Global Rally to end Parental Alienation

04/25/2026

What the Research Shows About Psychological Harm, Attachment Deactivation, and Long-Term Development

04/10/2026

Special Article from a Special Commentator

The Science Is Real; the Smear Is Not:
A Response to Sonia Sodha’s Attack

“The Science Is Real; the Smear Is Not:
A Response to Sonia Sodha’s Attack on Parental Alienation Research and Dr. Gardner”

How Ideology, Misinformation, and Personal Animus Have Replaced Evidence in the Debate Over Children’s Safety
Joan Teresa Kloth-Zanard, MFT, GAL, ADA Advocate
Executive Director & Founder, PAS Intervention (PASI)
April 2026



Introduction
On April 6, 2026, The I Paper (from the U.K.) published an opinion column by Sonia Sodha titled “The American psychologist who destroyed British families with sexist poison.” The article characterizes Dr. Richard Gardner as a misogynist crank, parental alienation as an unevidenced theory, and the professionals who study it as unregulated charlatans. It does so without citing a single peer-reviewed study, without engaging with the empirical literature, and without disclosing that the opposition narrative it promotes has been systematically debunked in leading psychology journals.

This article is a response—not merely to Sodha’s column, but to the broader pattern of misinformation that endangers children by denying the existence of a scientifically documented form of psychological abuse. As someone who knew Dr. Gardner personally for nearly four decades, and as a professional who has spent over 41 years working with families destroyed by parental alienation, I am compelled to set the record straight.

Dr. Gardner Was Not a Misogynist: The Evidence of Gender Neutrality
Sodha’s article rests on the foundational claim that Gardner was a misogynist who invented parental alienation as a weapon against women. This claim is directly contradicted by Gardner’s own published work, in which he explicitly stated that men are equally capable of engaging in alienating behaviors against their children. He recognized that fathers could be—and are—alienators. His framework was never gendered; it was behavioral.

The empirical research that followed has overwhelmingly confirmed this gender neutrality. Harman, Leder-Elder, and Biringen (2016, 2019), using nationally representative samples in the United States, found no statistically significant gender differences in who is likely to be a targeted parent. What predicts alienation is not gender but custodial control: the parent with greater custodial access is more likely to engage in alienating behaviors, regardless of whether that parent is a mother or a father (Baker & Eichler, 2016; Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018).

The claim that parental alienation is a “sexist” concept exists only in the rhetoric of its opponents—never in the research itself.

The Evidence the Opposition Refuses to Acknowledge
Sodha describes parental alienation as “unevidenced.” This is not an opinion. It is a factual claim. And it is demonstrably false.

Parental alienation is among the most extensively studied constructs in family law and child psychology. Consider the scope of the evidence:

• Over 1,000 publications—including hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as scholarly book chapters and books—have been published on parental alienation and related dynamics, according to the Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG).

• A systematic review by Harman, Warshak, Lorandos, and Florian (2022), published in Developmental Psychology—the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association—identified over 213 empirical studies containing original data on parental alienation, spanning multiple countries, languages, and methodologies.

• More than 40% of all published PA research has appeared since 2016, demonstrating that this is an accelerating, not declining, field of scientific inquiry (Harman, Bernet, & Harman, 2019).

• Marsden (2025), using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, assessed 156 peer-reviewed PA studies and found a mean quality score of 0.84—well above standard thresholds for methodological rigor.

• The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 includes language referencing parental alienation. The DSM-5 includes diagnostic codes applicable to alienation dynamics (V61.29, V995.51).

• At the 2014 AFCC conference, 98% of surveyed professionals agreed that children can be manipulated by one parent to reject the other without legitimate justification (Warshak, 2015).

Sodha cites none of this. Not one study. Not one systematic review. Not one meta-analysis. Her article is entirely devoid of scientific evidence for the claims it makes. This is not journalism. It is advocacy dressed as reporting.

