Despite the spousal conflicts leading to divorce, almost ninety per cent of divorcing parents are able to reach a mutual agreement regarding custody and visitation with little or no intervention from the Court. Because the other ten per cent of the divorcing parents cannot agree on custody and visitation issues initially, they are likely not to be able to agree on parenting issues in the future. Courts strive to help these families by creating flexible arrangements that will hopefully work as families grow and change. Unfortunately the adversarial nature of the system that is supposed to provide relief serves only to become an alternate forum for the expression of conflict. After five years many of the parents were still fighting and nearly one third of the children continued to be subject to intense bitterness between the parents.
Children become the prize to be won or lost in what often becomes an escalating conflict.
And, the courts, often at a loss as to what determination to make for which children, turn to mental health experts for advice. With increasing caseloads and limited time to assess a divorcing parent's claim for designation as either residential or responsible parent the courts have responded to simplistic accusations which cast blame on one parent in order to make it easier for the other parent to prevail. In this article we will challenge both the scientific and legal legitimacy of this syndrome. We will review the relevant case law as it pertains to the admissibility of PAS before the courts. Finally we will offer alternative areas for inquiry into the source of impaired parent child relationships occurring in the context of child custody litigation.