PAI_Newsletter_July_2020

Parental Alienation International
Advancing worldwide understanding in the field of parental alienation
www.pasg.info
July 2020 Parental Alienation Study Group Volume 5 • Issue 4

New Dates for PASG Conference in Belgium: 22–23 April 2021 pg 4

Emerging Research: Review of UK research and practice in
parental alienation pg 5

The Bothersome Father: Paradox in the land of equality pg 6

My Story of Great Drama pg 7

Book Review of Parental Alienation: Science and Law by
Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos and Dr. William Bernet pg 12
July 2020 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Volume 5 • Issue 4
News About PASG

3 Editorial: An International Affair
Mandy Matthewson
4 New Dates for PASG Conference in Belgium: 22–23 April 2021

Nick Child
5 Emerging Research: Review of UK research and practice in parental alienation

Angela Morgan
Feature Article
6 The Bothersome Father: Paradox in the land of equality
Paulo Chavarria
Columns
7 My Story of Great Drama
Terje Torgersen
8 Parental Alienation: The Conundrum of Prevention/Early Intervention and the

“Best Interests of the Child” Legal Standard
Mary Alvarez and Chris Turner
12 Book Review of Parental Alienation: Science and Law by Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos
and Dr. William Bernet
Reviewed by Abe Worenklein
14 Recent Publications
Compiled by Robert Ferrer
Departments
20 Contact Information for PASG Officers and PAI editors
21 About the Parental Alienation Study Group
21 About Parental Alienation International
Cover Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash
2
E D I T O R I A L
An International Affair
By Mandy Matthewson
YET AGAIN THE WORLD has changed considerably since the last PAI. Over 10 million people have
had or have COVID-19; countries are in various states of lockdown in an attempt to slow down the spread
of the pandemic; and there are protests all over the world because tragically some people need to be told
that black lives matter.
I am proud to say that the July PAI is truly an international affair. We have articles and columns from con-
tributors all around the globe.
PASG 2020 in Brussels is now going ahead in 2021. The new dates are announced in this issue of the
PAI. Also, in the July edition, Dr Angela Morgan provides an update on her research. Dr Morgan and her
colleagues were successful recipients of a PASG research grant earlier in the year. Their research will be
an important development in parental alienation research and practice in the UK.
Mary and Chris have another excellent intervention column focused on the best interest of the child and
early intervention for parental alienation. Robert has provided a comprehensive list of new publications.
I hope this time, I’ve managed to get the hyperlinks working.
We have a feature article from film maker, Paulo Chavarria. Paulo has been working hard to create a
documentary on the experience of fathers trying to maintain a relationship with their children after family
separation. Paulo has encounter unexpected barriers to completing his work. He discusses this in his
article.
This brings me to an important announcement: in the July PAI we have the first of a new column dedi-
cated to targeted parents. This column is by and for targeted parents. The aim of the column is to provide
targeted parents with an opportunity to share their experiences of coping with being alienated from their
children. The focus will be on sharing strengths, knowledge, resources and coping strategies. The column
will also be posted on the Resources page of the PASG website. The first story in the targeted parent
column is from Terje Torgersen.
We are seeking an editor for the targeted parent column. The targeted parent column editor will be respon-
sible for sourcing contributions to the column and will work in collaboration with me to edit the column.
If you are interested in this role, please email me: Mandy.Matthewson@utas.edu.au
I hope you enjoy the July 2020 edition of the PAI. 
Parental Alienation Study Group

July 2020 3 www.pasg.info
N E W S A B O U T P A S G
Thurs 22 – Fri 23
April 2021
New Dates for PASG Conference in Belgium: 22–23 April 2021

By Nick Child
WE’RE PLEASED TO CONFIRM new dates for the PASG prevention-theme conference.
It will be on the same basis as it was before the pandemic postponed it. This is how it looks now:
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Date: Thurs 22 – Fri 23 April 2021
Venue: European Parliament, Brussels
Theme: Protecting Family Ties After Separation NOW
On these new dates, expect to find the same rich program of speakers – all well-known in their own lands –
with panel and audience discussion. We will look at the scope of prevention, obstacles to prevention,
prevention in practice, and prevention ideas people will take back home.
There will be an additional smaller PASG event after the conference on Sat 24th April.
Be ready for our build-up to the conference from now onwards.
Watch for more on our new website: www.pasg2021.eu 

N E W S A B O U T P A S G
Emerging Research: Review of UK research and practice in

parental alienation
By Angela Morgan
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT most professionals working in UK family law have little knowledge on effective
interventions for parental alienation. A review of UK research and practice in parental alienation was there-
fore needed. This research was awarded a grant by the international Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG)
in February 2020. The research is being led by Dr Angela Morgan of the University of Wolverhampton and
founding member of the University’s Violence Against Women and Girls Research Cluster (VAWGRC), which
she has led for 5 years since its inception. The research is being delivered collaboratively with two external
partners, Dr Nahid Ahmad of NA Research Consulting and Marilyn Webster of Prime Resolution. The project
aims are 2-fold:
1) To provide guidance for professionals who make recommendations and decisions regarding child
contact, such as child protection social workers, mental health evaluators, Guardians ad litem and
family court judges; and
2) To provide insight for distinguishing justified from unjustified parental gatekeeping.
The project comprises a literature review and a scoping study of clinical and therapeutic practice. The literature
review covers three main areas of research: 1) legal responses to parental alienation, 2) the role of mediation
in addressing parental alienation, and 3) promising therapeutic interventions which have evidenced effective-
ness. The scoping study will survey relevant organisations in the UK across the statutory, voluntary and private
sectors. Combined, these methods will map (and gap) current UK provision for those experiencing parental
alienation. The findings will be used to produce a catalogue of UK provision for parental alienation.
Findings will contribute to the development of guidance and training for family mediators who are members
of the College of Mediators. The research is expected to be completed by September 2020, at which point
dissemination and impact will be shared both within the UK context and internationally through the PASG.
For enquiries please contact: Angela-Morgan@wlv.ac.uk 
Find PASG on Facebook

You can find PASG on Facebook at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ParentalAlienationStudyGroup/
Visit our Facebook page, become a friend, and write a comment.

