Report A/HRC/53/36 on parental alienation: a critical analysis of its sources and methodology

1. Scope, method and limitations of this analysis

This analysis does not claim to review exhaustively every footnote, submission and reference included in A/HRC/53/36. It concentrates on quantitative and institutional claims that are particularly important to the report’s conclusions and recommendations, especially where the original source could be consulted.

In each case, the analysis distinguishes between claims adequately supported by the cited source, data presented without the study’s limitations, findings attributed to the wrong bibliographic reference, conclusions not demonstrated by the source and claims for which the report provides no verifiable documentation.

Identifying an inaccurate or misleading representation does not, by itself, establish an intention to deceive. Such a conclusion would require information about the drafting process, the versions consulted and the knowledge of those who prepared the report. This page therefore uses expressions such as verifiable distortion, incompatibility between the claim and the source, apparent substitution of categories, unwarranted generalisation and incorrect reference.

Likewise, identifying a source as a submission from an advocacy organisation does not establish that the information it contains is false. It identifies the nature of the source, the method used and the limits within which its findings may be generalised.

2. The institutional status of A/HRC/53/36

A/HRC/53/36 is a thematic report prepared by a Special Rapporteur within the Human Rights Council’s system of Special Procedures. It was submitted to the Council pursuant to Resolution 50/7, but it is not a resolution negotiated and adopted by States, a decision of an international court, a binding interpretation of a treaty or a rule directly applicable within national legal systems (Alsalem, 2023).

Special Procedures mandate holders are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council. They serve in their individual capacity, are not United Nations staff members and their conclusions do not automatically constitute a collective position adopted by the United Nations or its Member States (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], n.d.).

This distinction does not make the report irrelevant. It carries political and institutional weight and may influence governments, parliaments, courts, the media and civil-society organisations. Precisely because it has that influence, it should be described accurately.

3. More than one thousand contributions, but no auditable consultation dataset

The Special Rapporteur invited contributions from States, international and regional organisations, non-governmental organisations, academic institutions, professionals and people identifying themselves as victims. The report states that it received more than one thousand submissions, while acknowledging that many were duplicate individual submissions, particularly from fathers’ organisations. It further states that the largest number came from the Western European and Others Group, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (Alsalem, 2023, para. 3).

The report does not provide the exact total number of submissions, the number of unique contributions after duplicates were removed, a complete distribution by country and type of contributor, the criteria used to identify duplicates, the method used to classify responses or the weight assigned to each type of source.

Nor does it provide a matrix linking its principal conclusions to the submissions on which they rely.

3.1. The claim that “the majority agreed”

Footnote 133 states that the majority of submissions agreed with the report’s assessment and that only a small minority took a different position. It does not disclose how many unique submissions made up that majority or minority, how duplicates were treated, how mixed positions were classified or how coalitions comprising several organisations were counted (Alsalem, 2023, footnote 133).

Without that information, the statement cannot be independently verified.

4. Syndrome, relational phenomenon and concrete behaviours

Much of the report’s criticism is structured around Richard Gardner’s formulation of the so-called parental alienation syndrome. Gardner’s claims, the limited empirical basis of the early formulation and some of the interventions he advocated should be critically examined.

Later research, however, cannot be reduced to a repetition of Gardner’s theory.

Kelly and Johnston (2001) criticised the shortcomings of the syndrome model and proposed a reformulation centred on the child who rejects or resists contact. Their model distinguishes justified estrangement arising from violence, abuse, neglect or harmful parenting from situations in which the rejection is not adequately explained by those experiences. It also considers multiple factors, including interparental conflict, the behaviour of mothers and fathers, the child’s vulnerabilities, prolonged litigation and inappropriate professional intervention.

Marques, Narciso and Ferreira (2020) identified 43 empirical studies published between 2000 and 2018. The authors acknowledged important limitations, including the predominance of retrospective and cross-sectional designs, but showed that an empirical field exists that examines patterns, effects, assessment instruments and professional perspectives.

The existence of this literature does not resolve every controversy and does not automatically validate every instrument or intervention. It does, however, show that it is inaccurate to reduce the entire contemporary field to Gardner’s original formulation.

