“Parental alienation” is a discredited concept used in family court by lawyers, evaluators, and judges to describe children whom they consider to be unjustifiably rejecting a parent.  

The theory rests on the hypothesis that a child’s reluctance or refusal to see one parent is the result of psychological manipulation or “brainwashing” by the other parent. Proponents often argue that this rejection should be “treated” by forcing contact with the rejected parent, while simultaneously weakening the child’s bond with the preferred parent.

Despite lacking scientific validity, the theory has become highly influential and is frequently used in family court systems worldwide to dismiss or discredit allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Almost all parents who separate denigrate each other. However, denigration is not the same as parental alienation. Denigration refers to observable negative comments or behaviors directed at a parent, whereas parental alienation theory is a hypothesis suggesting that denigration causes psychological damage and leads to parent-child estrangement, which must be solved by forced contact.

There are many reasons why a child may reject a parent, such as family violence, neglect, personality conflicts, etc. In reality, a child’s rejection of a parent is almost always the result of multiple factors, not simply “brainwashing” by the other parent.

Research shows that many children who refuse contact with a parent eventually reconnect naturally over time, without court intervention. In fact, forced reunification orders in family court can often be counterproductive and harmful.

Parental alienation interventions, such as reversing parenting time or restricting and prohibiting contact with a child’s preferred parent, can cause serious harm. In many cases, this means that a child who is bonded to their mother and afraid of their father is suddenly forced to live with the latter and be cut off from their primary caregiver.

Courts commonly force children or teenagers who are labeled as “alienated” to spend time or even live with the rejected parent. Alarmingly, these interventions are often imposed even in situations where family violence and abuse are documented and acknowledged. Police can be empowered to physically force the child to be with their abusive parent, even when they run away. 

Forced changes in custody or parenting time can lead to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and dangerous situations when children run away. Even when the rejected parent is not abusive, forcing contact disrupts children’s stability, education, friendships, and sense of safety, creating long-term emotional and psychological distress.

• Parental alienation accusations are primarily made against women. Studies consistently find that mothers are more than twice as likely than fathers to be accused of “parental alienation”.
• An empirical analysis of parental alienation cases in Canada found that 41.5 % involved allegations of domestic or child abuse. In 76.8 % of those cases, claims of alienation were made by the alleged perpetrator.
• When alienation is alleged, mothers are twice as likely to lose custody compared to fathers.
• 86.7 % of Quebec shelters for victims of domestic violence reported that parental alienation accusations had an impact on their practices.
• Women have reported being advised by their lawyer not to raise allegations of domestic violence, as doing so could backfire against them.

Court decisions should be based on facts and law, not on parental alienation theory or gendered stereotypes. They should also focus on the child’s best interests rather than a presumption of equal shared parenting.

The proposed legislation would amend the Divorce Act to make parental alienation arguments inadmissible, remove the presumption of equal shared parenting, and prevent negative inferences against parents who report or act on family violence. It would also prohibit orders that remove children from their bonded parent or force them into reunification therapy, ensuring parenting decisions prioritize children’s safety and well-being.

Family law is shared between the federal and provincial governments. However, only the federal government has the authority to change the Divorce Act. Provinces have the power to amend provincial family law legislation.

Federal legislation applies only to divorces. Matters involving unmarried couples or child protection are the responsibility of the provinces. This is why legal reform is needed both at the federal and at the provincial level. 

Courts will always be able to intervene in cases of family violence or whenever a child is experiencing harm. They will rely on established legal criteria to evaluate the best interests of the child and on recognized family violence frameworks to address situations involving violence. Stopping parental alienation allegations will enable a case-by-case assessment of the child’s best interests based on law rather than stereotypes.

According to the best interests of the child criterion, courts will always be able to intervene if a child is struggling or their needs are not being met. Appropriate interventions when a child rejects a parent include assessing the presence of family violence and prioritizing safety, respecting and listening to the child, and, where appropriate, supporting contact with the rejected parent without undermining the child’s positive relationship with the preferred parent.