Judge Jones of Any Court USA firmly warns Opposing Counsel (OC) not to “bring that noise” into his courtroom.

By “noise,” he means the hearsay, sensationalism, and blatant lies spread by uncredentialed, unlicensed, and untrained reporters and social media influencers pushing their own agendas.

I usually don’t pay much attention to it, but every now and then, someone shares the latest fabrication with me. It might almost be amusing if not for the real harm it causes families, parents and children, who are already enduring one of the most painful and heartbreaking experiences of their lives: the loss of family and the loving bonds between them.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Here are a few of the ridiculous lies being spread:

TPFF, Texas has a hidden compound surrounded by barbed wire.
TPFF, Texas is guarded by wolves.
Corrupt judges and TPFF-T protect the abusive parent.
And my personal favorite: Loretta makes the kids strip naked, stand with their noses to the wall, and chant “ALIENATION” for eight hours a day.

Though the “noise” is certainly colorful, the reality is far from amusing. At TPFF-Texas, we focus on treating some of the most severe and heartbreaking cases of parental alienation (PA) in the country.

Table of Contents

What is Parental Alienation

Parental alienation is a psychological condition in which a child, often in the midst of a high-conflict separation or divorce, forms a strong alliance with one parent (the preferred parent) while unjustly rejecting the other (the alienated parent).

This dysfunctional dynamic occurs when one parent manipulates the child into siding with them, encouraging the child to criticize and reject the other parent without a legitimate protective reason. The child then actively participates in rejecting the alienated parent.

It’s important to note that the rejected parent’s behavior does not involve abuse, neglect, or significantly poor parenting. For those familiar with the signs, this phenomenon is clearly recognizable.

Manipulation can take place during or after a separation or divorce, often in the context of a custody battle, but it can also begin before separation. As conflicts escalate, children may be drawn into taking sides and aligning with one parent.

Regardless of when it starts, this manipulation can cause serious psychological and emotional harm to the child, often with lasting consequences.

Parental alienation is not limited to custody disputes between parents. It can also occur between grandparents and parents, other family members, or even between a parent and professionals like therapists or child protection workers if they encourage or support a child’s refusal to maintain contact with the rejected parent.

Alienated parents may also unintentionally reinforce the perception that the child’s rejection is justified if they have been uninvolved in the child’s life (as sometimes happens when parental conflict escalates) or if their parenting style is not warm and nurturing.

However, for there to be a true finding of alienation, the child’s rejection must be disproportionate to any parenting flaws, especially those present before the alienation began. Children have an innate need to stay connected to their parents and do not sever that bond over minor or trivial reasons – except for the presence of an outside, alienating influence.

FURTHER READING: What Is Parental Alienation & Why It Is Missed by Professionals

Mild, Moderate, and Severe Parent Alienation

Parental Alienation is a progressive family dynamic that exists on a continuum, much like alcoholism, ranging from mild to moderate to severe. This progression affects both the alienating parent and the child.

Since it operates on a continuum, there are no clear boundaries between levels of severity. Without intervention, alienation is likely to intensify over time.

Furthermore, there is no universal standard to predict how quickly alienation will progress in a given family. I’ve witnessed children move from mild to severe alienation in as little as 24 hours.

Due to this unpredictability, the principle of “time is of the essence” should be applied the moment any signs of alienation arise, as a preventative measure—just as it would be in any other case of child abuse.

A key difference between a mild or moderate alienator and a severe alienator is that the severe alienator is determined to destroy the child’s relationship with the other parent. It becomes their mission in life, and they will go to extreme lengths to achieve this goal.

For example, a severe alienator may repeatedly make false allegations of abuse and neglect, consistently violate court orders, and persistently withhold all contact between the child and the other parent.

Their behavior is extreme—so much so that it has been described as “extreme extremism” or even bizarre.

In the widely recognized text Parent Alienation, Science and the Law by Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos and Dr. William Bernet, the authors outline three levels of alienating parenting behaviors: naïve, active, and obsessed.

Three levels of Parental Alienation: Alienating Parents

The most common route to parental alienation (PA) occurs when the preferred parent conditions the child to dislike or fear the rejected parent. These actions, known as alienating behaviors (ABs), can range from being naïve, active, or obsessive alienators.

Importantly, understanding parental alienation requires recognizing that the parent’s alienating behaviors come before the child’s signs of alienation. However, these alienating behaviors are often subtle and covert, making them difficult for outside observers to detect.

Naive Alienators

Naïve alienators may express negative attitudes and make critical comments about the other parent. While they might occasionally vent about the other parent to or in front of the child, they do so without a deliberate intent to damage the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Active Alienators

Active alienators are more intentional in their efforts to undermine the child’s relationship with the other parent. Although they are often aware that their actions are harmful and inappropriate, they justify their behavior by believing it is necessary for the child to “know the truth.”

Obsessed Alienators

Obsessed alienators differ significantly from mild or moderate alienators. However, research indicates that alienating behaviors can escalate over time, shifting from naïve to active, and eventually to obsessed.

The motivations of obsessed alienators are extreme—they are unwavering in their goal to sever the child’s relationship with the other parent, regardless of the harm it causes the child.

Research suggests that obsessed alienators often exhibit one or more personality disorders, manipulate the child into accepting false narratives about the other parent, and may either make or encourage false allegations.