4.1. The position of the World Health Organization

The World Health Organization decided not to include the term “parental alienation” in ICD-11 because it is not a health-care term but one used principally in legal contexts. The organisation states that clinically relevant aspects may be covered by the broader category of a caregiver-child relationship problem and that no health interventions have been specifically validated for parental alienation (World Health Organization [WHO], n.d.).

5. Audit of the principal quantitative claims

5.1. Brazil: the psychometric study by Gomide, Camargo and Fernandes

Paragraph 14 of A/HRC/53/36 states that a Brazilian study found that women were accused of parental alienation in 66 per cent of cases, compared with 17 per cent of men, and adds that men made more unfounded accusations. Footnote 27 refers exclusively to Gomide, Camargo and Fernandes’s (2016) article, Analysis of the Psychometric Properties of a Parental Alienation Scale (Alsalem, 2023, para. 14, footnote 27).

The study was not designed to calculate the frequency of parental alienation allegations in Brazilian courts, to compare their use by men and women or to determine whether allegations were founded or unfounded.

Its purpose was to examine the psychometric properties of a scale. Forensic practitioners completed 193 scales relating to 96 families: 48 families in which at least one mother or father had been identified by the justice system as an alienating parent, and 48 families in which no allegation of parental alienation had been made (Gomide et al., 2016).

In the total sample, 5.6 per cent were men classified as alienating parents, 20.8 per cent were women classified as alienating parents, 17 per cent were men classified as target fathers and 6.3 per cent were women classified as target mothers (Gomide et al., 2016).

The 17 per cent cited in the report therefore refers to men classified as target fathers, not to men accused of parental alienation.

The article also states that approximately two thirds of the mothers in the allegation group obtained a low score on the scale. That percentage does not represent the proportion of women accused. It represents women whose scores indicated a low incidence of the behaviours assessed (Gomide et al., 2016).

The study did not identify who made the allegation, whether it was made by a man or a woman, whether it was substantiated or whether it was unfounded. The conclusion that men made more unfounded allegations is not supported by the study design or the published results.

There is also a problem of generalisation. The convenience sample was deliberately constructed with equal numbers of families with and without an allegation. It cannot be used to estimate the prevalence of allegations across Brazilian courts.

The comparison supports the conclusion that the source was materially misrepresented. Without further information, it does not establish that the misrepresentation was intentional.

5.2. Canada: the figures exist, but the reference is incorrect

The report states that a Canadian analysis of 357 cases found allegations of domestic violence or child abuse in 41.5 per cent of cases and that, within this subset, 76.8 per cent of parental alienation allegations were made by the person accused of violence or abuse (Alsalem, 2023, para. 13).

These figures appear in Linda Neilson’s 2018 study, Parental Alienation Empirical Analysis: Child Best Interests or Parental Rights? Neilson analysed 357 Canadian trial and appellate decisions and identified 142 cases containing allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. In 76.8 per cent of those 142 cases, the allegation of parental alienation was made by the person accused of violence or abuse (Neilson, 2018).

Footnote 23 of A/HRC/53/36, however, refers to a Neilson publication from 2001. A reader following the reference is therefore directed to a different document, published 17 years before the study containing the figures used in the report.

The 2018 study also has limitations. Neilson searched electronically available decisions in CanLII and Quicklaw using terms related to parental alienation. The sample represents decisions published and retrieved through those criteria, not all Canadian family proceedings, agreements or unpublished decisions (Neilson, 2018).

5.3. United States: findings from different studies presented together

A/HRC/53/36 states that, when a father accused a mother of parental alienation, she lost custody in 44 per cent of cases, whereas mothers who accused fathers secured a transfer of custody in 28 per cent. Footnote 41 refers to the pilot study published by Meier and Dickson in 2017 (Alsalem, 2023, para. 19, footnote 41).

The figures of 44 per cent and 28 per cent appear in the later national study published in 2019 and 2020 and do not correspond to the empirical dataset described in the pilot article cited in the footnote (Meier et al., 2019; Meier, 2020).

