How Should Forensic Psychologists Assess Parental Alienation Claims in Child Custody Evaluations?

All referrals that raise the question of possible parental alienation require an in-depth, comprehensive evaluation. The goals of this assessment are to determine the extent and cause of a child’s rejection of a parent, differentiate between genuine alienation and estrangement, and develop a specific intervention plan derived from the evaluation findings.

To maintain the integrity of the process and ensure the best outcome for the child, evaluators must adhere to several core principles:

• Neutrality and Authority: Evaluations should be neutral and comprehensive. Assessment must be conducted only under a court order, by a neutral evaluator, who has clear authority and directives from the court. The use of experts hired separately by each parent is discouraged, as they tend to polarize the case further.
• Expeditious Action: Evaluations must be completed as swiftly as possible. Delays can contribute to the crystallization and deepening of the child’s alienation.
• Avoiding Simplification: Professionals must conduct comprehensive and systematic evaluations to avoid the dangers of simplistic, overly broad findings and recommendations not well-tailored to the family. Child custody evaluations should be more nuanced than simply declaring the finding of parental alienation, and provide evidence and detail. 

Forensic psychologists must be adept at differentiating true parental alienation from other forms of negative parent-child relationships, such as realistic estrangement. The evaluation process is often structured using a decision-tree model that begins with a focus on the child’s clinical presentation.

Step 1: Assess Whether the Child Shows Signs of Alienation

The initial step is determining whether the child's behavior aligns with the definition of an alienated child. An alienated child is defined as one who freely and persistently expresses unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.

At this stage, the evaluator focuses on qualitative features such as the child’s unwillingness to reconsider their rejection of the parent, their lack of ambivalence toward the rejected parent, the reasons given for the rejection, and the intense, unrelenting, negative portrayal of the parent.

Step 2: Distinguishing Alienation from Realistic Estrangement

Regardless of the child’s initial presentation, the evaluation proceeds to assess whether the child’s rejection is rooted in realistic estrangement. This occurs when a child becomes estranged from a parent for valid reasons, such as child abuse, witnessing domestic violence, or experiencing neglectful or poor parenting. Such behavior, which manifests as reluctance or refusal to spend time with a parent, should be classified as valid estrangement rather than alienation.

A child can exhibit alienation-like behaviors both in the context of “brainwashing” by the aligned parent and in response to the terrorizing violence of an abusive parent. These traumatic and often dangerous abuses must be addressed legally and therapeutically before exploring any co-existing parental alienation.

Forensic psychologists must integrate data from multiple sources, including the child, each parent, and the family context, to achieve a holistic understanding of the family.

Assessing the Child

The assessment of the child focuses on clinical data, direct observation, and psychological testing to measure the severity, consistency, persistence, and rigidity of their negative attitudes.

• Clinical Interviews: The evaluator assesses whether the child's rejection is unambivalent and observes if they present with a seemingly rehearsed litany of the rejected parent’s faults. Data on the onset, chronicity, and rigidity of the negative attitudes should be collected from collateral sources, including teachers, therapists, and day care providers.
• Behavioral Discrepancy and Observation: The degree of alienation is often revealed by comparing what the child says to how the child behaves. Critical data points include variations in behavior before, during, and after visitation. A child who is highly resistant before a visit but able to engage with and possibly find some pleasure during the visit is seen as less severely alienated.
• Observation of Parent-Child Interactions: It is considered standard practice to observe the child with each parent to assess attitudes, behaviors, and reactions. Observations of transitions between parents are particularly useful, especially when assessing younger children.
• Developmental Context: The evaluator must consider the child's age and maturity. Children younger than approximately 7 or 8 years should not be categorized as “alienated children,” as they are generally not developmentally capable of maintaining a cohesive, enduring rejection of a parent despite positive interaction. In younger children, the assessor must distinguish precursors to later alienation from separation anxiety. Children aged 10 and older tend to be quite capable of adopting a consistent distortion and effectively refuse visits.
• Psychological Testing: Testing may be necessary to understand a child's cognitive abilities, developmental level, and psychological vulnerabilities. Children who lack a cohesive sense of themselves or who have poor reality testing are more vulnerable to becoming alienated. Instruments like the Wechsler Intelligence Scale can assess issues such as the child's capacity for reciprocity, emotional regulation, and coping style.