They often pressure the child to rewrite their history with the alienated parent, distorting the child’s perception of past experiences.

Three Levels of Parental Alienation: Children

Parental alienation in children typically manifests in three levels: mild, moderate, and severe. These levels often (but not always) align with the alienating parent’s behaviors.

It’s important to emphasize that the alienating parent’s behaviors precede, initiate, and ultimately cause the child’s alienation.

Mild Parental Alienation

Child’s Behavior

In mild cases, the child shows some resistance or reluctance toward the alienated parent, often influenced by the preferred parent’s subtle negative comments or behaviors. However, the child is still generally willing to spend time with the alienated parent and maintains a relationship, though it may be strained.

Alienating Parent’s Role

The alienating parent may make occasional negative remarks or behave in ways that encourage the child’s preference for them, but they are not aggressively trying to destroy the other parent’s relationship with the child.

Impact

While the child is somewhat affected, they can still differentiate between both parents and maintain a relatively healthy relationship with the alienated parent. With intervention, the relationship can be repaired more easily.

Moderate Parental Alienation

Child’s Behavior

In moderate cases, the child expresses stronger resistance toward the alienated parent, often becoming defiant or disrespectful during visits or refusing to see the alienated parent for certain periods. The child may repeat the negative narratives of the alienating parent, showing confusion or conflicted feelings about the alienated parent.

Alienating Parent’s Role

The alienating parent is more actively involved in influencing the child, using more direct manipulation, such as frequent negative comments about the alienated parent, creating emotional pressure, or distorting events. They may limit contact with the alienated parent or subtly sabotage attempts at reconciliation.

Impact

The child’s relationship with the alienated parent is significantly damaged, but there is still hope for recovery through therapeutic intervention and legal involvement. The child may need counseling to address loyalty conflicts and emotional distress.

Severe Parental Alienation

Child’s Behavior

In severe cases, the child exhibits extreme rejection of the alienated parent, often refusing all contact or engaging in openly hostile behavior.

The child may entirely adopt the alienating parent’s negative views, expressing anger, fear, or disgust toward the alienated parent without any valid reasons. This rejection is often irrational and disproportionate to the alienated parent’s actual behavior.

If the child does visit the other parent’s home, they typically retreat to their bedroom, refuse to participate in mealtimes, and avoid engaging with the other parent altogether.

Alienating Parent’s Role

The alienating parent is deeply committed to destroying the child’s relationship with the other parent. They may engage in extreme behaviors such as false allegations of abuse, violations of court orders, or complete isolation of the child from the alienated parent.

The manipulation is relentless and may include creating a narrative that the alienated parent is dangerous (unfit), doesn’t love the child (unloving), and/or doesn’t have time for the child (unavailable).

The parent’s behavior qualifies as psychological maltreatment. In other words, the parent’s behavior is child abuse.

Impact

The child’s bond with the alienated parent is severely damaged, often to the point where the relationship seems irreparable without significant intervention. This level of alienation causes deep emotional and psychological harm to the child and requires immediate, intensive intervention, including legal action and specialized therapy.

At each level, the sooner the alienation is identified and addressed, the better the chances are of repairing the damaged relationships and minimizing the long-term harm to the child.

Severely alienated children exhibit virtually all of Dr. Richard Gardner’s eight manifestations of alienation, along with additional symptoms—such as pathological enmeshment.

FURTHER READING: Manifestations of Alienated Children – As Seen by an Expert

In this condition, the alienating parent essentially overrides the child’s personal boundaries and identity, imposing their own resentments, hatred, and desire to harm the other parent. The child adopts the alienating parent’s negative emotions and destructive goals as their own.

Parent Alienators and Personality Disorders

Parental alienators are often linked to certain personality disorders, particularly those involving traits like manipulation, lack of empathy, and an excessive need for control.

While not all alienators have a diagnosed personality disorder, several common patterns have been observed in those who engage in severe alienation. Some of the personality disorders most often associated with parental alienation include:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Individuals with NPD often have an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. In the context of parental alienation, they may view their child as an extension of themselves and seek to control the child’s loyalty to affirm their own self-worth.

They are often highly manipulative, using the child to undermine the other parent without regard for the child’s emotional well-being.

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

Those with BPD often experience intense, unstable relationships, fear of abandonment, and emotional volatility. In cases of parental alienation, a parent with BPD may engage in manipulative behavior, convincing the child that the other parent is a threat or unsafe.

They may create a narrative of victimhood and emotionally coerce the child into rejecting the other parent as a way to cope with their own fears of abandonment or instability.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD)

Individuals with APD may exhibit patterns of disregard for the rights and feelings of others, lying, and manipulation. In parental alienation, a parent with APD may use deception and coercion to turn the child against the other parent without guilt or remorse.

This behavior can be extreme, involving false allegations, repeated court violations, and a total disregard for the child’s best interests.

Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD)

Parents with HPD tend to seek excessive attention and may dramatize situations for emotional gain. They can create exaggerated stories or make emotional appeals to their child, portraying themselves as victims and the other parent as harmful. This constant need for drama can pull the child into a web of manipulation, leading to alienation.

Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD)

Those with PPD may harbor excessive suspicion and mistrust of others, including the other parent. In parental alienation cases, a parent with PPD may convince the child that the other parent poses a threat, even when no evidence supports these claims.

Their unfounded fears can drive the child to reject the other parent, believing they are protecting themselves or the alienating parent.

Impact on the Child

Parental alienators with personality disorders often engage in behaviors that cause severe psychological harm to the child. The child may internalize the manipulative narratives, leading to guilt, confusion, and emotional damage.

Over time, the child may develop loyalty conflicts, relationship issues, and long-term mental health struggles as a result of the alienation process.

Effective intervention typically requires a combination of legal action and therapeutic support, addressing both the alienating parent’s behavior and the child’s emotional needs.

Parental Alienation and Domestic Violence

Parental alienation and domestic violence are two critical issues that often intersect in high-conflict custody disputes, but they are distinct phenomena with important differences.

Understanding how they relate and diverge is essential for family courts, professionals, and families dealing with these issues.

Parental Alienation

Parental alienation occurs when one parent, often during or after a contentious separation or divorce, manipulates a child to unjustly reject the other parent.

The result is that the child aligns strongly with one parent (the alienating parent) and unjustifiably rejects or fears the other (the alienated parent), often leading to strained or destroyed relationships between the child and the alienated parent.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence (DV) involves patterns of abusive behavior within a relationship where one person seeks to exert power and control over another. It includes physical violence, emotional abuse, psychological manipulation, economic control, and coercive tactics.

The effects of domestic violence on children can be severe, leading to trauma, anxiety, depression, and difficulties in forming healthy relationships.

How They Intersect

The relationship between parental alienation and domestic violence can be complicated, and the two issues often become entangled in custody disputes.

Accusations of Alienation vs. Claims of Abuse

In some cases, a parent accused of alienation may argue that their actions (such as restricting contact or speaking negatively about the other parent) are necessary to protect the child from an abusive parent.

This raises a complex issue: whether the parent is genuinely trying to protect the child or whether the alienation claim is being used to manipulate the court and further isolate the child from a healthy parent.

Conversely, abusive parents may falsely claim that they are victims of parental alienation to undermine allegations of domestic violence, deflect attention from their abusive behavior, and regain custody or contact with the child.

Post-Separation Abuse

Abusive partners may use the family court system as a way to continue exerting control over their former partner, which is often referred to as post-separation abuse. Accusations of parental alienation are sometimes used as a tactic in this context, where an abuser claims alienation to gain custody, even when their behavior poses a legitimate threat to the child.

Children Caught in the Middle

Turning Points for Families Texas - Truths & Lies

Both domestic violence and parental alienation can drag children into the center of parental conflict, resulting in long-term emotional harm. In domestic violence cases, children may witness or experience abuse, while in cases of alienation, they may be manipulated into unjustly rejecting one parent, potentially leading to life-long, tragic consequences.

The Risk of Misdiagnosis

One of the challenges in family court is distinguishing between genuine cases of parental alienation and situations where a child’s reluctance to spend time with one parent is a result of past abuse.

Courts and professionals must carefully assess each case to avoid misdiagnosis, which could either put the child in danger or unfairly remove them from a loving parent.

Approaches to Handling Both Issues

Thorough Investigation

Courts must conduct thorough investigations in custody disputes involving claims of both alienation and domestic violence to determine the root cause of the child’s behavior. Simply applying a label without deep evaluation can lead to harmful outcomes for both the child and the parents.

It’s essential to differentiate between domestic violence and parental alienation. When a parent has engaged in genuine abuse, including DV witnessed by the child, the situation is more likely one of estrangement, where the child rejects the parent due to the abuse, rather than parental alienation.

In such cases, a comprehensive evaluation of the child’s behavior would show that the rejection is justified and rooted in the abuse, making child protection the priority and reunification therapy inappropriate or contraindicated.

Expert Testimony

In complex cases, mental health professionals, child psychologists, and domestic violence experts should be brought in to assess the situation and provide evidence-based recommendations to the court.

Specialized Training

Judges, attorneys, and family court professionals need training to recognize the nuances between parental alienation and domestic violence, ensuring that they do not mistake protective behavior for alienation or overlook genuine abuse.

Key Differences

Motivation

Parental alienation involves one parent manipulating the child to reject the other, often out of spite, a desire for control, or for financial motives, such as influencing child support arrangements.

Domestic violence is about one partner exerting control through abuse, and protective actions by the other parent may not be alienation but necessary safeguards.

Evidence

In cases of parental alienation, the child’s rejection of a parent is unjustified, as there is typically no evidence of abuse or neglect by the rejected parent.

Instead, the rejection is driven by external alienating influences of the other parent, sometimes with the aid of extended family members.

In domestic violence cases, there may be documented evidence of abuse, such as police reports or witness testimony.

Both parental alienation and domestic violence can have devastating impacts on children and families. When these issues intersect in custody disputes, careful consideration and expert involvement are crucial to ensuring the safety and well-being of the child.

Courts must distinguish between cases of legitimate parental alienation and protective behavior in response to bona fide abuse, recognizing the complexity and potential harm in both situations.