F E A T U R E A R T I C L E
The Bothersome Father: Paradox in the land of equality

By Paulo Chavarria
I GREW UP IN COSTA RICA with a father who had two sons from a previous
marriage. He lost almost all contact with them after his divorce. I did not meet
my two half-brothers while I grew up. The depression my father suffers seems
especially strong every Christmas or New Year’s Eve: he missed his boys, he
wanted to be able to gather us all, even if it was for a couple of hours. It never
happened when we were little. Nightmares of quarreling and begging to be
able to see his two sons haunt my father to this day, 45 years later.
I got a scholarship and moved to Norway in 2002. I met a girl, fell in love and
married. After 6 years we had our first son. Eighteen months later we had our
second son, and after 10 years of marriage we got divorced. The experience
brought back all the memories from my childhood with my father. I did not
have the horrible experience my father had but I encountered a system that in my eyes degrades fathers on a
larger scale than I expected. I encountered a system that seems to make decisions based on outdated gender
roles where generous economical help meant to support “sole caregivers” seems to fuel unnecessary conflict.
My experience and these observations motivated me to make a film.
I have an honors degree in Social Communications Sciences and a Masters degree in Screenwriting. I have
worked as a freelancer in many areas: screenwriting, project development, directing, photography, editing and
sound. I wrote and directed the documentary series “Forgotten Heroes” and “Death - a series about life” broad-
casted by NRK. This year, I released my first documentary series for children “Jonah’s animal world” produced
for NRK Super. I am also a lecturer at the University of Bergen.
My new film aims to uncover the mechanisms that, in my view, prevent children from their fundamental human
right to have as much contact with their parents even after a divorce. My film also explores the apparent deaf-
ness of Norwegian authorities in regard to available research on the positive effects of shared parenting for
children after divorce.
The body of research by Malin Bergström from Karolinska Institute, the research from William Fabricius in
Arizona and the consensus report from Richard Warshak raises but a few eyebrows in Norway – the land of
equality. Authorities claim that the studies are not translatable to the Norwegian society (Sweden being its
closest neighbor not only geographically but also culturally). However, they have no problem citing method-
ologically flawed research from Australia to support their arguments against shared care.
The making of this film has shown to me how this subject and men’s issues are contentious. In my 20 or so year
career as a documentary director I have not experienced so much reticence to fund this film. After much delibera-
tion I decided to start a crowdfunding campaign that aims to fund a little part of the project. It is a last resort, but
after more than 5 years of work, and after my own story, I believe that this is a film that unfortunately is needed.
To learn more about my film, please go to the following links:
LINK TO THE CAMPAIGN
LINK TO PROMO VIDEO
PROMO PICTURES
LINK TO FACEBOOK PAGE
LINK TO THE INSTAGRAM PAGE
LINK TO THE TWITTER PAGE
WEBSITE
Thanks for your support.
T A R G E T E D P A R E N T
My story of great drama

By Terje Torgersen
DEAR PASG COLLEAGES, what you will hear in “The Human Aspect” interview (search term: “Terje”) is a
story of great drama. The whole interview has English subtitles, but you may have to click the CC button at the
bottom right of the screen to see them. In the interview, I tell the story of how my children were indoctrinated
against me and alienated from me. In the process, I stopped seeing the point in life and almost lost the will
to live.
Although I had access rights, I lost touch with my children. The nephew of my children’s alienating stepfather
saw through his uncle. He understood what was really happening and tried to help. When his uncle found out
about this, he became angry, made wild threats and demanded the boy cease all contact with me and his aunt.
This fine, intelligent boy, a little older than my children, became depressed as a result. Two weeks later, he died
in a shooting accident. The next summer, I had to physically fetch my children, to finally have contact with
them. Cooperation with the children’s mother was in any case impossible.
The Norwegian police were informed in writing that I had access rights, that the children were legally in my
care and would be returned after the legally permitted two weeks. Nevertheless, a major police operation was
triggered because I was accused of kidnapping my children. Allegedly roadblocks were put up around Oslo,
Interpol, the border crossings and airports were alerted. The same evening, this was the main story on the TV
news and the next day, there were headlines in the daily newspapers. Later, criminal charges were brought
against me, but I was cleared of all charges after two rounds of legal proceedings.
The really big surprise came in November 1995, when my daughter suddenly contacted me and my family,
without telling her mother or stepfather. In the following years, there was good and close contact between her,
myself and my young grandchild. My eldest daughter considered me once more as her very best friend, telling
me how she was treated by her stepfather and mother. My wife, our mutual daughter, my stepchildren, friends
and family – we all were very happy.
Not unexpectedly, her mother, stepfather and brother were very angry when they found out that we were in
touch. They couldn’t accept it. They then tried to force my daughter to cease all contact with me and my family.
But they didn´t manage that.
Years later, my daughter married a man who became jealous and hostile towards me, without any good reason.
That was the second time I lost touch with my eldest daughter. Everybody, my youngest daughter, my wife,
friends and other family members were rejected for no apparent reason. Losing her big sister and little nephew
was very difficult and traumatic for my youngest daughter.
I am now 76 years old and I have resigned to the fact that I will not see my eldest children or their children
again in my lifetime. But it makes sense to me to give a little hope to other parents in similar situations by
telling my story.
You can find the interview here:
https://thehumanaspect.com/watch/987/terje 

