Since the words “Parental Alienation” were first uttered within a family court room, it comes as no surprise that the echoes emanating from adversaries within both the mental health and legal environments have blurred and tarnished the very concept and, at times, left it unrecognizable.The side opposing an assertion of Parental Alienation is tasked with discrediting, disputing and demeaning it, hoping to convince the court to ultimately reject it.
The adversarial process within the family court will predictably batter the concept about a good deal. Consequently, much misinformation, partial information and outright untruths and fabrications emerge and begin to fester.
When one considers that arguing attorneys and family law judges typically learn about Parental Alienation via arguments, examinations and cross examinations in court, it should not be surprising that such understandings are usually limited to the facts of a particular case, and are not necessarily characteristic of specific knowledge acquisition. In other words, the understandings about Parental Alienation as born through litigation are anecdotal and unique, far from a balanced and complete instruction.
Judges and attorneys may hear about Parental Alienation from expert witnesses who have essentially been hired to discredit it or to assert it, and their information may be distorted or contaminated by the need to persuade (i.e., biased). In other words, the adversarial environment where it is argued is ripe for distortions and partial truths.
What is important to know is that there have been specific arguments created to discredit PA that can be shown to be absolutely false. For example, the argument that it is not accepted by the professional community can be shown to be absolutely false. The argument about its presence or absence in the DSM-5 can be answered completely and affirmatively.