False Allegations of Abuse

Distinguishing between genuine abuse (supported by evidence) and false allegations, which are often seen in high-conflict custody disputes, is a key point of contention in debates over parental alienation theories. Therefore, a systematic, thorough evaluation by trained experts is crucial to determine whether the child’s rejection of a parent is justified or unjustified.

At TPFF-T, this principle has been recognized and upheld from the beginning. TPFF-T does not accept cases of estrangement (justifiable rejection) unless the abuse has been acknowledged, the offending parent has received appropriate treatment, and clinicians and the court have confirmed their rehabilitation.

Even then, the approach to treatment would not fit the TPFF-T model for treating severely alienated children and would likely be referred to appropriate providers.

Why Are Detractors So Passionate About Discrediting PA?

Detractors of parental alienation (PA) are often passionate about discrediting the concept for several reasons, including skepticism about its validity, concerns about misuse in legal contexts, and broader societal issues related to gender roles and power dynamics. Here are some of the key reasons behind the passionate opposition to PA

Some critics argue that parental alienation lacks a clear, universally accepted definition and standardized diagnostic criteria.

The Truth

While parental alienation may not have a single, universally agreed-upon definition, it is widely recognized by mental health and legal professionals as a real and harmful phenomenon.

There is substantial research and a growing body of evidence that supports its existence and the detrimental impact it has on children and families.

Various diagnostic frameworks, such as Dr. Richard Gardner’s early work and more recent models, offer clear criteria for identifying parental alienation in clinical and legal settings.

While the terminology and definitions may vary, the core concept of one parent manipulating a child to reject the other parent is well-established and recognized across disciplines.

Some critics argue that parental alienation is not in the diagnostic manuals: DSM-5 and ICD-11

The Truth

While parental alienation may not be officially listed as a standalone diagnosis in certain professional organizations like the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5, the behaviors and dynamics associated with it are widely acknowledged by mental health professionals.

In the November, 2023 article Parental Alienation is in the DSM-5-TR, But Not the Actual Words:

“APA Experts Agree, the authors include a written statement from Lamyaa Yousif, MD, PhD, MSc, Senior DSM Operations Manager that states: “It is not necessary to add the term “parental alienation” as an example of parent/child relational problems, since the description of parent/child relational problems already encompasses the kind of interactions often designated as “parental alienation.” (Email from Lamyaa Yousif to William Bernet, July 27, 2023). PAI Newsletter. Bernet, W. and Baker, A. Parental Alienation Study Group, November, 2023.

The authors also state that there is a similar policy in place in the International Classification of Diseases, 11^th Edition (ICD-11), the book of diagnoses published by the World Health Organization.

Personnel at ICD-11 have provided explicit guidance to the effect that children diagnosed with parental alienation may be identified as having the ICD-11 condition, caregiver–child relationship problem.

The World Health Organization states:

“In situations in which an individual labeled with [parental alienation] presents for health care, other ICD-11 content is sufficient to guide coding. Users may classify cases to ‘caregiver–child relationship problem.”

Some critics argue that professional organizations do not recognize parental alienation.

The Truth

The following is a partial list of recognition of PA by professional organizations:

The American Bar Association

1991, 2013. Children Held Hostage by Clawar & Rivlin. Children Held Hostage presented finding of the authors’ 20-year study of over 1,000 families and found that programming/brainwashing identified in their study was directly linked to PA theory.

Children Held Hostage includes 23 articles or books published by Dr. Richard Gardner and PA theory.

State Bar of Texas

2018. Diana S. Friendman of Goranson Bain and Dr. Richard Warshak presented class/article on Parent Alienation and Childhood Trauma at the State Bar of Texas 44th Annual Advanced Family Law Course, August 13-16, 2018 in San Antonio, TX.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

1997 AACAP published Practice Parameters for Child Custody Evaluation, an AACAP Official Action that was adopted by the governing body or the organization.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

In 2005 AFCC published Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. Appendix A of that document “Recommendations for Comprehensive Training of Parenting Coordinators” consists of several modules pertaining to various aspects of this topic.

Module 2 of the recommendations for training pertains to “Family Dynamics in Separation and Divorce,” which includes “dealing with high conflict parents” and “the dynamics of child alignments, estrangements, and alienation.”

La Societa Italiana de Neuropsichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza

In 2007 Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry (SINPIA) PUBLISHED A DOCUMENT TITLED GUIDELIES ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILD ABUSE. That official documents of SINPIA stated “Psychological abuse includes: acts of rejection, psychological terrorism, exploitation, isolation and removal of the child from the social context ….

A further form of psychological abuse may be the alienation of a parent figure by the other until the cooperation of a child in PAS. The publication by the child and adolescent neuropsychiatrists of Italy demonstrates how an awareness of the importance of PA moved from U.S. to Europe.

American Psychological Association

Over the years the APA has addressed the topic of PA on several occasions. All relationships need to be observed. 1994 APA published Guidelines. Guidelines bibliography includes three of Gardner’s books:

Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation 1989. The PAS: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 1992. True and False Accusations of Child Abuse 1992.

American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

In 2015 Child Centered Residential Guidelines. Doesn’t include the words pa but describes the problem.

American Academy of Pediatrics

In 2016 published a clinical report called Helping “Children and Families Deal with Divorce and Separation. The report said “Alienation of the child and the targeted parent is a frequent problem that needs practical professional input to correct the negative effects on all parties.

