Court Cases Acknowledging PAS

THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Courts in the following countries in which courts have recognized the PAS:   Australia, Canada (7 provinces), UK, Germany, and the U.S. (21 states). For full list of the now 71 citations visit http://www.rgardner.com/refs/pas_legalcites.html

From: RichardGard@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 23:14:20 EDT
Subject: Israeli Supreme Court Strongly Endorses PAS-15
To: RichardGard@aol.com

To: PAS Network

From: Richard Gardner

The Israeli Supreme Court, in a very strong decision, recognized the
PAS.  The ruling (relevant sections reproduced below), includes
specific references to the publications of Deirdre Conway Rand, Ph.D.,
Michael Bone, Ph.D. and  Michael Walsh, Esq. We are indebted to Daniel
Gottlieb, Ph.D. for his translation of the ruling. The citation is:
Jane Doe v. John Doe. Supreme Court, Request for Civil Appeal,
3009/92. 

Israel can now be added to the following countries in which courts have
recognized the PAS:  Australia, Canada (7 provinces), UK, Germany, and
the U.S. (21 states).
For full list of the now 71 citations visit
http://www.rgardner.com/refs/pas_legalcites.html

Translated excerpt taken from the Israeli decision:

8. The term PAS was first coined by the American psychiatrist, Prof.
Richard Gardner fifteen years ago. He was the first to systematically
relate to the various phenomena that became apparent in children in the
context of parental conflict particularly within the context of
custody issues. Prof. Gardner defined the syndrome as a disturbance
whose primary manifestation is found in the denigration or alienation
of the child vis a vis one of his parents in the absence of any
justification (Gardner, R.A. (1998). The Parental Alienation Syndrome,
Second Edition. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc).

One can certainly assume that the syndrome existed even in the past
before Prof. Gardner methodically described and related to it Se for
example the subject of Civil Appeal 4/77 John Doe vs. Jane Doe Supreme
Court Decisions 33 393 (3). The facts there describe the existence of
the syndrome however before Prof. Gardner coined the concept and
described the phenomena (see also Civil Appeal 319/54 D.G. vs. H.G.
Supreme Court decisions 11 261). The increase in the number of
marriages ending in divorce, coupled with the fact that more and more
fathers have begun to wage battles over the custody and visitation of
their children have exposed the phenomenon of parental alienation. The
_expression of the syndrome is found, among other things, in the
refusal of the child to maintain contact with one of the parents. Hence
derives the use of the term "contact refusal" which is synonymous to
parental alienation, even though the former is but one of the
characteristics of the syndrome (for a detailed review on the
development of the topic, in addition to Prof. Gardner’s book, see
the two-part article: Rand, D.C. "The Spectrum of Parental Alienation
Syndrome" 15 American Journal of Forensic Psychology (1997). It should
be noted that the syndrome manifests primarily as alienation of the
child vis a’vis the non-custodial parent (nonetheless, see the case
of Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 99/70 John Doe vs. Jane Doe (not
published). There are those who have construed the syndrome as a set of
psychological kidnapping of the child (Bergman, Z.B. & Wietztum, E.
(1995) Parental kidnapping and parental alienation syndrome. Sichot
(Hebrew) 9(2) 115-130 and Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 33/96 John Doe vs.
Jane Doe (not published) section 8. The request to appeal this decision
was denied: Civil Appeal 8689/99 John and Jane Doe vs. States Attorney
(not published)).

According to the learned Bergman and Weitztum, various psychological
methods are brought to bear on the child to sever him from the refused
parent and cause him to develop a dependence on the alienating
parent.(ibid., see also Levita, Z. et al. (1997) Contact refusal:
Parent-child conflict in separation and divorce. Sichot (Hebrew), 11(2)
100-106.) As is known, in conflicts between parents where children are
involved, consideration must be given to the child's wishes (see for
example Civil Appeal 740/87 John Doe vs. Jane Doe, Supreme Court
Decisions 43 661(1)). The problem becomes more complicated when the
syndrome is present because the wish of the child is the perverted
product of the influences to which the child is subject on the part of
the alienating parent (Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 33/96, Section 5
subsections 38-44; Family Appeal (Tel Aviv) 90/97 ibid. section 11).
Prof. Gardner delineated different degrees of severity of the syndrome:
mild, moderate and severe (Gardner, ibid. chapter 10). Gardner's
position is that when dealing with the severe cases of alienation, it
is necessary to remove the child from the custody of the alienating
parent to the custody of the refused parent. Gardner adds and notes
that immediate transfer of the child to the refused parent in cases of
severe alienation is difficult. In his opinion, this problem is solved
by the immediate transfer of the child to a third party who will
prepare the child for transfer to the refused parent (ibid. page 375
and on.).

9. At the outset, we noted that in 1997 around the time of the parental
separation, the mother complained of sexual abuse by the father of the
minor child M. It has been previously noted that two professionals, a
psychiatrist and a psychologist, who investigated the matter, reached
the conclusion that there was no sexual abuse as claimed. The police
closed the file. It should be noted that false claims of abuse,
including sexual abuse, are one of the features of the syndrome
(Gardner, ibid. J.M. Bone & M.R. Walsh "Parental Alienation Syndrome:
How to Detect it and What to Do About It" 73 Florida Bar Journal 44, 45
[1999]).