I N T E R V E N T I O N S
Parental Alienation: The Conundrum of Prevention/

Early Intervention and the “Best Interests of the
Child” Legal Standard
By Mary Alvarez and Chris Turner
Mary Alvarez WHEN PARENTS CANNOT AGREE about custody matters related to their Chris Turner
children during divorce or post-divorce, this unresolved parent conflict often
results in parents turning to the legal system to resolve their conflict. The
heightened emotions and stress related to parents preparing facts and evidence for an adversarial court purpose
is a significant risk factor for fragile families, including children’s growth and development.
Children caught between parents who cannot easily remedy their conflict face concerning and negative psycho-
logical consequences (Johnston, et al. 2009). Protecting children from the deleterious effects of their parent’s
divorce or post-divorce conflict has increasingly been the focus of mental health professionals, the judiciary,
and social policy (Wingspread Conference, 2001).
Approximately 25-30% of parents remain hostile and uncooperative related to the care of their children (John-
ston, et al. 2009) and when these parents cannot manage their conflict concerning the custody arrangements of
their children, the judiciary becomes the avenue for which custody decisions will be made utilizing the concept
“best interests of the child.” As a result of this legal concept, court involvement is an inadvertent contributor
to precious lost time for prevention or early intervention approaches to avert the development or escalation of
parental alienation.
Throughout the years we have witnessed the progression of child protection systems which improve the fea-
sibility of positive outcomes for children. Gordon (2011) outlines the historical sequence of laws and acts to
protect children: The Child Welfare laws in 1825; adaptations in the Social Security act of 1935; the current
development of the Child Protection Acts, including the 1974 Child Abuse and Prevention Act; and the 1980
Child Welfare Act. Whether in family courts or child protection courts, the “best interests of the child” is a
mutual goal for determining custodial outcomes in families. This same goal is the standard not only in the
courts of the United States, but also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which
affirmed the child’s rights in cases involving his/her well-being (U.N. General Assembly, 1989)
The United States shares a common goal with the majority of courts throughout the world: to preserve and
further promote the” best interests of the child” involved in these cases (Kelly, 2005). Although the parties in-
volved, which include courts, mediators, evaluators, attorneys, ad litems, therapists, and parents often agree that
their primary goal is the “best interests of the child,” conflict begins when opinions from those various parties
intersect. The issues involved in child custody suits, particularly the parent who is allowed to determine the pri-
mary domicile of the child, have become a coveted prize. The amount of money and energy spent in preparing
and building a case for one parent over the other parent in these cases not only creates a devastating impact on
the family system, but it often damages or destroys the psyche of the child.
In more recent years, determining “best interests” from the child’s perspective in court proceedings has shifted
from the child’s stated opinion as to their own “best interests” to the court’s intervention in determining the
“best interests of the child.” Progression in this respect has moved from an affidavit through which a child
expresses their “wishes” to a child being allowed the opportunity to confer privately with a judge in chambers
(Kushner & Margo, 2006).
Although this shift has allowed the child to be removed from the role of what was viewed as a decision-maker,
the shift has also created a layer of professionals to identify and opine on the best interests in high conflict
cases. This includes guardian ad litems (attorney for the child), child custody evaluators, and parent facilitators
to name a few. The creation of this subset of professionals developed to define the child’s “best interests” has
increased parental adversarial posturing through protracted court cases and extensive evaluations. The impact of

adversarial parents in a legal setting on the children who are the subjects of these proceedings can be devastat-
ing (Wingspread Conference, 2001).
Almost always, a child’s “best interests” are served through the maintenance of a close and loving relationship
with both parents (Thornton, et al., 1995). As a child custody dispute progresses, the ability to maintain healthy
parent-child relationships is at risk. The result of litigation is often long and arduous, unfolding over many months
or even years, and contributes to continued toxic interactions between the parties and a further degradation of
the family structure.
And like many other countries, once a divorce is final in the United States, there is only one common factor that
would bring the parties back into the courtroom: the child. U.S. courts will entertain a motion for court inter-
vention in cases where there has been a threat to the welfare of a child or a material and substantial change in
the parent-child relationship (Carbone, 2014). Further, the court dispute becomes a tool for further estrange-
ment between the parents, which often leads to a parent utilizing alienation tactics (e.g., creating a fear of the
other parent, interfering in contact, denigrating a parent) to prove a material and substantial change in the
parent-child relationship.
The” best interests” standard can be difficult to define and is largely a subjective measure. However, several
common factors are integral parts of this analysis in most custody situations. Although family law, including
custody, can be somewhat unique in each geographical region, most courts consider the following factors to
determine custody decisions, with the child’s ultimate safety and happiness of paramount concern:
The desire/wishes of the child: A child who has the ability and development to speak for them-
selves may be asked for their preference. This request can be initiated by any party or the judge on
the case. The focus is placed on a child when parents lack the ability to co-parent and resolve their
conflict. Moreover, the courts offer no motivation to learn to co-parent; in fact, the opposite is true
as the legal system encourages the use of other-than-parent fact finding. When a child is asked
to express their wishes to a court, that child is placed in a no-win position and often a parent will
engage in alienation tactics to influence the child’s wishes and desires.
The mental and physical health of the parents: This factor further equips parents who are
unable to co-parent with the right tools to battle. Allegations of inappropriate adult relations, drug
use, and mental instability provide parents the opportunity to build a case against the other parent
and prove that they are not capable of providing an environment that ensures the “best interests of
the child.” The focus is not on which parent can meet the “best interests of the child,” but rather
on dismissing the value of the other parent which will influence the parent-child relationship.
The developmental needs of the child: This includes the evaluation of any special needs a child
may have and determination of each parent’s ability to care for those needs. An alienating parent
alleges that he/she is the only one who is capable of caring for the child and works to convince the
child of this, as well.
Environmental factors surrounding the parent’s home: The quality of education, the safety of
neighborhoods, and proximity to other extracurricular activities is considered. Alienating parents
make claims that the child is in danger based upon where the other parent lives.
Religious and/or cultural considerations: The religious and moral upbringing of the child is
defined as the right of a parent by the court.
The need for continuation of stable home environment relative to other children in the
home: Certainly, sibling relationships have value as do relationships with grandparents and ex-
tended family members. In alienation cases, extended family members are often either engaged in
alienation tactics or the recipient of alienation tactics.