One of the strongest criticisms of PA is that it can be misused in custody battles, particularly by abusive or manipulative parents who falsely claim alienation to avoid accountability for their behavior.

Detractors are concerned that abusive parents could use PA accusations to discredit legitimate concerns about domestic violence or child abuse, thereby gaining custody or access to children unjustly.

The Truth

While it’s true that any legal concept, including parental alienation, can be misused, this does not negate the reality or validity of PA itself. Courts and professionals trained in recognizing both parental alienation and genuine abuse are key to preventing such misuse.

Properly distinguishing between a child’s justified estrangement due to abuse and cases of alienation requires thorough evaluation by mental health professionals, child psychologists, and family law experts.

When identified correctly, PA highlights a destructive form of psychological manipulation that severely impacts children and families. Safeguarding against misuse involves a careful and nuanced approach, but dismissing PA altogether would allow harmful behaviors to go unchecked, harming both children and targeted parents.

Responsible use of PA claims, along with expert evaluations, can help protect the true victims in custody disputes.

Critics believe that invoking PA in court can shift focus away from the child’s best interests, putting vulnerable children in harmful situations by undermining allegations of abuse.

They argue that PA is sometimes weaponized in high-conflict divorce cases, particularly to silence accusations of abuse.

The Truth

While critics are right to be concerned about the potential misuse of parental alienation (PA) claims, it is essential to recognize that PA, when properly understood and applied, is focused on the child’s best interests. The goal of addressing PA is to protect children from being manipulated into rejecting a healthy parent without just cause.

In cases where abuse is alleged, courts and mental health professionals must conduct thorough investigations to differentiate between genuine abuse and unjustified rejection of a parent due to alienation.

Well-trained professionals can carefully evaluate both claims of abuse and PA to ensure that children are not placed in harmful situations.

Misuse of PA to silence abuse claims is a serious issue, but it highlights the need for skilled legal and psychological assessments, not the dismissal of PA altogether.

Ultimately, the correct identification and handling of PA support the child’s well-being, ensuring that both alienation and legitimate abuse are addressed appropriately and without bias.

Parental alienation is often framed in gendered terms, with some critics viewing it as a tool disproportionately used against mothers in custody battles.

Given that women are more likely to be primary caregivers and often make claims of abuse, detractors worry that PA accusations are used to dismiss or undermine these claims, particularly in cases of intimate partner violence.

The Truth

While concerns about gender bias are valid, parental alienation (PA) is not inherently gendered and can affect both mothers and fathers.

PA is not about the gender of the parent but the behaviors of the alienating parent, whether it is the mother or father, and how those behaviors impact the child’s relationship with the rejected parent.

Both men and women can be victims of PA, and the damage it causes to the parent-child bond is independent of gender.

Courts and professionals must carefully assess each case to avoid gender bias and ensure that claims of PA are not used to undermine legitimate concerns of abuse.

Proper evaluation by trained mental health professionals and legal experts helps differentiate between valid claims of abuse and cases of PA, ensuring that intimate partner violence is not dismissed or overshadowed by alienation claims.

The focus should remain on protecting the child and ensuring that decisions are made in their best interest, based on objective evidence rather than gendered assumptions.

Feminist scholars and advocates for survivors of domestic abuse have voiced concerns that PA can perpetuate gendered power imbalances, allowing fathers or other powerful figures to claim alienation in order to gain control in custody disputes.

The Truth

While concerns about the misuse of parental alienation (PA) in custody disputes are understandable, PA is not inherently a tool of gendered power imbalance. Both mothers and fathers can be victims or perpetrators of PA, and it is not limited to one gender or power dynamic.

The essence of PA lies in the manipulation of a child to unjustly reject one parent, regardless of gender.

Courts and professionals must be vigilant to ensure that PA claims are not used as a weapon in custody disputes to gain control or dismiss valid abuse concerns. Proper training in identifying both PA and domestic abuse is crucial to protecting the interests of the child and ensuring fairness in custody decisions.

Gender-neutral evaluations by mental health professionals and legal experts can help prevent PA from being misused as a strategy in legal battles, while also ensuring that survivors of abuse, regardless of gender, are not silenced or marginalized in the process.

Ultimately, the focus must remain on safeguarding the well-being of the child and addressing any harmful behaviors, whether related to PA or domestic abuse.

Parental alienation as a concept is often linked to Dr. Richard Gardner, who developed “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) in the 1980s.

Gardner’s work and some of his controversial views on abuse and custody have led to widespread criticism.

His initial framing of PAS has been discredited by many due to concerns about his minimization of child abuse, creating a lingering distrust around PA theories today.

The Truth

While Dr. Richard Gardner’s original concept of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) has been the subject of controversy, modern understanding of parental alienation (PA) has evolved significantly beyond Gardner’s work.

Gardner’s views, particularly his perceived minimization of child abuse, have rightly been criticized and discredited in many circles.

However, this should not overshadow the legitimate, well-documented phenomenon of parental alienation itself.

Today, PA is widely recognized in the fields of psychology and family law, separate from the flawed aspects of Gardner’s original framing.

Research has demonstrated the damaging effects of parental alienation on children and families, and contemporary approaches focus on protecting children from manipulation while ensuring that legitimate claims of abuse are thoroughly investigated.

