Official Statement from One Mom’s Battle: Disavowing the Term “Parental Alienation”

Official Statement from One Mom’s Battle: Disavowing the Term “Parental Alienation” and it’s associated terminologies:

At One Mom’s Battle (OMB), we stand committed to advocating for the safety and well-being of those affected by domestic violence. In light of the uptick of discussions regarding the term “parental alienation” and the UN report titled, Custody, Violence against Women and Violence against Children, we feel it is imperative to clarify our position on this terminology, which we believe is harmful and misleading.

We urge all members of our community to refrain from using the term “alienation” or it's rebranded terminologies (alienation, parental alienation syndrome, resist-refuse dynamic or parentification). These words have become divisive forces within the domestic violence community, and such division is counterproductive to our shared mission.

The term is often weaponized by abusers, serving as a convenient and wickedly strategic defense to deflect responsibility for their harmful behaviors. As attorney Richard Ducote aptly stated, “Alienation is the only 'disease' diagnosed by lawyers,” highlighting its dubious origins and the dangers it poses to protective parents and their children.

The concept of parental alienation emerged from the work of Richard Gardner, a disgraced psychiatrist whose theories have been widely discredited, researched and criticized for facilitating the manipulation of family court systems by abusers. Accusations of alienation often shift the blame (DARVO) onto the protective parent, obscuring the real issues of abuse and dysfunction at play. Equally disturbing is the fact that a dark but lucrative industry grew from the seed planted by Gardner. Disciples of Gardner, also known as the “alienation industry,” have turned childhood trauma into revenue streams.

Rebranding the pseudo-theory of “parental alienation” enables dishonest individuals posing as family court professionals to evade accountability and profit from a well-organized scheme that exploits childhood trauma. These so-called “professionals” force children into relationships with rejected parents, disregarding the children's autonomy and often placing them in abusive situations.

We acknowledge the painful reality that some children are manipulated against a healthy parent by a toxic individual. However, the use of the term “alienation” not only undermines the gravity of these situations but also aligns with the agenda of the Father’s Rights movement, which seeks to diminish the experiences and voices of children and protective parents, particularly mothers.

We implore our community to focus on the behaviors and patterns that truly impact children, rather than perpetuating a term that has become synonymous with discredited theories and harmful practices. If a descriptor is necessary, we encourage the use of “CAMS” or “domestic violence by proxy,” as it more accurately reflects the abusive dynamics at play without endorsing dangerous terminology.

At OMB, we stand against the use of the term “parental alienation.” By doing so, we strengthen our collective efforts to support vulnerable families and advocate for their rights in a meaningful way. Let us unite in our commitment to protecting children and ensuring that our advocacy remains grounded in truth and compassion.

In solidarity,

Tina Swithin