Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:39, 11 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parental alienation syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Men's Issues This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New source

• January, 2012

http://psychologistswithnogod.com/

Opening paragraphs

The opening paragraphs need to provide a definition and balanced overview of PAS. The opening sentence is better now, but a number of problems remain:

1) The overview is unbalanced, with two-thirds of it being about how PAS is not recognised, not accepted, rejected etc. A more balanced introduction would say a bit more about what PAS actually is, and a bit less about academic/legal debate/controversy;

2) PAS is not best described as a "theory";

3) It's not up to legal scholars to criticize science for lacking scientific validity and reliability; that job should fall to scientists - so it may be OK to refer to legal reviews of the acceptance of PAS in the courtroom, for instance, but not to the views of legal scholars about PAS itself;

4) The standard of references needs some improvement. A citation of Gardner's original 1985 paper was missing (which I added), while reliance has been placed on one or two references (such as Hoult 2006) that are not reputable;

5) It's important to remember that, although this article should be academically accurate, its aim is to communicate with a broad audience, many of whom will never previously have heard of PAS. The opening paragraphs need therefore to do more to explain what PAS actually is, and to put it in context for the average reader (NOT for the reader that already has a position in a debate about it).

The following is an example of what I think is a more balanced overview:

Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a term coined by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner, and introduced in his seminal 1985 paper, to describe a suite of distinctive behaviors consistently shown by children who have been psychologically manipulated into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other family members - typically, by the other parent and during child custody disputes.

Although common knowledge that a parent could turn a child against, or poison a child's mind against, another parent, particularly during family separation, Gardner proposed that the resultant behaviors of children, remarkably consistent across families, amounted to an actual and specific disorder in the child: parental alienation syndrome. Gardner identified a number of characteristic behaviors including a "campaign of denigration" in which a child actively contributes to a narrative of why s/he is rejecting a parent and/or other family members.

PAS itself has not been formally recognized as a mental disorder by key professional associations and internationally respected publications such as the WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems and the current, 2013 edition of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-5. However, the DSM-5 does recognise other disorders and behaviors that describe aspects of PAS. In the absence of academic consensus about the validity of using the technical term "syndrome" in this context, and about other aspects of Gardner's original work, academic and clinical psychologists have, since the 1990s, increasingly referred to this phenomenon more broadly by using the truncated term parental alienation. This term has become increasingly used, initially in the USA and subsequently worldwide, in family court cases and the mainstream press.

Skythrops (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

PAS is a theory, and it is a rejected theory. That should be explicit in any introduction to the subject. As much as some might want to advocate for the concept of PAS, it has now been consistently rejected by the courts and by psychological organizations, and is not under consideration for inclusion in the DSM. This is not only a situation where legal professionals and courts have come to reject PAS, as its lack of scientific validity has caused it to also be rejected by the psychological and psychiatric communities. It should not be pretended that the DSM provides support for the concept of PAS, as it does not. This article should reflect the history and ultimate rejection of PAS, not pretend that it remains a viable theory or is about to suddenly gain acceptance. It is not the case that the controversy is over the word "syndrome"; a consensus has in fact formed that rejects the concept of a syndrome. It is not the case that "parental alienation" is, or is used as, a synonym for the rejected concept of "parental alienation syndrome", and we should not introduce that type of inaccuracy into the article. Arllaw (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

PAS is clearly a sensitive subject for many. So, we need to be alert to anyone with an extreme, partisan position editing a Misplaced Pages article or removing valid edits by others. I believe Arllaw is correct in saying that current consensus "rejects the concept of a syndrome" but I do not find the rest of the para above to be an objective or accurate assessment. Following a request, I've posted my proposed revisions above. Please could any editors do us the courtesy of stating which words or phrases in the above, proposed revision they believe are wrong or misleading, and provide associated evidence/citations. I'll leave appropriate time for discussion before making any such changes.

The fact remains that the intro to this article is unbalanced, as detailed above.

Misplaced Pages should not be about people wanting to lobby for a position, but about objective facts and consensus (and, again, it's not for lawyers to determine the merits of a scientific or medical issue any more than it's the job of a scientist to interpret the law).

It is misleading to characterise PAS as "a rejected theory" when it has spawned so extensive a literature and legacy; the fact that PAS has not been accepted as a syndrome by professional/psychological associations is independent of whether or not the broader concept (of parents psychologically manipulating children to reject other family members) is generally accepted. And it's not just consensus, but common knowledge that parents can and do poison children against other parents. The phenomenon is not in doubt - even if the labels for it are.

How useful Gardner's contribution will ultimately prove to have been to this particular subject remains moot, but his 1985 paper introducing the term PAS meets the definition of "seminal" insofar as it highlighted an issue, has been much cited and stimulated further work, and was responsible for introducing the term "parental alienation" that (whether or not one likes the term) is now increasingly used to refer to this phenomenon in legal proceedings (in many of which its existence is accepted), social science and the popular press. Skythrops (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not that PAS is a "sensitive issue". The issue is that we should not confuse advocacy for the concept of PAS, wishful thinking that it will suddenly become recognized despite its history of rejection by the mental health community and courts, or conflation of PAS with "parental alienation", with the type of objective information that belongs in a Misplaced Pages article. Referring back to Gardner's 1985 paper is useful to show the origin of the concept, but useless as evidence that it has present credibility. Arllaw (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph had been edited over the past year to leave one incomplete sentence, as well as some other grammatical and factual issues. It also included a sentence/paragraph better suited to a later section of the article. I've made the adjustments to correct for this, in line with discussion above. Skythrops (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Citations: Added Bala et al (2010) reference which refers to increasing prevalence of PA; Bernet et al reference removed where it doesn't support prior text. Skythrops (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect to Arllaw's recent text changes/reversions in the introductory paragraph, I’m providing the attached, detailed explanation. It would be good to see any contrary position argued here on the Talk page, with evidence, to reach consensus prior to any further such changes.