The association with Gardner’s early work can make some detractors wary of PA, fearing that it still carries the same flaws.

The Truth

Today’s recognition of PA is based on empirical evidence and careful evaluation, ensuring that concerns about false accusations or the dismissal of abuse are addressed with professional expertise.

While Gardner’s work may have sparked initial skepticism, PA is now seen as a valid phenomenon that requires careful handling to ensure both parental relationships and child safety are protected.

Detractors may argue that the concept of PA shifts blame onto the child’s behavior, potentially pathologizing normal responses to parental conflict.

For instance, they believe that in some cases where children reject one parent, this may be a justified response to real harm or trauma, rather than manipulation by the other parent.

The Truth

While it is true that children can justifiably reject a parent due to real harm or trauma, the concept of parental alienation (PA) is not about pathologizing normal responses. Instead, PA focuses on situations where a child’s rejection of a parent is unjustified and driven by manipulation, not genuine harm.

Thorough assessments by trained professionals are critical in distinguishing between a child’s valid response to abuse or trauma and alienation caused by the influence of the other parent.

The goal of addressing PA is not to blame the child but to identify unhealthy dynamics that may be affecting the parent-child relationship. In cases where abuse or trauma has occurred, the focus should be on protecting the child and addressing those issues.

However, in cases where the rejection is based on manipulation or undue influence, recognizing PA is crucial to preventing long-term emotional damage to the child.

Ultimately, the distinction between PA and justified estrangement is essential, and professionals must carefully evaluate each situation to ensure that children are not wrongfully alienated from a healthy parent or forced into relationships that pose a genuine risk.

Critics are also concerned that efforts to “remediate” PA through court orders or forced reunification therapy can cause further emotional harm to children, especially if the root cause of their behavior isn’t properly understood.

The Truth

Concerns about causing emotional harm through forced reunification or inappropriate interventions are valid, but they highlight the need for careful, case-by-case evaluation rather than dismissing parental alienation (PA) altogether.

When addressing PA, it is essential that courts and professionals thoroughly assess the underlying causes of the child’s behavior to ensure the right course of action is taken.

Effective remediation of PA should not involve blanket solutions or rushed decisions.

Instead, it requires the involvement of trained mental health professionals who can discern whether the child’s rejection is due to genuine trauma, abuse, or unjustified alienation.

If a child’s behavior is rooted in real abuse, appropriate protections must be put in place, and forced reunification would indeed be harmful.

However, in cases where manipulation by one parent has caused unjustified alienation, carefully structured interventions can help restore the parent-child relationship in a safe and supportive manner.

The goal is to address PA without causing further emotional damage to the child, ensuring that all decisions are made in the child’s best interest based on a thorough understanding of the family dynamics involved.

Family dynamics in high-conflict divorces are extremely complex, and some detractors believe that PA oversimplifies these dynamics by placing too much emphasis on one parent’s manipulation.

They argue that alienation may occur naturally in cases where children gravitate toward the parent who is perceived as less threatening or more supportive during periods of conflict, without it being the result of deliberate alienation.

The Truth

While it’s true that family dynamics in high-conflict divorces are complex and children may gravitate toward one parent for various reasons, parental alienation (PA) specifically refers to situations where a child’s rejection of one parent is the result of deliberate manipulation, not just a natural response to conflict.

PA does not oversimplify these dynamics but rather focuses on identifying instances where one parent has actively undermined the child’s relationship with the other parent through tactics like badmouthing, restricting contact, or creating fear.

It is important to differentiate between cases where children naturally align with one parent due to legitimate emotional or safety concerns and those where alienation is being orchestrated by one parent.

This distinction can only be made through a thorough investigation by mental health professionals who understand the complexities of both high-conflict divorces and PA.

Acknowledging the intricacies of family conflict doesn’t invalidate PA but rather emphasizes the need for careful and informed evaluations.

Understanding the root causes of the child’s behavior, whether it’s natural alignment or alienation, ensures that the appropriate steps are taken to protect the child’s well-being and maintain healthy relationships with both parents when possible.

Some detractors are passionate about children’s rights and autonomy, arguing that accusations of parental alienation can sometimes overlook a child’s genuine feelings or preferences.

They believe that children should have the right to express their discomfort or unwillingness to see a parent without those feelings being dismissed as manipulation or alienation.

The Truth

The concept of parental alienation (PA) does not aim to dismiss a child’s genuine emotions or preferences, but rather to identify cases where those feelings are the result of manipulation by one parent. PA specifically addresses situations where a child’s rejection of a parent is not based on their true experiences or emotions, but on external pressure or influence.

A careful, child-centered approach is essential when addressing PA. Skilled professionals, including psychologists and family therapists, are trained to discern the difference between a child’s legitimate discomfort with a parent and feelings that have been unjustly influenced by the other parent.

In cases of PA, the child’s right to a healthy relationship with both parents, when safe and appropriate, is paramount. At the same time, it is critical that their well-being and true feelings are thoroughly evaluated to prevent both false accusations of alienation and the dismissal of valid concerns.

Parent Alienation Science vs. The Noise

As seen above, there are differences among professionals who research parental alienation and work with alienated families. Yet, there is also significant agreement.

