Commentary on Kelly and Johnston's "The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome": Family Court Review, 39(3), July 2001

In a previous issue ofthis journal, Joan B. Kelly and Janet R. Johnston describe their reformulation of the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Here, 1 prewnt area in which I agree with the authors and areas in which 1 disagree. Particular focus is placed on these PAS-related issues: the syndrome question, PAS versus parental alienation, the medical model, custodial transfer, gender bias, DSM-/C: empirical studies, and the misapplication of PAS. In their reformulation of the parental alienation syndrome (PAS), Kelly and Johnston (200 I) described a model that overlaps a great deal with my own work on PAS but also differs in a few aspects. Although separated by a continent, I believe we are essentially seeing the same kinds of psychological problems, as divorce is ubiquitous, and similar problems are caused everywhere for the families involved. I believe we could also agree that all solutions to psychological problems have drawbacks and that we are not dealing with right answers and wrong answers, but have to select what we consider to be the least detrimental of the options available to us. Our differences are probably not as wide as the July 200 1 issue might imply (for a similar view, see Warshak, 2001), and it is my hope that this response will serve to narrow these differences. Furthermore, because the PAS arises so frequently in the context of litigated child-custody disputes, and because such families turn to the courts for assistance in the resolution of these conflicts, professional differences are likely to become exaggerated and more polarized in the courtroom, which is an inevitable outcome of adversarial proceedings.