The Opposition’s Arguments Have Been Systematically Refuted
Kruk and Harman (2024), writing in The American Journal of Family Therapy, identified and refuted 14 distinct arguments advanced by parental alienation critics, supported by over 1,000 publications, including peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly book chapters, and books. Among the key findings:

“Allegations are never false.” Trocmé and Bala (2005) found that while intentionally false allegations constituted approximately 4% of all child maltreatment reports, the rate rose to 12% in custody disputes. Thoennes and Tjaden (1990) found that 33% of sexual abuse allegations in custody contexts were determined to involve no abuse, with an additional 17% yielding indeterminate results. The categorical claim that allegations are “essentially never fabricated” is contradicted by every major study on the subject.

“Only men alienate.” No empirical study has ever produced evidence that alienation is a gendered phenomenon. Every nationally representative study finds gender symmetry in alienating behaviors.

“Parental alienation is a pseudo-concept.” A 2023 UN Special Rapporteur report used this term without engaging the empirical literature. Kruk and Harman (2024) demonstrated that this characterization relied on science-denial techniques—selective citation, conflation with outdated formulations, and ideological rather than methodological critique.

“Claiming alienation is a tactic used by abusers.” Varavei and Harman (2025), analyzing 200 Canadian court cases, found that the narrative of mothers routinely losing custody to abusive fathers who claim alienation constitutes an illusory correlation—a pattern that appears salient in anecdotal accounts but is not supported by systematic data.

Science Denial Is Not a Substitute for Evidence
The strategies employed by parental alienation opponents follow well-documented science-denial patterns. Bernet and Xu (2023) catalogued specific instances of misinformation and misrepresentation in the anti-PA literature. Harman and colleagues have identified recurring denial techniques in the opposition’s work:

Cherry-picking: Critics cite isolated studies or outdated critiques while ignoring the cumulative weight of over 1,000 publications, including peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly book chapters, and books.

Moving the goalposts: When presented with evidence, critics demand ethically impossible study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials on abused children).

False balance: The opposition presents a manufactured “debate” as though two equally supported scientific positions exist, when the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports parental alienation’s recognition.

Conflation: Critics conflate current parental alienation research with Gardner’s earliest 1980s formulations, ignoring three decades of scientific evolution.

Appeal to ideology over evidence: The opposition substitutes ideological claims for empirical analysis, even as research documents gender symmetry in family violence perpetration (Dutton, 2012; Hamel et al., 2007).

Sodha’s article employs every one of these techniques. It conflates Gardner’s person with the field he helped originate. It ignores three decades of independent research. It presents anecdotal cases as representative of systemic patterns. And it offers not a single piece of scientific evidence for the extraordinary claim that an entire body of peer-reviewed research should be dismissed.

The Real Victims:
Children Harmed by Denial
The denial of parental alienation is not an abstract academic debate. It has devastating real-world consequences for children.

Miralles, Godoy, and Hidalgo (2023) reviewed 13 studies and found that adults exposed to parental alienation in childhood reported elevated anxiety and depression, lower self-esteem, higher substance use, insecure attachment, lower quality of life, higher divorce rates, and—most alarmingly—repetition of alienation behaviors on their own children. Parental alienation is an intergenerational cycle of psychological abuse.

Hine (2025), studying separated parents in the United Kingdom, found that between 39% and 59% of the sample had experienced alienating behaviors, with targeted parents reporting significantly greater depression, PTSD symptoms, and suicidal ideation. This is a public health crisis—one that denial campaigns actively work to keep hidden.

Harman, Kruk, and Hines (2018), publishing in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin, formally demonstrated that alienating behaviors meet established criteria for family violence and child abuse: there is significant human injury, and it results from deliberate human action. The authors drew a powerful parallel: the societal denial of parental alienation today mirrors the historical denial of child abuse a century ago and domestic violence in decades past.

When misinformation campaigns succeed in persuading courts and policymakers that parental alienation does not exist, children who are being psychologically manipulated lose access to the evidence-based interventions that research has shown to be effective (Templer, Matthewson, Haines, & Cox, 2017). The children remain trapped. The abuse continues. And the denial movement bears responsibility.

