Words are used for more than just communication and emotion externalization; they are frequently used to support the function of identifying and carefully detailing concepts and ideas. It was expected that basic symbolism and notions would no longer be able to resist the repeated succession of civilizations when hunting for survival and food collection was replaced by agriculture, technology, and science. From flight as a symbol of independence and emancipation to the Pythagorean theorem and, finally, Adam Smith’s invisible hand, the fundamental formation that emerges is a supernatural channel, a metaphysical conduit, and a uniquely vibrant society with shared ideas and knowledge. If we couldn’t add new words and terms, our work would be tedious and terrible.
The above logic also applies to the extent to which Parental Alienation Syndrome might manifest as a syndrome, as well as why it does not always appear to be regarded as a syndrome by the psychological and legal communities. The narrative of the phenomena as a disorder begins in the early 1970s with psychiatrist Richard Alan Gardner. Even now, his work is very contentious due to a series of specific obstacles and misunderstandings. For example, concerns of political correctness and sexism have arisen as a result of his scientific discoveries that moms are frequently the issue’s genesis-causing and accelerating component. However, his contribution should not be overlooked.
From the very beginning, he provided a specific definition of the syndrome and an accurate depiction of the symptoms exhibited by both the alienating parent and the victimized child. In terms of terminology, we speak to a disease that arises as a result of custody conflicts. It is a campaign of indoctrination of the child against the parent. The pathogenic aspects of the disease are a combination of the alienating parent’s indoctrination and the child’s contribution to the alienated parent. By investigating the symptoms, we discover the following:
- Campaign of denigration and defamation.
- Weak and/or irrational and/or superficial justifications of denigration.
- Lack of clarity.
- Excessive sense of independence.
- Reflexive reactions of the alienating custodian in various conflicts and disputes.
- Lack of guilt regarding mistreatment and explosions by the alienating parent.
- Borrowed scenarios.
- Widespread dissemination of hostility towards the alienated parent in the broader friendly and family environment.
R.A. Gardner also engages in reasoning that is similar to a fallacious abduction. Even if we exhaust the possibilities for arguing the sickness, disorder, pathology, and harmful behavioral pattern known as “Parental Alienation Syndrome“, we must give it a broader interpretation.
Abuse, sexual mistreatment, and unsuitable living conditions, such as criminal activity, drug usage, gambling addiction, or alcoholism, can cause a kid to become estranged from one or both birth or adoptive parents. The aforementioned phenomenon, as well as the circumstances surrounding an interpretation of Parental Alienation Syndrome, have radically opposed textures. As a result, our continued denial of the reality of Parental Alienation Syndrome jeopardizes the administration of justice and the safeguarding of the institution of the family by Family Courts. The legal profession and other judicial tasks are heavily founded on case law, a sense of legal stability, and Justice’s highly regulated nature. If we equate the two pathologic circumstances for superficial and political reasons, we imprison the Judge in arrangements within a single framework of rules and procedures, with unanticipated effects. When a Judge is called upon to examine and investigate the claims of the Syndrome’s product —and indeed concludes that the alienated parent never abused or harassed their child— which legal rule or prescribed procedure will allow (this Judge) to reverse the investigation against the alienating custodian? It would be absurd to suppose that one parent’s attempt to radicalize the child against the other parent did not include its own marks of violence and abuse.
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is a continuously evolving list of disorders and syndromes, and it is a fallacy when lawyers and judges opine about the existence of a disease by checking only if a relevant provision exists in a given edition of the manual. Reflections on the acknowledgment of the syndrome under consideration, as they have evolved in various courtrooms across the country, offer a tangible idiosyncrasy. The discussion over the presence of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in the courtroom begins with the adversary party claiming or implying that the circumstances at issue can be subsumed under this syndrome. If one argument fails in a movie popularization of the law, the claim itself fails. If there is no corpus delicti, there is no thief, no weapon, no killer, and if the syndrome does not exist, the child’s opinion is free and independent. As a result, the intensity of the debate in diverse case law has little to do with the tiny variations between syndrome and disorder. The intimate exchanges in the courts are solely for the aim of successfully gaining custody.
A child who has been alienated from one parent because of clear sexual harassment requires a completely different approach, and their case should be presented and supported in a completely different way than a child who finds themselves between two fanatic parents, regardless of the fact that both children may have formed their own opinions and conclusions to some extent.
