Few topics in family law generate as much debate as parental alienation.

For some, the term describes a very real phenomenon in which a child becomes aligned with one parent and rejects the other, often as a result of that parent’s attitudes, behaviours or influence. For others, the term is controversial because of its origins and concerns about how it has sometimes been used in family law proceedings.

What Do Health Professionals Say About Parental Alienation?

The concept of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” was first proposed by American psychiatrist Dr Richard Gardner in the 1980s. The syndrome itself has not been accepted as a recognised psychiatric diagnosis and has been widely criticised by mental health professionals and researchers.

However, rejecting the concept of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” does not mean that children never become resistant to or refuse relationships with a parent.

Modern social science tends to focus less on labels and more on what are often called “resist-refuse dynamics”, situations where a child resists spending time with, or refuses a relationship with, one parent.

These dynamics are real. They are something family lawyers, psychologists, family report writers and judges encounter regularly.

Importantly, there is rarely a single explanation.

Sometimes a child’s resistance may arise from genuine concerns about a parent’s behaviour. Sometimes it may arise from exposure to conflict. Sometimes it may be influenced by the attitudes or behaviours of the other parent. Sometimes it may be a combination of all of these factors.

What we do know is that ongoing parental conflict is harmful to children.

Children are often placed in an impossible position when the two people they love most are in conflict. One way some children make sense of that conflict is by simplifying it. Rather than holding two competing ideas at once, they may begin to see one parent as entirely good and the other as entirely bad.

That does not necessarily mean anyone has intentionally manipulated the child. Sometimes it is simply how children attempt to process complex emotions and divided loyalties.

As family lawyers, we also see how misunderstandings can rapidly escalate into litigation.

One example involved a young child telling one parent that they had been allowed to ride on a “real motorbike” while in the other parent’s care. Understandably, that parent was alarmed, and serious concerns were raised. Further enquiries eventually revealed that the child had actually been riding a small, age-appropriate children’s motorbike and had simply described it as a “real motorbike” because that was how they understood it.

In another example discussed at a professional conference attended by lawyers, psychologists and family report writers, professionals were asked how they would respond to a concerning statement reportedly made by a child. What was striking was not the statement itself, but the difference in responses.

Many mental health professionals spoke about the need to gather further information, ask additional questions and understand the context before reaching conclusions.

Many lawyers immediately identified a range of protective steps that might be taken.

Neither response was necessarily wrong. The safety of children must always come first. However, the discussion highlighted how important context can be.

Children are not necessarily being dishonest when they describe events. Rather, they are describing situations through a child’s eyes. They may misunderstand what occurred, leave out important context, use words differently to adults, or simply lack the developmental capacity to explain an event accurately.

Alyson Gale says “As parents, many of us have experienced this firsthand.

I once watched my husband wrap a towel around our son’s shoulders after a shower. Moments later, my son said, “Daddy strangled me.” I had seen the interaction with my own eyes and knew that was not what had happened. My son later asked what the word “strangled” actually meant.

Had I not witnessed the interaction myself, and had we been separated parents communicating through lawyers, I often wonder how differently that statement might have been interpreted.

None of this means children’s disclosures should be dismissed. Quite the opposite.”

Children should be listened to carefully and taken seriously.

But sometimes the most important next step is not immediately assuming the worst possible interpretation. Sometimes it is asking further questions. Sometimes it is gathering more information. Sometimes it is checking the facts.

Where it is safe to do so, communication between parents can be invaluable. Even where direct communication is not appropriate, enquiries can often be made through lawyers, family dispute resolution practitioners or other professionals.

Many family law disputes begin not with malice, but with fear, assumptions and misunderstandings.

Of course, there are also cases involving genuine family violence, abuse and serious risk. Those cases require careful and often urgent intervention. Taking a cautious approach where safety concerns exist is entirely appropriate.

But caution and curiosity are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible to take concerns seriously while also asking questions.

It is possible to prioritise safety while also seeking context.

It is possible to protect children while resisting the temptation to immediately assume the worst.

One of the greatest challenges in family law is that court proceedings are inherently adversarial. Once proceedings begin, positions often become entrenched. Allegations are made. Responses are filed. Relationships deteriorate. Costs increase.

Long after the lawyers have left and the court case has ended, the parents still have to raise their children together.

And when parental conflict escalates, it is often children who bear the greatest burden.

Research consistently tells us that prolonged exposure to high parental conflict can have significant consequences for children.

Anxiety, difficulties with relationships, emotional distress and poorer long-term outcomes are not in the best interests of children.

That is why, wherever it is safe and appropriate to do so, court should be a last resort rather than a first response.

Good legal advice, careful investigation, appropriate safety planning and meaningful communication can often resolve issues before they become years of litigation.

Family law is ultimately about children. The goal should not simply be to win a case. The goal should be to help families move forward in a way that protects children, reduces conflict and promotes healthy relationships wherever possible.