The alleged Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

PAS testimony should not be admitted in court because of the causation and evidentiary problems with the theory. Because of the dangerous aura of reliability and trust worthiness extant in Dr. Gardner's self-published theory, admission of PAS is inevitable and particularly disconcerting. The deceptive aura of reliability is one of the problems that Professor John Myers, a sexual abuse evidentiary expert, has with syndrome evidence generally. He says that the «aura of scientific respectability gives the evidence more value than it really deserves». PAS, he explains, «is just 'a fancy-sounding name for something that everyone has known forever' - that some parents will use their children as weapons in bitter custody fights».

There are no easy answers to the difficult question of how or where to draw a line when the effects of parents' actions toward their children during any spousal dispute - while always damaging - become emotionally abusive to the children and thus require outside intervention. It is clear, however, that PAS is not one of the potential answers - at least not without an overhaul by a community of experts in the field.

Nonetheless, because it is inevitable that some family law attorneys will be offering PAS testimony into evidence, and on the surface this evidence will seem reliable and thus relevant, judges and children's advocates shouldtake note of the problems with PAS theory. Not only could an erroneous decision based upon PAS testimony place a child with an abusive parent, but it would leave the child with no one to tell. In order to protect children from abuse, the acceptance of PAS should not be by family law attorneys, but rather by child abuse experts.

All psychological evidence upon which a child's safety will turn must be subjected to meaningful peer review, publication, or empirical testing.