answered directly.
Some critics argue that parental alienation claims are used to discredit allegations of abuse, particularly those made by mothers against fathers. These concerns are serious and must be examined on their evidence. The possibility that a term may be misused is not unique to parental alienation. Misuse should not automatically be attributed to the term itself, but that does not relieve the field of its responsibility to prevent it.
For example, the World Health Organisation[6] has recorded concerns that the term may be misused to undermine the credibility of a parent alleging abuse. WHO states that parental alienation is not a healthcare term and has removed it as an ICD-11 index term, while also indicating that relevant cases may be classified as QE52.0 ‘caregiver–child relationship problem’[7]. Where parental alienating conduct produces substantial and sustained relationship dissatisfaction and significant disturbance in functioning, its effects may meet the criteria for that classification. Misuse in some cases does not establish that every claim made under the label is false. - Names affect what people and institutions can see.
A name gives people language to describe an experience, researchers a construct to investigate, and institutions a proposition to test. Abandoning the name would not remove the conduct or the controversy. It would make them harder to identify on their own terms. The history of feminist advocacy demonstrates the political importance of naming relational harms that established institutions had normalised or ignored. The analogy identifies the same lesson about naming: a harm does not become more visible when its name is surrendered. - It keeps a competing explanation open to examination.
Parental alienation theory challenges frameworks that may not adequately explain some parent–child relationship ruptures. That challenge does not establish that parental alienation theory is correct. It does require its propositions to be examined on their evidence rather than excluded because they conflict with an established framework. Criticism should be tested with the same discipline required of parental alienation claims. Retaining the name keeps this competing explanation visible and independently testable.
Conclusion
Parental alienation should remain the term. Retaining it does not mean accepting every claim made under it, nor treating a child’s rejection as proof or minimising family violence. It means preserving a term for the proposition that parental alienating conduct has materially contributed to a child’s unjustified or disproportionate rejection of a parent and to resulting relational harm. That proposition and competing explanations must be properly tested.
Retaining the name preserves continuity with the field’s now-consolidated theory and literature while leaving every proposition open to evidence, criticism and refinement.
The field should situate itself alongside related fields while retaining what it uniquely names. It should seek acceptance through disciplined definitions, differential assessment, evidence of conduct and causation, and a commitment to safe and beneficial parent–child relationships. Opposition to the term is a reason to use it with greater precision and accountability, not a reason to abandon it.
[2] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Family-Justice-Council-Guidance-on-responding-to-allegations-of-alienating-behaviour-2024-1-1.pdf
[3] https://www.ccthomas.com/details.cfm?P_ISBN13=9780398094744
[4] https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-025-00910-4
[5] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34929321/
[6] https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/parental-alienation
[7] https://icd.who.int/dev11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/547677013
Leave a Reply