Most notably, there is consensus that each case must be independently assessed by professionals trained to recognize parental alienation and abuse in both children and parents, while carefully ruling out estrangement, domestic violence, or genuine parental alienation. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, as every case is unique.

The Supreme Irony

Those detractors who criticize PA seem to have a consensus of their own. They appear to presume that all cases are automatically instances of child abuse or domestic violence perpetrated by the rejected parent, often basing their conclusions solely on the opinions of the favored parent and the child.

We Have Been Silent About the Online Attacks for a Reason

Plain and simple, we are regulated and constrained by HIPAA laws. More importantly, we have protected our clients from sensationalism and exposure thrust upon the families from the likes of Swithin and Dreyfus.

Over time, however, we have found that it is more important to protect the families we work with by shedding light on the corrupt and unethical practices of those who seek to undermine their well-being.

Are These Sites Monetized?

Ms. Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle, like other online influencers, monetizes her platforms. And it’s big business.

Opposing the science, research, and treatment of parental alienation has become a lucrative business for Ms. Swithin, despite her lack of formal training in law, psychology, counseling, family therapy, forensic evaluations, or parental alienation treatment.

For example, Tina Swithin’s websites are monetized through several streams, including divorce coaching, online courses, and private support forums which have membership fees. She also sells books and apparel through her site, which contributes to her revenue streams.

Additionally, her High Conflict Divorce Coach Certification Program is another monetized platform where individuals can enroll in an eight-week certification course, designed for those who want to become advocates or coaches in high-conflict divorce cases.

Furthermore, she offers a paid 12 Months with Tina program, which provides long-term support and guidance for those going through toxic divorces.

Ms. Swithin has no direct clinical experience, post-graduate licensure, or professional credentials that qualify her to critique Board-certified child psychologists, researchers with dual Ph.D.s and law licenses, clinical psychologists, licensed marriage and family therapists, or licensed professional counselors with decades of experience and expertise.

She would not withstand a Daubert Challenge in the field of parental alienation science and research and would not be deemed qualified to assist a court in any serious legal proceeding.

Yet, Ms. Swithin has made it her mission to interfere in critical child abuse cases without facing any consequences.

Hannah Dreyfus and Her Selective, Deceptive Reporting

Ms. Dreyfus has already been exposed for fraudulent reporting in the insightful article Lies Perpetuated by the Alienating Parents’ Industry by Ms. Linda Gottlieb. For more details, I encourage you to read that comprehensive article. Ms. Dreyfus lacks the professional credentials to assess family dynamics of any kind, let alone the complex nature of parental alienation.

Ms. Dreyfus engaged in selective reporting, cherry-picking statements from hearing transcripts, interviews with experts, and conversations with interviewees, as expertly outlined in Ms. Gottlieb’s article.

Despite interviewing some of the most well-known and respected experts in the field—family law attorneys, world-renowned researchers, and clinical specialists, Ms. Dreyfus, according to them, left the majority of her interviews on the “editorial floor.”

A review of her articles reveals that Ms. Dreyfus ignored credible scientific information provided by these experts, opting instead for propaganda from favored parents and her own personal biases.

Ms. Dreyfus presented irresponsible, inaccurate, and misleading content under the guise of investigative reporting. As Ms. Gottlieb’s article details, after one such misstep, Ms. Dreyfus found herself suddenly unemployed, no longer working as a reporter for ProPublica, and has left the state.

The Infamous Utah TicTok Videos

Both Tina Swithin and Hannah Dreyfus have been implicated in actions that harm children. In the fall of 2022, Swithin helped facilitate the livestreaming of two children who were court-ordered to return to their father, in an effort to interfere with the judge’s decision.

Swithin, having pre-determined that the father was guilty of child abuse, took it upon herself to interfere with the case, despite the fact that qualified professionals and the judge, who had reviewed all of the evidence, concluded that it was a case of parental alienation, not abuse.

The Attorney General’s office, Child Protective Services (CPS), and police officers were all involved, and were at various times stationed outside the children’s home. CPS had investigated and found that the mother, as decided by the court, not the father, was guilty of abuse.

The children barricaded themselves in their bedroom, and Swithin participated in publicizing their 24/7 livestream, which lasted for several weeks, even capturing the children as they slept.

They conducted live call-in segments, taking advice from strangers, one of whom suggested the children climb out of the window to escape, promising to pick them up “around the corner.” Warnings in the chat indicated the danger of these calls, and the children eventually ended the segment.

Despite these alarming events, the judge’s order for the children to be placed in their father’s care was never fulfilled.

In the meantime, Swithin doxed the judge, the attorneys, and published the children’s home address.

By the fall of 2023, a full year later, the court held a final hearing and issued an official ruling, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This publicly available document revealed that the mother was found guilty of child abuse, based in part on a thorough CPS investigation. The judge fully exonerated the father of abuse.

Swithin’s assumptions and interference, which had placed the blame on the father, were proven entirely wrong, and harmed children.

Hannah Dreyfus also reported extensively on this case, publishing biased articles that aligned with Swithin’s unfounded conclusions. The media spectacle created around the case, sensationalized for public consumption, overshadowed the truth.