Assessing the Parents and Allegations

The evaluation shifts to parental behaviors contributing to the dynamics, along with a rigorous investigation of all allegations.

• Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Investigation: The evaluator must assess the veracity of any allegations of domestic violence and child abuse by gathering details, reviewing police and medical reports, and interviewing collateral witnesses. Tools like the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) can aid in assessing the risk of future violence and the traumatic impact of past incidents.
• Identifying Alienating Behaviors: The assessment should identify both overt and subtle alienating processes. Overt behaviors are often freely admitted, with one parent justifying the denigration of the other by citing dangerous behavior. Subtle behaviors occur when a parent pays lip service to supporting the child’s relationship with the other parent, but uses actions and words to imply to the child that the other parent is not to be trusted. 

The final stage requires the integration of all data to produce a comprehensive view of the family system and a detailed intervention plan.

• Dynamic Formulation: The analysis must integrate numerous factors to arrive at a useful understanding of family dynamics and how each member contributes to them. The report should address each child, parent, parent-child relationship, sibling relations, and the larger social context. The evaluator must articulate the family member’s capacity to respond to intervention and address the allegations that were proffered as justifications for the rejection in cases of parental alienation.
• Neutral Descriptions: Forensic psychologists must refrain from using diagnostic labels or inflammatory language to prevent the report from further inflaming the situation. Reports must contain a highly detailed plan for intervention, avoiding simplistic solutions.
• Recommendations: Recommendations should specify both structural and therapeutic interventions. They must be sufficiently specific to be easily translated into a court order. Structural recommendations typically include a proposed visitation schedule (potentially a graduated access plan); a plan for decision-making and information exchange; and proposed rules to manage, minimize, and avoid conflict.
• Therapeutic Goals: The therapeutic plan must address each participant’s need for change. The child will almost certainly need help retrieving positive feelings toward the rejected parent and moving toward a more ambivalent position. By emphasizing the multiple contributions to the family’s dynamic, the evaluator can help shift attention from who is to blame to how a child is being harmed and what can be done.
• Parenting Plan vs. Child Custody Evaluation: In recent years, many forensic psychologists have adopted the term “parenting plan,” instead of “child custody evaluation,” to promote a more collaborative mindset focused on the best interests of the child. 

Parental alienation claims in child custody cases create a challenging environment for forensic psychologists. The evaluator acts as a neutral assessor and educator, using systematic investigation to understand the multifaceted dynamics of rejection, thereby protecting the child's long-term developmental needs and ensuring that judicial decisions are based on scientific evidence rather than crafted rhetoric. Through careful observations and methodical practices, forensic psychologists can uncover the reality of the situation and move it toward the best possible outcome.

• Child Custody Evaluation Certificate
• Allegations of Alienation or Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Evaluations
• Introduction to Developmentally Appropriate Interviewing using the Revised NICHD Protocol
• AAFP: Reducing Bias and Error in Forensic Judgment
• AAFP: Parenting Capacity Assessments in Child Protection Court

Blog Posts

• The Science Behind Media's Harmful Bias Regarding Parental Alienation
• Coherence in Children’s Reports of Sexual Abuse
• What Interviewing Skills Should Forensic Psychologists Develop to Conduct Effective Child Custody Evaluations?
• What Best Practices Should I Follow as a Forensic Psychologist When Conducting Parenting Capacity Assessments (PCAs) in Custody Evaluations?
• Ask Children the Right Questions and Eliminate the Guesswork of 'I Don’t Know'
• Increasing emotional support and rapport building in forensic interviews of child abuse victims