8 Comments
User's avatar
Jill Jones-Soderman, FCVFC.org's avatar

THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING THIS CRITICAL ISSUE!

JJS

Richard Luthmann's avatar

This is law without science, power without accountability. Gardner's "marketing" theory, rejected by the medical community, somehow thrives in courtrooms because it serves a purpose—it protects abusers and punishes resistance. Once “alienation” is invoked, evidence stops mattering. The child’s voice is dismissed, the protective parent is labeled, and the outcome is locked in. That’s not justice—it’s a rigged system wearing a robe. And the deeper problem? It’s self-sustaining. Experts, evaluators, and courts all reinforce the same narrative because the system depends on it. Strip away the jargon, and what’s left is chilling: institutionalized harm, justified by fiction.

Dean Pappas's avatar

A science created by a child abuser who took his own life based only his person experiences. It's a fraud.

Thank you for posting.

Sublime Life's avatar

Excellently explained. Let all who read this understand that these cases are not anomalies, but standard operating procedures for the grifters and perpetrators of family court.

Soulsnatcher's avatar

No parent should ever have to write their child’s obituary.

It’s a sentence that should not exist. A pain no one should be forced to carry.

Today, we stand not just in grief, but in defiance—

to make sure no other parent is pushed into that reality.

Because I did.

And that truth doesn’t fade. It doesn’t soften. It doesn’t go away.

So I will speak.

I will stand.

I will fight—

so one day, no parent has to write those words again.

Frank's avatar

Custodial mothers poison their children against their fathers all the time., That is the reality of parental alientaion.

Arian's avatar

If the courts reject the term, parent alienation, you can use other language, like gatekeeping or behaviors describing the alienation let’s get smarter