The report therefore appears to combine findings from the expanded study with the bibliographic reference to the earlier pilot study. It also states that mothers were “twice as likely” to lose custody. A direct comparison of 44 per cent and 28 per cent is not a twofold difference. The wording may derive from an odds ratio or an adjusted statistical model, but the report does not explain that distinction.

Meier’s findings are relevant and should be considered. The problem is not their inclusion, but the failure to identify clearly the publication, the empirical dataset and the statistical measure being reported.

5.4. The estimate of 58,000 children

Immediately after the figures on custody transfers, the report states that this situation has led to an annual estimate of 58,000 children being placed in dangerous home environments in the United States (Alsalem, 2023, para. 19).

The construction of the paragraph gives the impression that the estimate derives from Meier’s study or from the percentages cited immediately beforehand. It does not.

The figure predates those studies and was published by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence as an estimate developed in the absence of an exact national count. It was not calculated from the decisions analysed by Meier and is not a finding specifically concerning cases in which parental alienation was alleged (Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, n.d.).

5.5. New Zealand: two different categories presented as a single range

A/HRC/53/36 states that a New Zealand survey found that between 55 and 62 per cent of mothers had been accused of parental alienation. The footnote refers to a submission from the Backbone Collective (Alsalem, 2023, para. 19).

The Backbone Collective received 612 responses treated as valid to a questionnaire addressed to women who reported experiencing violence or abuse. Of these, 496 had used the Family Court. The organisation itself stated that the questionnaire had not been designed as scientific research, but as a means of collecting the experiences and views of participants (Backbone Collective, 2017).

Participation was voluntary. The questionnaire was publicised through the organisation’s website and Facebook page, media appearances and Facebook advertising. Participants were permitted to answer only some of the questions.

The question concerning allegations participants regarded as false was answered by 395 women and allowed multiple responses. Approximately 55 per cent selected “parental alienation”, while approximately 62 per cent selected “exaggerating or distorting violence or abuse” (Backbone Collective, 2017).

These are different categories. The second is not an allegation of parental alienation.

Later documents from the same organisation cite 55 per cent, not a range of 55 to 62 per cent, as the proportion of participants who said they had been accused of parental alienation (Herbert, 2018).

The testimony collected may reveal serious and relevant experiences. A self-selected sample cannot, however, establish the frequency of such allegations among all New Zealand mothers, all families involved in court proceedings or all Family Court decisions.

5.6. A claim about Brazil without a verifiable reference

Paragraph 20(b) states that a Brazilian parliamentary commission reportedly found, in 2017, a correlation between parental alienation, domestic violence and sexual abuse. It further states that lawyers and experts supporting parental alienation exerted pressure to prevent protective measures from being adopted (Alsalem, 2023, para. 20(b)).

The report does not identify the commission’s full name, the legislative body concerned, the number or title of its report, the pages on which the conclusion appears, the professionals or organisations involved, the acts characterised as pressure or the measures allegedly prevented.

The subparagraph contains no footnote.

5.7. Summary of the audit

The cases examined do not establish that every statement in the report is wrong. They do identify a pattern of inaccurate or insufficiently transparent use of several central sources: incorrect bibliographic references, apparent substitution of categories, findings from different studies presented together, advocacy estimates associated with empirical studies and self-selected samples generalised to national populations.

6. Advocacy, organised networks and institutional amplification

Participation by civil-society organisations in international human-rights mechanisms is legitimate and necessary. Such organisations may support victims, collect testimony, identify institutional failings and place problems on the agenda that States do not measure adequately.

It is nevertheless necessary to distinguish between the capacity to mobilise, the capacity to produce institutional documents and the production of independent empirical evidence.

An organisation experienced in advocacy can participate in consultations, form coalitions, submit shadow reports, organise seminars, establish academic partnerships, publish documents and intervene in legislative processes. These activities demonstrate political and institutional capacity. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate that the experiences presented are representative of all court proceedings or all families.

6.1. The Latin American submission coordinated by Equality Now

One of the principal contributions concerning Latin America and the Caribbean was submitted jointly by Equality Now, Sisma Mujer, CLADEM, Asociación Civil El Paso, Asociación de Mujeres de Guatemala, DEMOS, the Pan American Development Foundation, Consorcio Ley Maria da Penha and GAMBE.