What Sodha’s Article Actually Reveals
The rhetoric promoted in Sodha’s column—and in the broader campaign against parental alienation—is not driven by science. It is driven by a specific group of individuals who were found by courts, through testimony and evidence, to have psychologically harmed their children using false allegations of abuse and the criminal act of custodial interference. Unable to prevail on the evidence, they have turned to media campaigns, legislative lobbying, and character assassination of the professionals who identified their behavior.

This is the pattern that repeats across jurisdictions and across decades: when a parent is caught engaging in alienating behaviors, the response is not accountability—it is an attack on the concept of alienation itself. The messenger is destroyed so the message can be ignored. And the children continue to suffer.

Conclusion: The Evidence Exists; the Denial Does Not
The research record on parental alienation is not ambiguous. Over 1,000 publications—including peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly book chapters, and books—, published across multiple disciplines, languages, and countries, consistently document its existence, its mechanisms, the harm it inflicts on children and families, and the interventions that can address it. The scientific rigor of this literature has been independently assessed and confirmed.

The opposition has produced no comparable evidence base. Its arguments rely on categorical assertions—allegations are never false, only men alienate—that are contradicted by every major empirical study. Its methods track established patterns of science denial rather than scientific inquiry.

Sonia Sodha’s article in The I Paper is not an act of journalism. It is an act of misinformation that, if taken seriously by courts and policymakers, will leave more children trapped in psychologically abusive environments. The children of Britain—and of every nation—deserve better than ideology masquerading as concern.

The evidence for parental alienation exists. The evidence for its denial does not.



PASG
facebook youtube
Parental Alienation Study Group, P.O. Box 4090, Brentwood, TN, 37024, United States

