I am here today to summarize a study I recently completed (Vassiliou, 1998) on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This term was first coined by Dr. Richard A. Gardner, an American forensic and child psychiatrist, who noted some common characteristics among the divorce cases in his practice -- he labelled these cases as PAS. Specifically, PAS was defined as a syndrome where one parent (usually the custodial parent) alienates the child or children from the other parent. Usually, the alienating parent engages the child in a series of conscious and subconscious techniques like brainwashing in an attempt to denigrate the other parent. The child also contributes to the denigration of the allegedly hated parent (Cartwright, 1993; Gardner, 1992).

The effect of divorce on the family can be devastating. What was once decided among the parents is now decided by third parties like lawyers and judges (Girdner, 1985). Further, access to the children by each parent changes. Where before everyone lived together and parents and children had the freedom to interact whenever they wished, divorce dictates that they must now abide by rules set by others. The most common effect of divorce is that the child remains primarily with one parent while the other parent becomes a "visitor" who is only allowed to see the child on certain occasions. In theory, this "visitor" is allowed to have parental authority, that is to engage in the decision making process regarding the children (e.g., what school they should attend) (Turkat, 1994). In reality, divorce often occurs because the parents could no longer make decisions jointly. Consequently, the visiting parent does not always have the visitation that he or she should have and may be unable to participate in the decision making process for important issues in their children's lives. One time significant parents can become unwanted visitors for their children. The Children's Rights Council in 1994 (cited in Arditti, 1992) reported that an estimated 6 million children in the United States were victims of interfered visitation by their custodial parents. Arditti (1992) found that as many as 50% of fathers (usually the non-custodial parents) reported that their visitation with their children had been interfered with by their ex-wives. Further, as many as 40% of custodial mothers admitted denying their ex-husbands their rights to visitation as a means of punishing them (Kressel, 1985). In PAS families, the interference with child visitation is but one of the symptoms, though the most important. It is believed that the goal of the alienating parent is not only to interfere in the lost parent's visits, but to eliminate both the visits as well as the visiting parent from the child's life. Gardner (1992) postulated that PAS is of a serious nature that may be provoked by a serious emotional issue, such as custody. Subsequently, Cartwright (1993) noted that PAS may also be provoked by other serious and emotional issues such as property division or finance.

My study examined lost parents' perceptions of the alienating circumstances they and their families experienced. The goal of the study was to gain a better understanding of the nature of parental alienation syndrome and its consequences. A small sample of lost parents from across the continent (Canada and U.S.) were interviewed from a qualitative perspective. The four issues were addressed concerned the characteristics common to alienated families (e.g., number of children, number of marriages, etc.), the common themes or issues among the conflicts within couples that contributed to marriage dissolution, the common themes in the participants' experience of the alienation process, and what the lost parents perceived they might do differently given the opportunity.

The results of the study suggested that:

1. Family characteristics, such as number of children, and number of marriages, were weak factors in the occurrence of PAS.
2. The alienators' change of home was not a salient characteristic of PAS families.
3. Marital conflicts and their intensity were weak predictors in the occurrence of PAS.
4. The relationships between the alienating and lost parents were strained after the onset of PAS.
5. There was a general decrease in the frequency of visitation for the lost parent which may or may not have been due to PAS.
6. There was a reduction of other contacts (aside from visitation) between the lost parents and their children that, as expected limited their relationship.
7. All of the participants perceived a general "sabotage" of their relationships with their children by the alienators. The findings confirmed that the alienators used denigrating techniques (e.g., implying that the lost parents were not good people).
8. The children acted as secondary alienators.
9. The closer family members also tended to alienate.
10. The participants perceived the underlying cause of the alienation to be hatred of the lost parents, anger, or revenge, or some combination of these.
11. The lost parents experienced a loss of both parental role and power whether or not they had visitation with their children.
12. Lost parents were generally dissatisfied with legal and mental health assistance. Both the legal and mental health professionals were usually uninformed about PAS.
13. Lost parents would go to great lengths to avoid experiencing alienation again. They continued to hope to be reunited with their children in the future. Specifically, the participants believed that maintaining contact with their children (i.e., by sending letters and cards) increased the possibility of a reconciliation with their children.
14. Given the knowledge they now had about PAS, the participants would have behaved differently towards their ex-spouses.
15. The participants perceived the alienating circumstances to have exerted serious, negative emotional and financial consequences on their lives.

Arditi, J. A. (1992). Factors related to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17(3-4), 23-42.

Cartwright, G.F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21(3), 205-215.

Dunne J. and Hedrick, M. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome. An analysis of sixteen cases. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21(3/4), 21-38.

Gardner, R. (1992). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Girdner, L.K. (1985). Strategies of conflict: Custody litigation in the United States. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 9(1), 1-15.

Kressel, K. (1985). The process of divorce. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Turkat, I.D. (1994). Child visitation interference in divorce. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 737-742.

Vassiliou, D. (1998). Parental alienation syndrome: The lost parents' perspective. Unpublished Master's thesis. Montreal: McGill University.