The submission addressed Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Uruguay, and argued that parental alienation syndrome and related expressions were used in family courts to neutralise allegations of violence against women and children (Equality Now et al., 2022).

6.2. Organisational continuity across other mechanisms

In 2024, the Global Campaign for Equality in Family Law, CLADEM/Brazil and GAMBE submitted a shadow report on Brazil to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. It again argued that the so-called “false parental alienation syndrome” and related concepts were being used against women who reported violence (Global Campaign for Equality in Family Law et al., 2024).

There is therefore partial continuity between organisations that contributed to the Special Rapporteur’s consultation, A/HRC/53/36, shadow reports subsequently submitted to other mechanisms and initiatives seeking to amend or repeal national legislation.

This sequence may generate institutional amplification:

1. An organisation presents an allegation to an international mechanism.
2. The mechanism incorporates the allegation into a report.
3. The organisation cites the report as institutional confirmation.
4. The same report and allegation are presented to another body.
5. A further recommendation is later presented as additional confirmation.

Several institutional documents may eventually exist even though the original claim continues to depend on the same testimony, study or group of organisations.

6.3. The report did not arise solely from the Latin American network

The weight of the Latin American coalition should be recognised without reducing the whole report to its participation. A/HRC/53/36 also relies on United States research, Canadian analyses of published decisions, questionnaires produced by New Zealand organisations, European and Asian contributions, institutional documents and individual testimony.

The criticism is not that a single network produced the report. It is that the report does not always distinguish sufficiently between independent sources, the reuse of earlier data, academic research, testimony, advocacy and institutional repetition.

7. Brazil as a political and legislative case study

Brazil is not the only subject of this analysis, but it warrants particular attention. It has specific legislation, Brazilian organisations participated in the consultation, the report makes concrete claims about the country and the document has been used to support repeal of Law No. 12,318/2010.

7.1. The legislation described in the report had already been amended

Paragraph 45 of A/HRC/53/36 states that Brazilian legislation provided for suspension of the parental authority of a person found to be engaging in parental alienation (Alsalem, 2023, para. 45).

That description was out of date when the report was published in April 2023. Law No. 14,340 of 18 May 2022 expressly repealed Article 6(VII) of Law No. 12,318/2010, removing suspension of parental authority from the measures set out in the Parental Alienation Law (Brazil, 2022, arts. 2 and 6).

The amendment also introduced or strengthened periodic reviews of psychological or biopsychosocial support, identification of the methodology used in the initial expert report, preparation of a final report, appointment of suitably qualified professionals and safeguards concerning the hearing of the child (Brazil, 2022).

7.2. Brazilian law did not formally create a psychiatric syndrome

Article 2 of Law No. 12,318/2010 defines acts of parental alienation by reference to interference with a child’s or adolescent’s psychological development intended to induce rejection or to damage family bonds. Examples include a campaign of denigration, obstruction of contact or time with the child, withholding school and medical information, making false allegations and unjustifiably changing residence in order to impede family relationships (Brazil, 2010, art. 2).

The law may be criticised for the breadth of its definition, the risk of misapplication, the quality of assessments and the measures it provides. It does not, however, formally create a clinical diagnosis called parental alienation syndrome.

Rejecting Gardner’s syndrome does not automatically answer the legal question of whether the behaviours described in Article 2 occur, how they should be proved and what proportionate response they should receive.

7.3. The submission by Cláudia Galiberne Ferreira

The report relies on a submission by Cláudia Galiberne Ferreira in footnotes 100 and 106 to support two broad claims about Brazil: that parental alienation is used to discredit allegations of violence and that legal recognition of the concept facilitates its use as a defence to reports of sexual abuse (Alsalem, 2023, paras. 41–42, footnotes 100 and 106).

The submission was not located among the public documents consulted for this analysis. It was therefore not possible to verify the cases presented, the period covered, the selection criteria, the methodology, the judicial material examined or the correspondence between the content submitted and the conclusions drawn by the Special Rapporteur.

Cláudia Galiberne Ferreira had previously published, with Romano José Enzweiler, an article critical of parental alienation. That article is relevant to understanding the authors’ public position, but it cannot be treated as though it were the submission cited in A/HRC/53/36 (Ferreira & Enzweiler, 2014).