04/10/2026

https://a.co/d/0gD2BIFC

More Than a Guide: Empowerment to Regain Parental Confidence
A Review of
“Parenting the Alienated Child: Connecting with Lost Hearts”
by Loretta Maase
Review by Brian Hart, MBA, MS
IT SEEMS THAT just about everything about parental alienation (PA) is
unique and unfamiliar, and that applies to parenting, too. The intuitive
parenting that came naturally and worked in the past doesn’t work like it
used to due to the peculiar circumstances of PA. Thankfully, this book
provides the insights and guidance that will help parents to avoid mistakes
that can be so easily made.
There are many books on PA that are high-level forensic analysis for legal
professionals or raw, emotional memoirs from rejected parents. This book
bridges the gap by providing a rigorous clinical foundation alongside a
practical “how-to” for the daily, grueling reality of parenting a child who has
been weaponized against you. This book, Parenting the Alienated Child, does exactly that, offering a lifeline to
More Than a Guide: Empowerment to Regain Paren
parents navigating the heart-wrenching reality of loving a child who rejects them.
A Review of “Parenting the Alienated Child: Connectin
The Pedigree of an Expert: About Loretta Maase
By Brian Hart,
To understand the source of the strategies described in this book, we can look to the formidable credentials
It seems that just about everything about parental alie
applies to parenting, too. The intuitive parenting that c
of its author. Loretta Maase, MA, LPC, who is not merely a clinician; she is a nationally recognized forensic
like it used to due to the peculiar circumstances of PA
expert and family dynamics specialist with over 25 years of experience. Her background is a rare blend of deep
guidance that will help parents to avoid mistakes that
academic grounding and extensive “in the trenches” courtroom and clinical experience.
There are many books on PA that are high-level forens
memoirs from rejected parents. This book bridges the
Ms. Maase has been qualified as an expert witness in parental alienation assessment and treatment across more
alongside a practical "how-to" for the daily, grueling re
than 15 states, including Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, and Virginia. Her expertise is built upon over
against you. This book, Parenting the Alienated Child,
10,000 hours of specialized training. Most notably, her clinical lineage includes several years of training under
navigating the heart-wrenching reality of loving a child
Linda Gottlieb, LMFT—a protege of Dr. Salvador Minuchin, the father of structural family therapy—and
The Pedigree of an Expert: About Loretta Maase
rigorous training in clinical reasoning under Dr. Steven Miller, a former Harvard Medical School professor.
To understand the source of the strategies described
This pedigree ensures that the strategies in Parenting the Alienated Child are not just anecdotal but are rooted in
credentials of its author. Loretta Maase, M.A., LPC, w
high-level clinical logic and proven family systems theory.
recognized forensic expert and family dynamics spec
background is a rare blend of deep academic groundi
The core of the book is built upon the “Authoritative Nurturing Parent” framework. Unlike traditional parenting
clinical experience.
models that often fail in the high-conflict environment of PA, this approach emphasizes a balance of extreme
empathy and unwavering structural strength. Ms. Maase correctly identifies that parents who have been absent
due to external circumstances—or those targeted by a smear campaign—often misinterpret a child’s natural
developmental shift toward independence as a sign of continued rejection.
This is a critical distinction that can save a parent’s relationship with their child. The book serves as an
“Owner’s Manual” for understanding developmental stages in the shadow of alienation, helping parents differ-
entiate between a teenager’s normal quest for autonomy and the manufactured hostility of an alienated child.
March 2026
34
Parental Alienation Study Group
www.pasg.info
Empowering the Targeted Parent Toward Assertive Presence
One of the book’s most vital contributions is how it helps the targeted parent find their footing. In the face of
relentless rejection and false accusations, it is common for even the most capable parents to become reactive,
sliding into a stance that is either intermittently rigid out of frustration or passively withdrawing to avoid further
conflict.
Maase’s work encourages parents to move beyond a disempowered mindset. She addresses the counterintuitive
nature of parenting an alienated child, where common sense parenting often backfires. The text invites parents
to look inward and ask: Am I retreating because I feel helpless, or am I leading with empathy and strength? By
identifying these common emotional hurdles—such as the “no-win double bind” where every move is framed
as “unfit” by the other parent—the book empowers readers to stop reacting to the alienation and start respond-
ing with calm, assertive authority.
What sets this work apart is the focus on the Socratic Method. Rather than engaging in “Command vs. Think-
ing” language, Maase teaches parents how to use strategic questioning to reawaken a child’s dormant critical
thinking skills. This is not about winning an argument; it is about “connecting with lost hearts” by bypassing
the child’s defensive “flawless” facade and helping them rediscover their own authentic voice. Whether used as
a self-study guide or brought into a therapist’s office to facilitate personal growth, the book provides a roadmap
for reducing litigation through strategy rather than reaction.
Conclusion
For any parent navigating the heart-wrenching reality of loving a child who rejects them, Parenting the Alien-
ated Child is an essential lighthouse. It provides the emotional insight and practical tools needed to stay steady,
nurturing, and effective in the face of manipulation. With Loretta Maase’s 25 years of forensic and clinical
expertise as a guide, parents can move from feelings of hopelessness to reclaimed confidence. It is not just a
book to be read once; it is a manual to be annotated, indexed, and lived.
The Reviewer’s Reflection on Connecting with Lost Hearts:
I have come to realize that the most formidable obstacle to reunification isn’t solely the alienating parent’s
behavior—it is often the targeted parent’s own fear of being “unprepared” for the version of the child that
eventually returns. We often spend years waiting for the child we lost to come back, but this book is a poignant
reminder that we must be ready to meet the child who exists now.
While it often feels as though the alienating parent “holds all the cards,” they lack the one resource that is
ultimately insurmountable: empathy. An alienating parent’s rigid, low-empathy parenting style eventually be-
comes a source of exhaustion for the child. By maintaining your resilience and leaning into the “Authoritative
Nurturing” strategies found in this manual, you provide the “calm and steady” sanctuary your child will
eventually crave. We are the keepers of the truth, waiting for our children’s authentic thoughts to finally
outweigh the echoed criticisms they were forced to carry. 
March 2026
35
Parental Alienation Study Group
www.pasg.info

PASG is the world's leading voice on the child maltreatment known as parental alienation, which harms more children than all other forms of domestic violence. Explore information, resources, and events for insights on this tragic dynamic. Join us to counter the vast misinformation and to help suppor

03/16/2026

The concept of Parental Alienation is clearly expressed in the DSM-5.