Adjustments to school and community: The court will take into consideration adjustment issues
related to the child’s school and community environment and the suitability thereof. A parent
trying to influence the child’s relationship with the other parent often uses school as a conduit to
gather evidence that the other parent is incompetent for educational matters.
Allegations of parental use of inappropriate discipline, emotional abuse, parental drug,

alcohol or physical abuse: Agencies designated to address these issues may provide documen-
tation of these validated issues. However, in many cases, allegations of abuse become a tool for
parents engaging in alienation tactics to use in order to gain a legal advantage in a new divorce or
a basis for filing a modification in post-divorce parent conflict and the child is exposed to inter-
views, evaluations, and home visits by state child protection workers.
Considering the above-noted elements in defining the “best interests of the child” and in conjunction with at-
risk parents or parents with psychopathology who are unable to resolve their conflict without judicial interven-
tion, the use of alienation tactics (Baker & Chambers, 2011) to meet the “best interests of the child” standard is
a predictable outcome. In summary from above, a parent will denigrate the other parent’s home environment,
perceived mental health, and ability to provide to the child. A parent may present the other parent as dangerous
and inept in being able to care for the child. A parent may allege abuse and neglect and draw the child into the
fray in order to “prove” abuse. And as a result of any of these allegations, a parent may begin to interfere in
communication and contact between the child and the other parent.
The “best interests of the child” is not the wrong concept for the judiciary. However, when parents use the
court system as the mechanism for resolving their disputes and conflict, the process is almost always slow and
arduous towards the pursuit of defining and proving the “best interests of the child,” which does not bode well
for prevention and early interventions in those at-risk families in which a parent is at risk for using alienation
tactics, beginning to utilize alienation tactics, or is escalating the use of alienation tactics as their mechanism to
prevail in court.
The future will challenge us to reform family law to minimize divisive custody battles and to
develop the legal systems that help children and their families through divorce and separation….
Whatever paradigm shift occurs, whatever direction the pendulum swings, and whatever the pre-
vailing scientific and societal views of children and families that we choose to embrace, if it does
not reduce conflict, it will not be in the best interests of children (Elrod & Dale, 2008).
Family law reform, which requires a judicial paradigm shift away from the adversarial approach for already
fragile and/or fractured families, is critical. Reducing litigation and parent conflict is paramount to increasing
the likelihood that a child will reach adulthood with less psychological scars. One mechanism for the judiciary
to achieve this goal is diversion: essentially diverting at-risk families away from the adversarial litigation
approach altogether, our next topic!
Mary Alvarez, PhD and Chris Turner, MSW, JD.
Resetting the Family, Houston, Texas
dralvarez@resetting-the-family.com and cturner@resetting-the-family.com
Bibliography
Baker, A.J.L. & Chamber, J. (2011). Adult recall of childhood exposure to parental conflict: Unpacking the
black box of parental alienation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 55-76,
Carbone, J. (2014). Legal application of the best interest of the child standard: Judicial rationalization or a mea-
sure of institutional incompetence? Pediatrics, 134, Supplement Two, S111-S120.
Elrod, L. and Dale, M. (2008). Paradigm shifts and pendulum swings in child custody: The interests of children
in the Balance, 42, Family L.Q., 381-418.
Gordon, L. (2011). Child welfare: A brief history. Social Welfare History Project.
Johnston, J., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to under-
standing and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce. Spring Publishing, New York.
Kelly, J. (2005). The best interests of the child. Family Court Review, 35, 377-287.
Kushner, M. (2006). Is “best interests” a solution to filling potholes in child custody planning? Journal of
Child Custody, 3:2.
Thornton, A., Orbuch, T., & Axinn, W. (1995). Parent child relationships during the transition to adulthood.
Journal of Family Issues, 16, 538-564.
U.N. General Assembly, Convention on the rights of the child, November 1989. United Nations, Treaty Series,
Vol. 1577, p. 3.
Wingspread Conference (2001). High conflict custody cases: Reforming the system for children-conference
report and action plan, Family Court Review, 2, 146-157. 
You can earn money for PASG effortlessly.

AmazonSmile is a simple, automatic way to support PASG every time you shop
for your usual purchases on Amazon, at no cost to you. When you shop at
https://org.amazon.com, you’ll find the same prices, selection, and shopping
experience as Amazon.com, with the bonus that Amazon will donate 0.5%
of the purchase price from your eligible purchases to PASG.
Place AmazonSmile permanently on your “Favorites Bar” for easy access.

B O O K R E V I E W
Parental Alienation – Science and Law,

by Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos and Dr. William Bernet
Reviewed by Abe Worenklein
ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN quite a few books published over
the past few years regarding parental alienation (PA), the book Parental
Alienation – Science and Law appears to be extremely comprehensive in
that there are chapters written by mental health professionals who are well
known for their expertise in terms of parental alienation. The book, which
contains both “clinical considerations and research and legal issues,” was
dedicated to Dr. S. Richard Sauber, a pioneer in educating professionals
and the public regarding parental alienation.
The authors presented the material in a clear manner, incorporating the
vast literature with respect to assessment, identification, and intervention
for PA. The book Parental Alienation – Science and Law can meet the needs
of novices dealing with this topic as well as experienced professionals who
deal with allegations of PA frequently. The construct of PA is accepted in
that it meets the Frye, Daubert, and Mohan criteria and together with the
appendix identifies more than 1000 cases between 1985 and 2018 in which
the trial court or an appellate court accepted PA as a reality that needs to be
dealt with by judges.
The book provides clear guidance on how to challenge expert witnesses who maintain that the construct of PA
should not be accepted or who try to minimize the short- and long-term effects of PA. The book contains more
than enough information to prove that PA is a reality and that the short-term and long-term effects cannot be
dismissed in that both exist.
In addition, the authors go into detail regarding “tips for expert testimony” in that the expert is asked to testify
including the existence of the criteria for determining that there is parental alienation, as opposed, to estrange-
ment. In fact, the authors, as well, provide suggestions and questions regarding the expert’s testimony:
• n ot only with respect to the expert’s background, including how many times the expert has
testified in court
• the expert’s qualifications, whether the expert is a published author on the topic
• how many times has the expert been declared an expert by the presiding judge in the past
• has the expert conducted assessments
• has the expert conducted any training
• and has the expert been declared by the judge as an “expert witness” and, if so, how many times
Additionally, the expert may be asked by the opposing attorney to explain the Five-Factor Model in that when
all five factors are present the child is highly likely to be alienated as opposed to having been estranged. One
needs to recognize that the child and the alienated parent did, in fact, have a positive, caring relationship in the
past prior to the alienation’s taking place.
The authors relate very clearly in most of the chapters the differences between estrangement and alienation, the
criteria for identifying PA, how to understand its origins, methods for intervention and reunification, and how to
deal with alienation from within a legal context. The book recognizes that experts may become very adversarial
to the exclusion of not “trafficking in minor children and inter-parental conflict.” Instead, one has to act and
testify as to the children’s best interest.

