For decades, countless children have become silent casualties of courtroom battles, their voices lost beneath the weight of flawed theories. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), introduced in the 1980s by Richard Gardner, claimed to explain why children rejected one parent during high-conflict custody disputes.
However, the promise of PAS was hollow. It has always been deeply flawed, lacking empirical validity, riddled with gender bias, and dangerously easy to weaponize in courts (Kelly & Johnston, 2001). Instead of uncovering the truth, PAS pathologizes children, turning their pain into a diagnosis rather than revealing the systemic dysfunction, coercion, and psychological manipulation at play (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018).
The DSM rejected PAS due to the lack of sufficient peer-reviewed research, thereby leaving it without clinical credibility (Bernet, von Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010). Courts, therapists, and parents have paid the price for relying on an invalid framework that offers no tools for healing.
The creation of Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA©) has become a clinically grounded, trauma-informed framework for reframing parental alienation:
“The court’s reliance on unsubstantiated allegations, often made by the more persuasive or manipulative parent, can result in the irreversible rupture of a child’s attachment to a once-loved parent. In these scenarios, love becomes weaponized, and the child becomes a casualty of emotional warfare. The outdated framework of PAS failed to protect families in such circumstances.”
Building on the evidence base of attachment science (Bowlby, 1980), trauma-informed care (van der Kolk, 2014), and systemic family theories (Bowen & Kerr, 1988), Dr. Steve Hudgins developed Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA©) to fill the clinical and legal void left by PAS. DPA is grounded in research that identifies coercive alignment and psychological manipulation as forms of family violence (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018).
However, theories and frameworks mean little unless tested in the crucible of real-life courtrooms, where children’s voices are often misunderstood, distorted, or silenced. Without the proper tools to identify manipulation or fear-based alignment, courts risk validating a false narrative, leaving children emotionally severed from a once-loved parent.
Legal Failures That Prove PAS Does Not Work
When the gavel falls, it does not just determine custody; it can sever the very lifeline between a parent and child. Courts often mistake a child’s silence for safety or their words for free will, unaware that fear, loyalty conflicts, or manipulation may have shaped those words. This is not just a legal failure; it is an emotional catastrophe, destroying a bond that once defined love and security.
PAS has failed to protect these bonds, leaving courts without the tools to ask the most important question: Is this the child’s voice or the echo of coercion? This case is not an isolated incident. It highlights a dangerous blind spot in the legal system; one where children’s preferences are accepted at face value, without understanding the psychological forces shaping them.
One of the clearest examples of this blind spot can be found in the legal case Matter of Coull v. Rottman (2015), which demonstrates how easily courts can misinterpret a child’s voice when viewed through the flawed lens of PAS. The case of Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 131 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) highlights the dangers of placing life-altering decisions on the shoulders of a 13-year-old without first examining whether that choice was made freely or under psychological pressure.
In this case, the court gave considerable weight to the wishes of a 13-year-old boy, citing his maturity and consistency in refusing visitation. While this might seem appropriate, the court did not consider whether the child’s preference was influenced by coercive alignment. This failure is not just a legal oversight; it is a misunderstanding of how children in high-conflict environments are shaped by fear, loyalty binds, and subtle manipulation. Without careful evaluation, a child’s voice can become an echo of the conflict rather than an authentic expression of their own needs.
“It was not just the divorce that broke us. It was the courtroom dragging, the false accusations, the fact that I could not defend myself against lies. I lost my daughter not because I failed her, but because the system failed us.” -Bob (Hudgins, 2025).
Developmental research shows that children in high-conflict custody cases are highly susceptible to loyalty conflicts, subtle coaching, or fear-based alignment with one parent (Kelly & Johnston, 2001; Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018). By ignoring these dynamics and failing to order forensic evaluations, the court risked cementing a distorted narrative into a legal order, essentially validating a child’s coerced rejection.
Instead of asking “What is wrong with this child?”, courts must ask, “What has happened to this child and who is influencing this rejection?”
The answer lies not in labeling the child, but in understanding the forces that fracture their attachment. PAS has failed to provide that clarity, but Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA) offers a new path. This lens looks at the broken bonds, the hidden manipulation, and the truth behind a child’s sudden rejection.