02/24/2026

Results showed that, depending on how they were asked, between 39 and 59% of the sample had experienced PABs, with 36.5% identified as non-reciprocal targeted parents. This percentage dropped to 3.5% when assessed in the context of other factors (i.e., prior good relationship). Nearly all (96.7%) of participants reported manifestations of alienation in their children, but this again dropped (to 2.9%) when taking other factors into account. Finally, parents reporting higher levels of PABs also reported greater mental health issues (i.e., depression, PTSD, su***de ideation) and higher levels of other forms of abuse.

Conclusions
It is argued that these results add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that PABs are a form of abuse and a significant public health emergency, but that further debate on how alienation is measured in relation to the process (i.e., PABs) versus the outcome (i.e., contact rejection).

02/24/2026

Child coercive control in post-separation family violence is typically identified through patterning across time rather than any one discrete event. The controlling parent uses repeated relational and behavioural strategies that constrain the child’s autonomy, shape perception and memory, and condition attachment behaviour toward and away from particular relationships. Over time, these pressures reorganise the child’s perceptions, attachments, and behaviour, producing rejection of a parent as an adaptive response to the relational environment rather than a free-standing preference. The following patterns describe common ways coercive control is enacted within the parent–child relationship in induced rejection scenarios.

• Reality shaping and narrative control
The child is repeatedly exposed to selective stories, omissions, exaggerations, or reframing of events involving the other parent, until the child’s understanding of past and present relationships becomes organised around the controlling parent’s account rather than lived experience.

• Fear conditioning and consequence signalling
The child learns, implicitly or explicitly, that closeness, curiosity, or non-alignment toward the other parent leads to emotional withdrawal, anger, distress, punishment, or loss of safety with the controlling parent.

• Loyalty testing and compelled alignment
The child is placed in situations where affection, approval, or stability are contingent on demonstrating allegiance through words, attitudes, or rejection of the other parent.

• Emotional enmeshment and dependency reinforcement
The child is positioned as a primary source of emotional support, reassurance, or validation for the controlling parent, making separation or independent relating feel dangerous or disloyal.

• Undermining of the other parent’s authority and role
The other parent is subtly or overtly portrayed as unsafe, incompetent, selfish, unloving, or morally suspect, eroding the child’s capacity to hold a secure or balanced attachment to them.

• Control of contact, communication, and information
Access to the other parent is restricted, monitored, interrupted, or framed as optional or harmful, while information flow is filtered so the child cannot form an independent view.

• Adultification and responsibility shifting
The child is treated as emotionally or morally responsible for adult decisions, safety, or outcomes, including being positioned as the decision-maker in matters that exceed developmental capacity.

• Identity shaping through repetition and reinforcement
The child’s self-concept becomes aligned with the controlling parent’s worldview, values, grievances, or fears, with rejection of the other parent incorporated into the child’s emerging identity.

• Punishment of non-alignment and relational flexibility
Attempts to remain even-handed, express ambivalence, or show warmth toward the other parent are met with disapproval or relational threat, narrowing the child’s emotional and relational range.

• Normalisation of rejection as protection
Avoidance, hostility, or cutoff are reframed as insight, strength, or necessary self-protection, obscuring the coercive conditions under which those responses developed.

02/23/2026

The study analysed nearly 500 appellate family court cases where parental alienation had been formally found. It compared abuse allegations made against the parent who engaged in alienating behaviours and the parent who was pushed out of the child’s life.

The pattern was consistent. Parents who alienated their children were significantly more likely to have substantiated findings of abuse against them, including domestic violence and child abuse. In contrast, the displaced parents were far more likely to be the subject of unsubstantiated abuse allegations. These false or unsupported claims often functioned as legal or administrative aggression, diverting attention away from the alienating parent’s behaviour and undermining the other parent’s credibility.

The findings directly contradict claims that parental alienation is typically raised by abusive parents to gain advantage. Instead, the data support the view that alienating behaviours sit within broader patterns of coercive control, where children are used to maintain power, punish separation, and sustain dominance after the adult relationship ends.