The authors describe problems in family court and what must be considered for improvements to occur.
It should be no surprise that, although there are many fine judges and court affiliated professionals, there
needs to be:
• “Better selection of judges who are experienced in such matters and court appointed professionals,
• “Better training of judges and court appointed professionals,
• “Tighter judicial standards and guidelines,
• “Tighter oversight and monitoring of judges’ performance and of court appointed professionals,
• “Greater accountability,
• “Limit judicial and quasi-judicial immunity,
• “Provide an option for litigants to have their cases heard by a panel of three judges,
• “Ensure a rapid response to critical pleadings, and
• “ Provide adequate resources” to ensure that there are no long waiting periods, inadequate services,
and indefensible decisions.”
This book edited by Demosthenes Lorandos, Ph.D., J.D., and William Bernet, M.D., was very well written, in-
cluding chapters by each of them as well as by other professionals in the field. The book provides an incredibly
comprehensive amount of information that needs to be considered by legal and mental health professionals
dealing with such issues. In fact, it was reported that there are problematic lacunae in the court system, which
can be dealt with in a manner that such concerns can be eliminated.
In conclusion, this book is exceptionally well written, comprehensive, detailed and organized and provides a
great deal of information that hopefully will be considered especially in the areas that at times demonstrate
shortcomings in the manner with which the issue of parental alienation is dealt with in Family Court.
Abe Worenklein, Ph.D.
Clinical/Forensic Psychologist 
More information is available at the website

of the publisher, Charles C Thomas,
Publishers, in Springfield, Illinois.
On the Charles C Thomas website, you can

open and read the first 26 pages of the book.
Also, the book is available at the website of

Amazon.

R E C E N T P U B L I C A T I O N S
Compiled by Robert Ferrer, PASG Archivist

IN THIS SECTION, ROBERT FERRER, PASG Archivist, provides citations and abstracts for recently published
articles related to parental alienation. The citations are entered into the searchable Parental Alienation Database,
also accessible from the PASG website. Many citations will provide access to the full-text version of the arti-
cle. Just click on the title to follow the link. To have an article considered for this section, email Robert Ferrer at
r-ferrer@illinois.edu
Note from R. Ferrer: The following collection of articles are from the April 2020 issue of Family Court Review
(FCR). It is a Special Issue (Volume 58, Number 2) published by the Association of Family and Conciliation
Courts (AFCC) on Parent-Child Contact Problems: Concepts, Controversies & Conundrums. These articles
represent the multidisciplinary focus of the upcoming 57th Annual Conference in New Orleans with its theme
“When a Child Rejects a Parent: Are We Part of the Problem or the Solution?”. Although the Conference was
cancelled because of the pandemic this issue of FCR is a compilation of the work and views of many of the
presenters that were scheduled for the Conference. The papers listed below address conceptual and contextual
issues.
PARENTAL ALIENATION: IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND FOR A MORE

DIFFERENTIATED THEORY
By: Janet R. Johnston and Matthew J. Sullivan. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2. April 2020.
p. 270-292. 23p.
Abstract: The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it
remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an
increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for
mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions
and widening focal concerns of PA- from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or
refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are
victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we
argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source
of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that
abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason
for the child’s rejecting stance. By contrast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated
clinical predictions of children’s rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and
families. However, multi-factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment
and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused prediction models that reduce the
number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions.
Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• S
everal socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the prevalence,
focal concerns and ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.
• P
ersistent erroneous assumption that an alienating parent is primarily the source of a child’s
resistance/rejection of a parent (called the dominant Single-Factor theory of PA) is problematic in
applying PA constructs in research and practice.
• F
our principal factors (illustrating a refined multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified
as goals for preventive–interventions and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across
different kinds of interventions resist/refuse cases in practice.
Subjects: Alienation; Estrangement; High-Conflict Divorce; Intimate Partner Violence; Parent–Child Contact
Problems; Parental Alienation; Resistance-Refusal Dynamics.

PARENTAL ALIENATION AND MISINFORMATION PROLIFERATION
By: William Bernet. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2. April 2020. p. 293-307. 15p.
Abstract: Since parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was identified in the 1980’s, there has been a remarkable
amount of misinformation regarding both PAS and parental alienation (PA). These falsehoods were published in
professional journals, presented at conferences, and distributed through internet websites and blogs. This article
summarizes five examples of published misinformation regarding PAS/PA. Each case study includes: the false
statements that were published in the medical, psychological, or legal professional literature; the names of the
individuals who made the false statements; and the steps taken to refute the falsehoods and correct the record.
The writers of the misinformation were from Sweden, Tunisia, Spain, and the United States, which illustrates
the international scope of PAS/PA. In one example, the misinformation reached the U.S. House of Representa-
tives and was almost included in a formal resolution adopted by that body. The article discusses various under-
lying causes of the high level of polarization in PAS/PA scholarship. The article also proposes steps that both
mental health and legal writers can adopt to reduce the destructive polarization that has occurred. In general,
however, clinicians, forensic practitioners, and legal professionals should remain vigilant when they read
articles or listen to presentations about topics that might be considered controversial.
• S
ince 1985, a remarkable amount of misinformation regarding parental alienation and parental
alienation syndrome has been published in professional literature and presented at conferences.
• W
hen misinformation occurs in journal articles and books for mental health and legal professionals,
readers may want to contact the editor and publisher in order to correct the record.
• W
hen misinformation occurs in presentations at conferences for professionals, audience members
may want to challenge the presenter to correct the false statements.
• W
hen practitioners have conflicting opinions regarding a topic, a constructive activity might be for
them to write an article together for publication, in which they clarify where they agree and where
they disagree.
Subjects: Cognitive Dissonance; Disinformation; Misinformation; Parental Alienation; Parental Alienation
Syndrome; Partisanship; U.S. House of Representatives.
METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE: MAKING SENSE OF