The reversions/changes in one sentence of the opening paragraph introduce numerous problems/errors:

1. A grammatical error - needs a “has” before “been criticized”;

2. Adding the words “syndrome” and “theory” in this sentence creates multiple inaccuracies and/or misleads;

3. It is not for legal communities to decide (or accept) whether or not parental alienation is a syndrome; as discussed above and elsewhere, this is a question for the medical, psychological and/or psychiatric fraternity. Similarly, it is not for “legal scholars” to criticize the science relating to parental alienation (syndrome); this again is an issue for scientists and academics in this or related fields. Legal scholars can, of course, comment on the usage and/or acceptance of PAS in a legal context, though this is a very different discussion that should not be conflated with the discussion about the science by scientists;

4. At least one of the leading and most-extensively published academics on this subject matter has, in fact, accepted the term parental alienation syndrome and uses it in multiple publications to this day. (This substantial body of work should not be characterized, as does Arllaw, as "theoretical acceptance at the fringes".) So, we should not make blanket statements about whether or not it’s been accepted without a qualifier, such as ‘widely’ or ‘generally’, or without going into more detail (which is more appropriate later in the article). Similarly, it’s not wholly accurate to say that PAS has been criticized when it has also had support. Again, this would need the qualifier that it’s been criticized by “some” (not “all”). In a strictly neutral introduction, both sides of the argument would be put, with matching citations, but in the interests of a summary, this could perhaps be left until later in the piece;

5. What has not been widely/generally accepted is that “parental alienation syndrome” is a medically/scientifically recognized/valid “syndrome”. There is a well-documented history of how long it takes some phenomena or beliefs to gain general acceptance and others to lose it. More importantly, there is good evidence that the broader phenomenon (aka “parental alienation”) is now increasingly accepted and recognized in the literature, and even within the legal and healthcare communities in some countries. The wording of this paragraph needs to make such nuanced distinctions - between the phenomenon and the terms used to describe it, for instance - as clear as possible;

6. With respect to the use of the word “theory”, I’ve argued elsewhere in some considerable detail why its usage in this context is not appropriate. I can add these explanations here on request;

7. I refer also to comments made by other editors, not least Martinogk and DrPax, on related pages concerning similar issues.

Thanks Skythrops (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Arllaw, please could you establish a User page so we may communicate - as per Misplaced Pages policy guidelines - via your own Talk page about the multiple reversions of my text that you have made on multiple pages. I explain the rationale behind my edits in considerable and sometimes painstaking detail on Talk pages while you are making reversions generally without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus on these pages, which are there for precisely this reason. I appreciate your help with this. Thanks. Skythrops (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss an article, that's what the article discussion page is for. You have strong personal feelings about this subject, but recall that this is a collaborative project. Arllaw (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

To be accurate, this sentence in the opening paragraph,

Observed repeatedly in families involved in child custody litigation, these behaviors result from psychological manipulation or undue influence, typically by the other parent who may be attempting to prevent an ongoing relationship between a child and other family members after family separation or divorce

Should be revised along the lines of,

Gardner believed that a set of behaviors that he observed in some families involved in child custody litigation could be used to diagnose psychological manipulation or undue influence of a child by a parent, typically by the other parent who may be attempting to prevent an ongoing relationship between a child and other family members after family separation or divorce.

Arllaw (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No objection, then? Arllaw (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

WHO Recognition

The WHO has announced an update to ICD-11. Are there any reliable sources to show that P.A.S. is included - as stated by this blog? Bogger (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be ongoing controversy about this. As I understand it, PAS will not be listed as a syndrome in ICD-11, no matter what. The discussion is whether the index should contain PAS, which would lead to parent child relational problem. I am not sure how things work for ICD, but in DSM-5 PCRP is given a "V-code", meaning that it is not a diagnosis of a problem in any individual involved.

Treatment issues

I am surprised that this article does not reference any of the treatments like Family Bridges and High Road that purport to treat PAS. The lack of evidentiary support for these treatments is an additional reason to query PAS and PA concepts. JeanAMercer (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There was some discussion of the controversy on Richard Warshak's page, but somebody quickly edited it out. Discussion perhaps belongs in the parental alienation article, as I believe every proponent of that sort of treatment has abandoned the concept of PAS and, for that matter, that some are even moving away from the term "parental alienation". Arllaw (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Gardner?

I am looking reliable sources to support the claims "In 1985 child psychiatrist Richard Gardner introduced the term parental alienation syndrome" and "Gardner argued for parental alienation syndrome to be included in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)."

I see where he coined the phrase https://web.archive.org/web/20031220023819/http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gardner/gardner100602.htm and it looks like`he sent a letter and asked others in something he called the "PAS Network" to send letters (canadiancrc.com/Parental_Alienation_Syndrome_Canada/letter2002.aspx -- can't post the URL, on the blacklist. add the http yourself to view) http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gardnr85.pdf but "Fathers Are Capable Too: Supporting a child's right to both parents" and "Men's News Daily" are obvious advocacy sites. Does anyone have any references that show any reliable sources reporting either his coining of the phrase or his lobbying to get it in the DSM? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A partial answer: Gardner presented a paper entitled Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation, which was published in the Academy Forum (published by the The American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis), Volume 29, Number 2, Summer, 1985, p. 3-7, in which he proposed PAS. A relatively recent article, Are children susceptible to manipulation? The best interest of childrenand their testimony, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.02.003 , corroborates that Gardner coined the term in 1985. Arllaw (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Start-Class Men's Issues articles
• Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages