Parental Alienation Discredited as Unscientific ‘Nazi Theory’
By Natalie Page, Founder of #thecourtsaid, the campaign for survivor family justice.
In September 2020, a letter* emerged from Dubravka Šimonović, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, and Elizabeth Broderick, UN President/Rapporteur of the working group on discrimination against women and girls, detailing the removal of a child from her mother, ordered in Bizkaia, Spain. The 8-year-old girl had been snatched by a team of police, private security agents and social workers.
Anyone who has witnessed a police removal of a child from their home will be aware this type of removal is conducted with similar tactics as dawn raids. Except in children’s cases, they are not apprehending dangerous criminals, they are removing children from their parents, usually on the order of a family court judge. During a ‘raid style’ removal, the police’s preferred tactic is to take children from their beds. This is to ensure a child is sleepy and disorientated, in the hope of decreased resistance. Those who have witnessed these brutal removals will know that even confused and tired children will resist it with every fibre of their being. Many children in this situation will do anything to escape it. Because being a child outnumbered by around 8 uniformed (sometimes armed) officers is horrifically frightening.
Police act on these types of family court orders in relation to children in the same way all over the world, including the UK. During these terrifying raid-style removals, out of desperation, the child will often make an attempt at escape, even if that is through a third-floor window or by hurling themselves down a flight of stairs. Imagine being a child faced that immediate threat to your life, occurring whilst you sleep in your bed. Now imagine being a child being subjected to that on the request of your own father.
Dubravka Šimonović’s letter describes the impossible predicament of Mrs Costumero and her 8-year-old daughter. Accused of manipulation by the father, an alleged domestic abuser, she had felt the full force of the state’s disproportionate reaction to the parental alienation dog whistle. It’s well known that the common defence used by those accused of domestic abuse or child abuse is parental alienation. The narrative is uniformly misused in courtrooms around the globe, by perpetrators who wish to manipulate those investigating allegations of abuse. It is a purely weaponised response. Šimonović states that the child was also subject to suspected physical abuse at the hands of her father, detailing three abuse referrals had been made to the Cruces hospital in Bizkaia for injuries the child had sustained whilst in her father’s care.
It led to Spain prohibiting the use of unscientific theory in children’s cases recently, effectively banning parental alienation as a defence.
However, the response varies around the world to the use of unscientific theory in children’s cases. Spain heard how judicial and social work decisions and interpretation of legislation were clouded by prejudices and stereotypes. This poor understanding led to an explosion in the use of misogynistic narratives like parental alienation, otherwise known as ‘malevolent mother syndrome’ or ‘implacable hostility’ in custody disputes, with chilling outcomes for children.
Italy’s highest court followed suit, recently ruling that “manipulation cannot be scientifically proven and therefore the representation of children’s will as manipulated does not fall into any legal category”. The judge had homed in on the methods used by parental alienation proponents in the judgement. The theory was dubbed ‘Nazi Theory’ because it is more concerned with the "perpetrator type" which is a German legal term that refers to a theory that emerged in 1940’s Nazi Germany and is based on the idea that one is not so much concerned with the act itself, rather how the person can be punished for the act. In this particular case, the mother was not punished by the Venetian court because she was an 'inadequate mother' or an unsafe parent, but because of prejudice and hostility against women that parental alienation theory so uniquely plays into. This is the narrative that views all mothers with hostile suspicion, and ensures children’s disclosures of abuse are taken with a pinch of salt.
Lawyer Voltaggio pointed out in this Italian article about the case that "The mother, to put it more clearly, could not see her daughter for months without committing a crime, only because she was a woman who was not very subservient to CTU and the judiciary". The state treated her unjustly and they punished her dissent, rather than addressing the injustice that allowed this to happen.
In recent years, a vast network of those with a stake in the parental alienation narrative have been lobbying and creating an ever-expanding list of possible crimes that (primarily) mothers may be punished for. These crimes include a flicker of a facial micro-expression, or not being utterly enthralled by your ex-partners parenting. If there is evidence or children’s disclosures of abuse, they assert this is evidence of alienation. They routinely advocate forceful and draconian methods such as the raid style removal of children to demonstrate the courts and (usually) the father’s authority. This is how a safe mother most often loses the children to an abusive father. They shamelessly target those talking about domestic abuse, because their livelihood depends on abuse allegations being twisted using this theory. This network, whilst ruining lives, has spawned a multi-million-dollar industry. This industry relies on victims continued subjugation.
International developments like these progressive and well thought through judgements from Spain and Italy must be learnt from elsewhere. Currently in Ireland, it’s emerged that the family court, who preside over approximately 12,000 cases a year, have no idea how many sexually abused children have been forced to live with or have contact with the perpetrator of that abuse. The Irish parental alienation lobby have managed to persuade Irelands council’s almost unanimously in their formal recognition of the discredited theory. In England and Wales, similar gains have been made. The notion of this weaponised ‘Nazi Theory’ defence has been firmly embedded in the last document it should have been; our Domestic Abuse Act.
*The Letter has been translated by the Centre for Social Injustice who critically disseminates the PA lobby and its influence on financial policies that harm women and children.