POLARIZED AND COMPETING RESEARCH CLAIMS
By: Aaron Robb. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2. April 2020. p. 308-321. 14p.
Abstract: Legal and mental health professionals face significant challenges when addressing situations in
which children resist contact with a parent. There remains only limited empirical research on the differenti-
ation of types and severity of contact problems, the resulting impacts on children and adolescents, and the
outcomes of interventions. Often, family justice professionals encounter conflicting information that presents
wildly diverging views on the scientific knowledge base used to guide understandings of human interaction. In
cases involving resist-refuse dynamics (“RRD”), the polarized claims, characterized by dichotomous thinking,
often assert abuse by the rejected parent, on the one hand, or alienating behavior by the favored parent, on the
other hand. When presented with conflicting social science research, understanding basic experimental design
methodology is critical to resolving questions of the reliability and utility of the information presented. Equally
important, is an understanding of cognitive bias and the human tendency to experience difficulty in modifying
belief systems when presented with updated information; this understanding includes changing conceptual
frameworks for decision making in family law cases. While polarized and often acrimonious debate in the
field may be reflective of larger societal strife, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in the ideas presented in
research literature allows for an integrative approach to bring more light, and less heat, to the larger conceptual-
ization of human interactions we have to address in the family court setting.
• H
uman beings have a tendency toward too easily accepting findings that fit into their established
thinking, and toward dismissing information which does not.
• A
cademic debate exists within a larger societal framework and is not exempt from the influences
of socio-political strife.
• I nquiry errors, misunderstanding of statistics, overreliance on flawed secondary analysis, and
other methodological challenges present barriers to the unwary in using social science research.
Subjects: Cognitive Bias; Polarization; Resist-Refuse Dynamics; Social Science Research.
Note from R. Ferrer: The article below can also be found in Demosthenes Lorandos and William Bernet (eds).
Parental Alienation - Science and Law. Charles C. Thomas, Illinois. 2020. p. 365-385.
PARENTAL ALIENATION IN U.S. COURTS, 1985 TO 2018

By: Demosthenes Lorandos. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2. April 2020. p. 322-339. 18p.
Abstract: Courts have been dealing with alienating behaviors in high conflict family litigation for hundreds of
years. Experts in the behavioral sciences have been writing about mothers and fathers manipulating their chil-
dren to disparage the other parent for more than seventy years. But in the last two decades some social scien-
tists and legal professionals have questioned the legitimacy of parental alienation as a concept and its admissi-
bility in child abuse and child custody litigation. This study was designed to examine the extent to which courts
in the United States have found the concept of parental alienation material, probative, relevant and admissible.
Thirty-four years of cases were found with a WESTLAW query and analyzed. Cases were selected for study
only if the record reflected that a judge or an independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be
of value in the litigation. Results illustrate increasing awareness of the concept and document its admissibil-
ity in every one of the United States. The numbers, sex of the alienating parent and prevalence of significant
custody changes are discussed. Limitations inherent in this form of quantitative analysis are also discussed with
recommendations for future research.
• Do courts admit expert testimony on parental alienation?
• Do courts rely on expert testimony on parental alienation?
• Are the numbers of parental alienation cases increasing?
• What are the gender proportions of the alienating parents in appellate courts reports?
• Do courts change custody when dealing with parental alienation?
• What are the challenges in this kind of research?
Subjects: Alienation; children; courts; custody; evidence; parent.
Note from R. Ferrer: Joan S. Meier has been a vocal opponent regarding the concept of Parental Alienation.
The following co-authored article is consistent with her views in that the authors claim that Parental Alienation
lacks a credible scientific basis. It cannot be reliably diagnosed, and often it is used to stymie allegations of do-
mestic violence and child abuse, putting them at serious risk. In the spirit of open debate this article is included
but it is also accompanied by a series of rebuttals and responses.

IDEOLOGY AND RHETORIC REPLACE SCIENCE AND REASON IN SOME PARENTAL
ALIENATION LITERATURE AND ADVOCACY: A CRITIQUE
By: Madelyn S. Milchman, Robert Geffner, and Joan S. Meier. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2.
April 2020. p.340-361. 22p.
Abstract: This article analyzes rhetorical strategies that are often used to legitimize classifying children’s
parent rejection as “alienation,” conceived as a mental disorder or diagnosis. Use of evaluative labels or diag-
noses instead of descriptions of behavioral functioning is problematic in child custody evaluations. We address
Distorted Claims of consensus, Alienation Labeling, Renaming, Proof by Assertion, Misrepresenting Endorse-
ment by Authorities, Reduction Ad Absurdum, and Ad Personam Attacks. Rhetoric distracts from the evidence
and observable behaviors required to accurately classify mistreated/alienated children and protective/alienating
parents. It creates an ideology that obfuscates the absence of and need for scientific validity studies; reliable
prevalence data; non-conclusory assessment of parent–child relationship quality; empirical evidence testing the
coaching hypothesis; and valid, objective evaluations of treatment programs. The article concludes with sugges-
tions to improve dialogue between scholars in order to advance research and custody evaluations.
Subjects: Child custody; Child maltreatment; Domestic violence; False allegations; Parental alienation;
Parent–child relationship; Rhetoric.
RESPONSE TO “IDEOLOGY AND RHETORIC REPLACE SCIENCE AND REASON

IN SOME PARENTAL ALIENATION LITERATURE AND ADVOCACY: A CRITIQUE,”
BY MILCHMAN, GEFFNER, AND MEIER
By: William Bernet. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2. April 2020. p.362-367. 6p.
Abstract: The author wrote an article, “Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation,” for this Special
Issue of Family Court Review, which is devoted to various aspects of parental alienation (PA). This short article
is a response to the article by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier, which discussed my article and other contribu-
tions to the Special Issue. All of these articles represent an attempt by the Editors of the Special Issue to pro-
mote “dialogue” among writers who have different perspectives regarding parental alienation. In my view, this
is a misguided endeavor, since the publication of cascading criminations, recriminations, and re-recriminations
simply creates confusion and consternation for the readers of Family Court Review. This new article offers an
alternative approach for creating constructive dialogue among PA-promoters and PA-detractors, that is, convene
a face-to-face discussion of these individuals and encourage them to write an article together in which they
jointly explain their various perspectives regarding PA.
Subjects: Misinformation; Parental Alienation.
Note from R. Ferrer: The following three are short responses from Garber, Lorandos, and Robb. Their
responses, including Bernet, are met with a final rebuttal from the authors. They are in the special issue Family
Court Review under “Responses to Milchman, Geffner, and Meier” (Volume 58, Number 2, April 2020).
DYNAMICS, NOT DIAGNOSES