02/22/2026

Table on Contents:

Preface
Section One: Clinical Considerations and Research
1. Introduction to Parental Alienation
2. The Psychosocial Assessment of Contact Refusal
3. Parental Alienating Behaviors
4. Parental Alienation: How to Prevent, Manage, and Remedy It
5. Parental Alienation and Empirical Research
6. Recognition of Parental Alienation by Professional Organizations
Section Two: Legal Issues
7. Alienating Behaviors and the Law
8. Admissibility of the Construct–Parental Alienation
9. Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018
10. The Importance of Voir Dire in High-Conflict Family Law Cases
11. Parental Alienation: An International Perspective
12. Tips for Expert Testimony
13. Public Policy Initiatives Related to Parental Alienation
Appendices
A. Parental Alienation Terminology and Definitions
B. Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018
C. Cases Illustrative of Alienating Behaviors
D. Sample Motion and Brief for Extended Voir Dire
Name Index
Subject Index
List of Cases Index

Link in the comments below

02/22/2026

When does a behaviour ‘cross the line’ and become child abuse? A new 2025 peer‑reviewed study of 786 adults in the USA looked at how often physical, sexual and psychological behaviours – including chronic coercive behaviours that turn a child against a loving parent – have to occur before people see them as abuse.

Key findings:

-For almost all behaviours across physical, sexual, psychological abuse and coercive behaviours that pressure a child to reject a safe parent, most participants said it only needs to happen once to count as abuse.
​
-Only a few behaviours (like “blaming”, “confining”, asking a child if they like one parent more, or calling the other parent by their first name) had less than half the sample saying “once” – but even then, the majority still saw these as abusive within a small number of repetitions.
​
-The pattern of responses for these coercive, parent–child relationship‑damaging behaviours closely matched other psychologically abusive behaviours, adding empirical weight to classifying them as psychological abuse.
​
The study also shows that who you are – and what you’ve lived through – shapes how you see abuse:

-Asian American participants, on average, thought physical and psychological behaviours needed to happen more often before they “counted” as abuse, compared with non‑Latino White participants.
​
-Men, overall, tended to require more repetition before they labelled physical, psychological, sexual and coercive parent–child behaviours as abusive, compared with women.
​
-Higher income, higher education, and past experiences of physical or sexual abuse were associated with needing more instances of some behaviours to call them abuse, suggesting possible desensitisation or normalisation.

-In contrast, adults who had themselves experienced psychological abuse as children needed fewer incidents before they recognised behaviours as abusive.
​
Participants didn’t just look at “how many times”. They also said that for many physical and psychological behaviours, they wanted to know:

-the intention or motive of the parent
-the context and severity
-the impact and consequences for the child.
​
Yet for sexual abuse, the vast majority said one incident is enough to decide it’s abusive and did not need extra context – reflecting a strong social consensus that sexual harm to children is never acceptable, even once.
​
The authors conclude that demographic background and lived experience shape how people interpret abuse, and this has real‑world implications for child protection, family court, and policy. If investigators, lawyers, judges or practitioners are desensitised, or come from groups that tend to see certain behaviours as “only abusive if it happens a lot”, children may not be protected early enough.
​
Their message is clear:

-Psychological abuse – including chronic coercive behaviours that weaponise a child against a safe parent – is abuse, even when there are no bruises.
​
-Every incident of harm matters. Waiting for a “pattern” before taking action can mean we are asking children to endure repeated trauma before adults are willing to call it what it is.

02/18/2026

Dr. William Bernet sharing a slideshow presentation on an overview of PA. Recognition of PA by professional organizations, recognition of PA in authoritative reference books, peer reviewed publications more than 900 publications, chapters, and books from 38 countries. Plus more. This was several years ago. There’s been a lot more research since then.

This is the Third of 36 edited Speeches from The Public Hearing in Hartford Connecticut. One will be uploaded daily in the hopes you will watch each one and ...

02/18/2026

The late Dr. Steven Miller always described the 4 A’s of alienated parents and the 4 C’s of alienating parents.

Dr. Masse describes in the following link.

Parental Alienation – the Four A’s That Lead to False Accusations

The Four A’s—anxious, agitated, angry, and afraid—are natural responses to the trauma of alienation, yet they are often misinterpreted in ways that validate false accusations.