Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and its reformulation as parental alienation (PA) have gained traction in family courts despite persistent scientific controversy. This review synthesizes peer-reviewedresearch across psychology, law, and family studies from 1985 to 2025 to examine the empirical foundations and professional acceptance of PA/PAS. The analysis suggests that Gardner's original formulation and subsequent iterations fail to meet basic validity requirements for psychological constructs and are unsupported by research. Major medical, psychiatric, and psychological professional organizationshaverejected PA/PAS as a legitimate concept. Empirical data shows a troubling correlation between PA allegations and documented domestic violence, with such claims frequently functioning as litigation strategies that redirect attention from abuse allegations.When courts credit PA claims, children face measurable harms including placement with abusive parents and subjection to unvalidated reunification interventions. These findings suggest that PA allegations often represent a form of post-separation coercive control and call for heightened judicial skepticism when such claims arise alongside safety concerns.Note: This article was removed from the journal website following pressure from parental alienation proponents. It remains available here under its original CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Keith Robert Head (Mon,) studied this question.