By: Benjamin D. Garber. p.368-370. 3p.
RESPONSE TO MILCHMAN, GEFFNER, AND MEIER IDEOLOGY AND RHETORIC

REPLACE SCIENCE AND REASON IN SOME PARENTAL ALIENATION LITERATURE
AND ADVOCACY: A CRITIQUE
By: Demosthenes Lorandos. p.371-372. 2p.

MISDIRECTION AND DOUBLE STANDARDS FAIL TO CLARIFY CONTROVERSIAL
ISSUES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
By: Aaron Robb. p.373-374. 2p.
PUTTING SCIENCE AND REASONING BACK INTO THE “PARENTAL ALIENATION”

DISCUSSION: REPLY TO BERNET, ROBB, LORANDOS, AND GARBER
By: Madelyn S. Milchman, Robert Geffner, and Joan S. Meier. Family Court Review. Volume 58, Number 2.
April 2020. p.375-385. 11p.
Abstract: This article presents our Reply to the Responses that Lorandos, Garber, Bernet, and Robb wrote to our
Critique article in the Family Court Review Special Issue. Our Reply focuses on the repetition of the rhetoric that
some of these authors used to distract from the issues we raised. The principal concern in our Critique article was
the lack of adequate research methodology to support claims that parental alienation is a diagnosis, a condition, or a
phenomenon that is directly observable rather than an inference that requires detailed behavioral descriptions, factual
analysis, logical and scientific reasoning. In our Reply, we show how this concern was not properly addressed in the
Responses, which does not facilitate meaningful dialog. However, we also recognize that some of the Responses
facilitate improved dialog between the parental alienation and child abuse/ domestic violence communities and we
welcome that.
Subjects: Abuse; Alienation; Child Custody; Child Maltreatment; Family Court; Research Methodology; Rhetoric.
Note from R. Ferrer: The following two articles are written by our very own Editor-in-Chief, Mandy Matthewson,
Ph.D. Mandy is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and a clinical psychologist
in private practice. She is the lead researcher in the Family and Interpersonal Relationships Research Lab at UTAS.
She is a co-author of the 2020 publication, Understanding and Managing Parental Alienation: A Guide to Assessment
and Intervention.
THE NOT-FORGOTTEN CHILD: ALIENATED ADULT CHILDREN’S EXPERIENCE

OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
By: Caitlin Bentley & Mandy Matthewson. The American Journal of Family Therapy (2020), DOI:
10.1080/01926187.2020.1775531. Published online: 26 Jun 2020. 21 pgs.
Abstract: This study explored the experience of adults who had experienced parental alienation during childhood.
Ten alienated adult children participated in 60 to 90-minute semi-structured interviews about their experience of
parental alienation. Using Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic analysis framework, seven themes were identified. Par-
ticipants described experiencing abuse perpetrated by the alienating parent. They described experiencing anxiety, de-
pression, low self-worth, guilt, attachment problems, difficulty in other relationships, and reduced or delayed educa-
tional and career attainment that they attributed to their experience of parental alienation. These results demonstrated
that children’s exposure to parental alienation may have lifelong ramifications for their psychological well-being.
Subjects: Parental Alienation; Alienated Adult Child/Children; Alienated Child/Children; Targeted Parent;
Alienating Parent; Child Abuse

TARGETED PARENTS SURVIVING PARENTAL ALIENATION: CONSEQUENCES OF
THE ALIENATION AND COPING STRATEGIES
By: Saulyn Lee-Maturana, Mandy L. Matthewson, and Corinna Dwan. Journal of Child and Family Studies (2020),
DOI: 10.1007/s10826-020-01725-1. Published: 18 May 2020. 13 pgs.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to describe the consequences of being alienated from a child and to identify
the coping strategies used by targeted parents to deal with the alienation. Using a qualitative descriptive design, 54
self-referred targeted parents alienated from their children participated in an in-depth interview. Narratives were
analyzed through thematic analysis and commonalities in targeted parents’ consequences and coping strategies were
identified. Six subthemes emerged describing different consequences experienced by targeted parents due to paren-
tal alienation: emotional, behavioral, finances-work, cognitive, physical, and social. Also, eight different types of
coping strategies were identified and classified according to the activities reported by the targeted parents. Parental
alienation has serious consequences for targeted parents affecting various aspects of their lives. Targeted parents need
more understanding, support and orientation to cope with their experience.
Subjects: Targeted parents; Alienated parents; Consequences of parental alienation; Qualitative description;
Coping strategies 

Contact Information for PASG Officers and PAI Editors
Mailing Address Editor-in-Chief
1313 Twenty-First Avenue South Mandy Matthewson, Ph.D.
209 Oxford House Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Nashville, TN 37232, USA mandy.matthewson@utas.edu.au
Board of Directors Managing Editor

William Bernet, M.D., President Amanda Sillars
Nashville, Tennessee, USA Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
william.bernet@vumc.org amanda.sillars@emmm.org.au
Amy J. L. Baker, Ph.D., Secretary Editorial Team

New York, New York, USA Docteur Roland Broca
amyjlbaker@aol.com Editor: France
Paris, France
Phillip Hendrix, M.A., M.B.A., Treasurer roland.broca@gmail.com
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
info@covenantcounselors.com Christiane Foerster, Dipl. Psych.
Editor: Germany, Austria, and Switzerland
J. Michael Bone, Ph.D. Würzburg, Germany
Winter Park, Florida, USA christiane_foerster@t-online.de
michael@jmichaelbone.com
Lena Hellblom Sjögren, Ph.D.
Sietske Dijkstra, Ph.D. Editor: Sweden and Scandinavia
Utrecht, The Netherlands Siljansnäs, Sweden
fran.dijkstra@gmail.com mail@testimonia.se
Jennifer Harman, Ph.D. Asun Tejedor, Ph.D.

Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Editor: Spain and Latin America
Jennifer.Harman@ColoState.edu Mieres (Asturias), Spain
asunte@cop.es
Lena Hellblom Sjögren, Ph.D.
Siljansnäs, Sweden
mail@testimonia.se Book Review Editor
Abe Worenklein, Ph.D.
Ashish S. Joshi, L.L.M. Montreal, Canada
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA abew@videotron.ca
a.joshi@joshiattorneys.com
Events Editor
Abe Worenklein, Ph.D. Vivian Arber, M.P.S., P.M.P.
Montreal, Canada Los Angeles, California, USA
abew@videotron.ca Adr4solutions@gmail.com
PASG Archivist
Robert Ferrer
Urbana, Illinois, USA
r-ferrer@illinois.edu

About the Parental Alienation Study Group
Parental Alienation Study Group, Inc. (PASG) is an international, not-for-profit corporation. PASG has over
670 members—mostly mental health and legal professionals—from 55 countries. The members of PASG are
interested in educating the general public, mental health clinicians, forensic practitioners, attorneys, and judges
regarding parental alienation. PASG members are also interested in developing and promoting research on the
causes, prevention, evaluation, and treatment of parental alienation.
About Parental Alienation International

Parental Alienation International (PAI) is published bimonthly by PASG. PAI seeks to lead and promote the
scholarly discussion and debate concerning parental alienation practice, research, prevention, education, and
advocacy to promote development of informed practice and policy in this field.
Contributor Guidelines Contributors may submit articles or links to articles

that are already published or considered elsewhere.
How to contribute: Please send all your contribu- It is the responsibility of contributors to obtain the
tions to your local editor or to the editor-in-chief. necessary permission where required to submit their
article to Parental Alienation International and to
Format: Submit manuscript as a Word file (.doc, appropriately acknowledge prior publication.
.docx ) as an email attachment.
PASG retains the final decision of the suitability
Content: News, case studies, pilot studies, liter- of articles and which articles are selected for
ature reviews, announcements, research, research publication in Parental Alienation International.
studies or proposals, advocacy, publicity, promotion,
requests for support or funding. Advertising and Editorial
Editorial Policy: Articles may be subject to editing. PASG will maintain differentiation between
Authors will be consulted and will be sent their advertising content and editorial content. Parental
final article for proofing and approval prior to Alienation International will not publish
publication. “advertorial” material.
The editorial team may solicit information and Copyright © 2020 Parental Alienation Study Group
articles for publication and will appropriately (PASG) Inc. All rights reserved. You are receiving
consult contributors about the article to be this newsletter because you are a member of PASG.
prepared based upon their contribution.
www.pasg.info


PAI_Newsletter_July_2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAI_Newsletter_July_2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parental Alienation International

Advancing worldwide understanding in the field of parental alienation

July 2020 Parental Alienation Study Group Volume 5 • Issue 4

News About PASG

4 New Dates for PASG Conference in Belgium: 22–23 April 2021

5 Emerging Research: Review of UK research and practice in parental alienation

8 Parental Alienation: The Conundrum of Prevention/Early Intervention and the

21 About the Parental Alienation Study Group

21 About Parental Alienation International

Cover Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

If you are interested in this role, please email me: Mandy.Matthewson@utas.edu.au

I hope you enjoy the July 2020 edition of the PAI. 

Parental Alienation Study Group

New Dates for PASG Conference in Belgium: 22–23 April 2021

Location: Brussels, Belgium

Be ready for our build-up to the conference from now onwards.

Watch for more on our new website: www.pasg2021.eu 

Parental Alienation Study Group

Emerging Research: Review of UK research and practice in

2) To provide insight for distinguishing justified from unjustified parental gatekeeping.

For enquiries please contact: Angela-Morgan@wlv.ac.uk 

Find PASG on Facebook

Visit our Facebook page, become a friend, and write a comment.

Parental Alienation Study Group

The Bothersome Father: Paradox in the land of equality

My story of great drama

Parental Alienation Study Group

Parental Alienation: The Conundrum of Prevention/

Parental Alienation Study Group

Parental Alienation Study Group

Allegations of parental use of inappropriate discipline, emotional abuse, parental drug,

You can earn money for PASG effortlessly.

Parental Alienation Study Group

Parental Alienation – Science and Law,

Parental Alienation Study Group

More information is available at the website

On the Charles C Thomas website, you can

Also, the book is available at the website of

Parental Alienation Study Group

Compiled by Robert Ferrer, PASG Archivist

PARENTAL ALIENATION: IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND FOR A MORE

Parental Alienation Study Group

METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES IN SOCIAL SCIENCE: MAKING SENSE OF

PARENTAL ALIENATION IN U.S. COURTS, 1985 TO 2018

Parental Alienation Study Group

RESPONSE TO “IDEOLOGY AND RHETORIC REPLACE SCIENCE AND REASON

DYNAMICS, NOT DIAGNOSES

RESPONSE TO MILCHMAN, GEFFNER, AND MEIER IDEOLOGY AND RHETORIC

Parental Alienation Study Group

PUTTING SCIENCE AND REASONING BACK INTO THE “PARENTAL ALIENATION”

THE NOT-FORGOTTEN CHILD: ALIENATED ADULT CHILDREN’S EXPERIENCE

Parental Alienation Study Group

Parental Alienation Study Group

Board of Directors Managing Editor

Amy J. L. Baker, Ph.D., Secretary Editorial Team

Jennifer Harman, Ph.D. Asun Tejedor, Ph.D.

Parental Alienation Study Group

About Parental Alienation International

Contributor Guidelines Contributors may submit articles or links to articles

Parental Alienation Study Group

You might also like

4 New Dates for PASG Conference in Belgium: 22–23 April 2021

5 Emerging Research: Review of UK research and practice in parental alienation

8 Parental Alienation: The Conundrum of Prevention/Early Intervention and the