Jennifer Hoult 2. Law Review Coverage of PAS Is Predominately Negative

Jennifer Hoult
Vol. 26 ♦ No. 1 ♦ Spring 2006
Children’s Legal Rights Journal
Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome
http://209.198.129.131/images/EvidentiaryAmissibilityofPAW_Hoult_CLRJ_2006.pdf   


Excerpts from Page 5 

2. Law Review Coverage of PAS
Is Predominately Negative
Since PAS appears primarily in family court where
written decisions often are not issued and few
decisions are published, its appearance in
precedent-bearing decisions may underestimate its
influence in American courts. Another measure of
its legal impact is the frequency with which PAS
appears in legal scholarship. As of July, 19 2005,
113 law review articles referenced PAS.
83
 Few of
these articles focus solely on PAS, but such
substantial referencing may indicate the extent of
PAS’s influence.
84
 
 In this literature, the reportage of PAS was
positive in thirty articles, neutral in fifteen
articles, and negative in sixty-nine articles.
85
Thirty articles expressed a favorable view of PAS:
twenty-one cited Gardner’s work unquestioningly,
86
 eight authors essentially republished
Gardner’s claims,
87
 and one author alleged his exwife had abducted his daughter.
88
 PAS received neutral mention in fifteen
articles: two reports on legislative initiatives to
compel judicial consideration of PAS in custody
cases,
89
 two book reviews,
90
 one PAS Continuing
Legal Education course advertisement,
91
 two case
comments,
92
 three editorial introductions,
93
 three
comments on the legal status of PAS,
94
 and two
passing references.
95
 Sixty-nine articles described PAS negatively.
The negative coverage focused on several areas of
law: twenty-three on divorce,
96
 thirteen on child
sexual abuse,
97
 ten on domestic violence,
98
 eight
on expert testimony,
99
 seven on general family law
issues,
100
  five  on  PAS  as  a  defense  strategy,
101
 and
two on parental child abduction.
102
 
 The majority of law review articles view PAS
negatively. Scholars report that PAS has no
empirical support
103
 and is inadmissible under
both  Frye and  Daubert.  They  describe  PAS  as  a
defense strategy for abusive fathers, facilitating
these men’s projection of blame for their children’s alienation onto mothers as a counter-claim
to, and evidentiary shield against, allegations of
abuse.
104
 They note PAS’s gender bias and the
bind it creates for battered women and mothers of
abused children:
105
 If these women fail to report
abuse, they may lose custody for failing to protect
their children, and if they report abuse, they may
lose custody due to claims that they are abusing
the child by alienating them.
106
 Scholars also
indicate that practitioners diagnosing PAS may
make incorrect diagnoses because PAS’s diagnostic criteria sanction incomplete investigation of
family dynamics. Scholars note that PAS’s claim
to “diagnose” the truth of legal allegations is an
improper invasion of the province of the factfinder.
107
  Jennifer Hoult
Vol. 26 ♦ No. 1 ♦ Spring 2006
Children’s Legal Rights Journal
Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome
http://209.198.129.131/images/EvidentiaryAmissibilityofPAW_Hoult_CLRJ_2006.pdf