Neglecting the Court’s Rulings – Journalistic Fraud

Perhaps most troubling of all, after the court’s ruling was released, neither Swithin nor Dreyfus acknowledged or reported on the official findings. Both remained silent on the fact that CPS had found the mother guilty of child abuse, not the father, and that the judge concurred.

Instead, they moved on to other cases across the country, in states like Washington, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, without reflecting on the potential harm their actions had caused.

How many more families will be hurt by their interference before the public catches on?

Going Full Circle, this Brings Us Back to Texas

Swithin and Dreyfus, and others like them, promote their narratives, but what’s the truth? Behind the sensationalism they propagate lies of a different reality.

As stated at the beginning of this article, at TPFF-Texas, we focus on treating some of the most severe and heartbreaking cases of parental alienation (PA) in the country. Children who have been determined by the courts to have been abused by their alienating parent.

We do not endorse the term “camp” and never have (the term is promoted by the detractors and refers to now defunct programs in northern California). The California programs labelled their programs as camps, a term foreign to our program.

TPFF and TPFF-T are tightly regulated professional programs run by highly trained specialists in parent alienation assessment and treatment, and in family therapy. We are an intensive family therapy program first and foremost and adhere to stringent licensing rules.

Perhaps most importantly, the creator of the TPFF programs – Ms. Linda Gottlieb – was personally trained by, and a close colleague of, Dr. Salvadore Minuchin. Dr. Minuchin was considered the father of family therapy. In a survey of graduate students, Dr. Minuchin was determined to be in the top 20 most influential therapists of all time.

Not only did Ms. Gottlieb work along side Dr. Minuchin, she also trained other therapists in the theory and techniques of Structural Family Therapy, Dr. Minuchin’s brainchild.

Dr. Minuchin developed his theory and program in hospitals on the east coast. Children were admitted to his hospital near death from anorexia, and plagued with delusional disorders and psychotic episodes. Dr. Minuchin found that the children got well, then ultimately had contact with their families, and regressed.

He observed that the child was not the true patient, the family was. The family system was the problem. When he started treating the whole family instead of the child alone, the child got well and the regressions ceased.

TPFF and TPFF-T are based on Dr. Minuchin and Ms. Gottlieb’s excellent, life-changing work with families. That is why we say we are an intensive family therapy program who also specializes in parental alienation.

TPFF and TPFF-T are first and foremost based on Dr. Minuchin’s profound approach to treating families, overlaid with in-depth knowledge and training by world-class medical doctors who were also specialists in parental alienation.

Both Ms. Gottlieb and myself trained with the brilliant Dr. Steven Miller, who taught medicine at both Harvard and Brown Universities.

Combining the best training in clinical reasoning, forensic assessment, and parental alienation research and science with the theories and techniques of the highly successful Structural Family Therapy program has been TPFF’S approach from day one. This is why our success rate for successful reunification is over 94%.

TPFF-T Therapy Programs

We are highly trained best practices family therapy programs.

TPFF-T 4-Day Intensive Program.

TPFF-T 4-Day Intensive requires a court order and a no-contact time away from the alienating parent so that the child(ren) and alienated parent have time to re-establish their relationship. And because the child has been determined to have been abused by the alienating parent, the judge typically orders a temporary protective removal.

Time Taken Back 3-Day Retreat

The Time Taken Back 3-Day Retreat follows Texas law, which mandates that parents who lose time with their children due to false allegations are automatically entitled to make up that time. This retreat is designed as a preventative measure, targeting mild to moderate cases of parental alienation before they progress to severe levels.

Time Taken Back is not limited to families who have lost time; it also addresses mild to moderate parental alienation with the goal of rebuilding families affected by parent-child contact problems and restoring healthy relationships.

Target Parent Education and Coaching

TPFF-T specializes in supporting target parents who are experiencing the trauma of losing their children due to false allegations and parental alienation. Additionally, TPFF-T works with parents who are falsely accused of parental alienation, providing guidance, assessment, and interventions to address these challenging situations.

The Alienating Parent Needs Healing Too

Because of the issues listed throughout this paper, we know that obsessed alienators (always associated with severe PA in children) suffer from their own trauma histories and likely personality disorders.

We work with the family’s community to develop a team of aftercare professionals who can continue the work that we began in treatment. We encourage the alienating parent to participate in therapy in their community to identify where and how they have engaged in alienating behaviors.

At the same time, we collaborate with the aftercare team to support the alienated parent and child(ren) in identifying harmful false narratives imposed on them by the alienating parent. We also collaborate with the team as necessary on helping the alienated child re-establish healthy boundaries in all relationships, especially with the alienating parent.

Our Involvement Continues as Long as Necessary

Our involvement extends way beyond the four-days we spend face to face with the alienated parent and the child. We consult with the after-care team as needed, attend regular status reviews with the court, and provide reports as required. We sometimes assist with these services for years.

Families understand that the one-time fee for our services is for the pre-intervention assessment and preparation, the four-day intervention, and the ongoing after services.

Conclusion

The passionate opposition to PA stems from a combination of concerns about its scientific basis, the potential for misuse in legal proceedings, and the broader societal implications regarding gender, abuse, and family dynamics.

While proponents of PA argue that it highlights a critical issue affecting families, detractors fear that it may be used as a tool to discredit valid concerns about abuse and that it can have harmful consequences for both children and the targeted parent.