The 2014 publication is a legal and argumentative essay rather than a systematic review. It includes an analysis of decisions from Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice, but does not provide a complete list of cases, a coding framework or sufficient information to reproduce the classification in full. These limitations belong to the published article and cannot automatically be attributed to the submission made to the Special Rapporteur.

7.4. Repeal or reform

Bill No. 2,812/2022 proposes the complete repeal of Law No. 12,318/2010. Following committee approval of the report supporting repeal, Appeal No. 1/2026 was lodged against conclusive committee consideration. As at August 2026, the appeal remains pending before the Board of the Chamber of Deputies. The law remains in force (Chamber of Deputies, 2022).

Bill No. 3,042/2026 was introduced in June 2026. It proposes to improve the legislation, strengthen comprehensive protection for children and adolescents, improve psychological and biopsychosocial assessments and introduce safeguards in situations involving domestic violence and family risk. It is awaiting referral by the President of the Chamber of Deputies (Chamber of Deputies, 2026).

The Brazilian debate is therefore not limited to retaining the law unchanged or repealing it in full. A third option exists: substantial reform of the definition, procedures, evidence, safeguards and available measures.

Brazilian legal scholarship also includes intermediate positions. Mendonça and Ramos (2022), for example, recognise the existence of alienating behaviours but argue for cautious application of the law and question measures that may cause further harm to the child.

8. Audit of the recommendations

A/HRC/53/36 concludes with recommendations of very different kinds. Some respond directly to genuine problems in family justice systems. Others go further than the evidence presented.

8.1. Recommendations that merit support

Defensible measures include rigorous investigation of violence and abuse, training on domestic violence and gender bias, individual assessment of the facts, coordination between family and criminal proceedings, regulation of experts, prevention of conflicts of interest, legal aid, hearing and representation of the child, data collection and monitoring of decisions (Alsalem, 2023, para. 74).

Supporting these measures does not require acceptance of a general prohibition on parental alienation.

8.2. A prohibition broader than the evidence presented

Paragraph 74(a) recommends that States prohibit the use of parental alienation, “related pseudo-concepts” and so-called parental alienation experts (Alsalem, 2023, para. 74(a)).

This wording is not limited to preventing an alienation allegation from being used automatically to dismiss an allegation of violence. Nor is it limited to rejecting Gardner’s syndrome as a diagnosis. It proposes excluding the category itself and concepts regarded as related.

The audit shows that allegations may be misused. It does not demonstrate that every allegation is false, that the behaviours do not occur, that every child’s resistance results from violence or that prohibition is superior to an assessment based on conduct and evidence.

8.3. The problem with “related concepts”

The report does not define precisely what should be prohibited as a “related pseudo-concept”. The expression could encompass alienating behaviours, unjustified rejection, parental manipulation, obstruction of contact, loyalty conflicts or problems in the caregiver-child relationship.

A rule framed this broadly could prevent courts and professionals from describing concrete facts. The law must be able to assess whether a person unjustifiably obstructed contact, withheld relevant information, persistently denigrated the other parent, induced fear through false information or pressured the child to choose one side.

8.4. Prohibiting experts or regulating expert evidence?

The report identifies serious problems involving professionals without appropriate qualifications, conflicts of interest, the combination of assessment and treatment, lack of regulation and excessive reliance on poorly reasoned expert reports (Alsalem, 2023, paras. 58–63).

These problems justify a rigorous response. A proportionate solution should include minimum qualifications, professional registration, public lists of experts, declarations of conflicts of interest, effective technical challenge, identification of methods, separation of fact from inference and accountability for improper practice.

A subject-based prohibition could also exclude professionals who study domestic violence, child rejection, attachment, loyalty conflicts, coercive control and harmful parenting.

8.5. Coercive reunification programmes

The report’s concern about coercive reunification programmes is legitimate. Interventions involving compulsory isolation, deprivation of liberty, threats, punishment, complete prohibition of contact or financial conflicts between assessment and treatment should be tightly regulated or prohibited.

That does not mean that every intervention intended to repair a family relationship is inappropriate. Psychological support, family therapy, gradual contact or supervised contact may be considered where there is no risk of violence, the child is properly heard, professionals are qualified, objectives are clear and outcomes are monitored.

9. An international alternative to a general prohibition

Guidance published by the Family Justice Council of England and Wales in December 2024 shows that it is not necessary to choose between accepting Gardner’s syndrome and prohibiting all consideration of alienating behaviours.

The guidance rejects the existence of a diagnosable syndrome but sets out steps for cases in which a child displays unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent. It assigns to the court the task of making findings about domestic abuse and alleged alienating behaviour, while seeking to keep the child’s voice and safety at the centre of the assessment (Family Justice Council, 2024).

Cafcass uses the term “alienating behaviours” to describe an ongoing pattern of attitudes and communications intended, or having the potential, to damage the child’s relationship with another parent or carer. It does not use parental alienation as a syndrome or clinical condition and focuses on the conduct and its impact on the individual child (Cafcass, n.d.).

The first stage is to determine whether domestic abuse, child abuse, neglect or other harmful parenting explains the child’s resistance. Cafcass expressly recognises that an abusive person may make a counter-allegation of alienation to divert attention from their own conduct and that domestic abuse and alienating behaviours may coexist (Cafcass, n.d.).

10. Principles for a balanced response

Gender neutrality in the individual assessment

Gender-based violence must be recognised and investigated. The assessment of an individual case should not, however, begin with a presumption that the man is the perpetrator, the woman is the alienating parent, the father is always the victim or the mother is always the protective figure.

Mothers and fathers may perpetrate violence, make true or false allegations, interfere with family relationships and be subjected to such conduct.

Safety first

Before any measure intended to restore contact is considered, allegations of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, maltreatment, neglect, coercive control, stalking and physical or psychological risk must be investigated.

Behaviours rather than labels

Courts should identify which contacts were obstructed, which information was withheld, what messages were conveyed to the child, what allegations were made, how they were investigated, the quality of the previous relationship, the reasons given by the child and the alternative explanations available.

The same evidential standard

An allegation of violence should not be dismissed merely because parental alienation has also been alleged. An allegation of parental alienation should not be accepted merely because there is conflict or resistance to contact.

Transparency in expert evidence

Professionals should identify their qualifications, methods, instruments, sources, assessment limitations, alternative hypotheses, conflicts of interest and the distinction between observations, inferences and recommendations.

Proportionality

A warning, psychological support, supervised contact, gradual changes to contact and a change of residence do not have the same consequences. The more restrictive the measure, the stronger the evidence required and the more exacting the reasons must be.

Monitoring

Without national data on allegations, decisions, expert assessments, measures and outcomes, the debate will continue to depend on cases selected by organisations holding opposing positions.

11. What the report supports and what it does not demonstrate

12. Conclusion

A/HRC/53/36 has the merit of drawing attention to situations in which allegations of parental alienation may be used to discredit reports of domestic violence or child abuse. That risk must be taken seriously.

The source audit nevertheless identified a lack of transparency concerning the consultation, extensive use of submissions without an explicit hierarchy of evidence, incorrect bibliographic references, findings from different studies presented together, apparent substitution of statistical categories, advocacy estimates associated with empirical research, generalisation from self-selected samples, serious claims without a verifiable source and an out-of-date description of Brazilian legislation.

The report should not be rejected in its entirety. Its concerns about violence, the quality of expert evidence, hearing children, conflicts of interest and professional accountability should be considered.

Nor should it be treated as an unquestionable authority.

The most balanced response is neither to accept an allegation of parental alienation automatically nor to prohibit examination of the relevant behaviours. It is to conduct an individual, multidisciplinary, transparent and fact-based assessment capable of protecting children subjected to violence, children subjected to manipulation or instrumentalisation, mothers and fathers who are wrongly accused, and mothers and fathers who are unjustifiably excluded from their children’s lives.

Protecting women and children requires rigour in the investigation of violence. Protecting children who are unjustifiably separated from a mother or father requires the same rigour. Neither responsibility should be removed in order to make the other easier.

References

References and links are arranged to permit direct consultation of the principal sources examined.

How to cite this article