From Broken Bonds to Truth: The Rise of Disruptive Parental Attachment
PAS fails because it focuses on the alienated parent rather than the disruption of the child’s attachment, oversimplifies family systems, and lacks both scientific and ethical grounding (Bernet, von Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010; Fidler & Bala, 2020). This failure leaves children unseen, their pain mislabeled instead of understood.
“When kids are caught between two parents, and one parent plays the victim and the hero, the child becomes the soldier in that war. My son was the casualty.” – Carly (Hudgins, 2025).
Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA) is a trauma-informed framework that recognizes the child as a victim of systemic manipulation, coercive alignment, and psychological abuse (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018). DPA does not pathologize the child; it shines a light on the hidden forces that fracture love and trust within families.
These painful realities are not abstract theories; they are the lived experiences of families torn apart by manipulation and systemic failures. The voices of those who have endured this pain reveal the human cost of alienation and underscore the urgent need for DPA.
“My stepdaughter used to light up when she saw me. After the divorce, she acted like I never existed. It was like she had been coached to forget me.” – Sue (Hudgins, 2025).
My forthcoming book, which integrates legal analysis with psychological insights, will provide a definitive framework for understanding and addressing this complex issue. DPA is not a disorder. It is a lens that maps observable behaviors and focuses on the relational rupture rather than pathologizing the child. It acknowledges that when children reject a once-secure parent without substantiated abuse, the root cause is often boundary collapse, triangulation, or coercive control from the aligned caregiver.
No theory or clinical term can capture the raw pain of alienation the way a parent’s voice can. I am always approached by parents who are hurting. Like one parent expressed her pain and the disruption of the parental attachment. Glenda’s words reveal the silent agony and relentless love of a mother fighting to stay connected to her children.
“Being alienated from my children feels like my heart has been torn from my chest, yet it aches with every breath. I wonder constantly—where are they, what pain are they silently carrying that they should never have to bear? The court-ordered times meant to keep us close are twisted to keep us apart, so I wait—hoping, praying—for the moments when they can reach out on their own. When we finally see each other, it takes nearly a day for them to feel safe again, to breathe again, and then all they want is to stay close. I was always there—at every school event, every game, every late-night talk—yet now I am locked out of the milestones that matter most. They live in fear, walking on eggshells, when they should only be worrying about movies, ballgames, and laughter. They know I love them, and I know they love me. Why is that love not enough to let us be together?” – Glenda
Her story is not just her own; it is the unspoken reality of countless parents whose love is tested by systems that fail to see the truth. Stories like Glenda’s reveal why we need a new lens, one that names the invisible wounds left by coercion, fear, and systemic failure. This is where Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA) steps in, not as a diagnosis, but as a framework to uncover the truth hidden beneath a child’s rejection. Alienation does not just shatter the bond between a parent and child; it ripples outward, destabilizing entire mosaic families, as Sophia’s experience shows.
Beyond Biological Bonds: The Forgotten Voices of Mosaic Families
The ripple effects of alienation reach beyond biological parents and children; they impact entire mosaic families. Sophia, a woman without children of her own, married a man who has children from a previous marriage. She shared how alienation has affected her role, her marriage, and her sense of belonging within the family system:
“I never tried to take their mother’s place; I just wanted to love them and support my husband. But when the alienation started, it felt like I was treated as the enemy, even though I had no voice in the conflict. I am often left on the outside, watching my husband’s pain and missing the chance to build real relationships with his kids. The loyalty binds, the constant tension; they don’t just hurt him as a father, they hurt us as a family. I wonder if the children know that I love them too, or if they just see me as another part of the battlefield.” – Sophia (with permission)
Stories like Sophia’s remind us of that alienation tears through every relationship within a mosaic family. It fractures trust, isolates family members, and leaves wounds that go unseen. DPA provides the framework to name and address these hidden dynamics, ensuring that the love and efforts of step-parents, spouses, and extended family members are not dismissed or erased.
I understand her pain because I have felt it too. As a father who lived through alienation, I have stood on both sides of the courtroom; desperate to be heard and determined to protect children. It was this personal journey that inspired me to create Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA), a framework not born from theory alone, but from the scars and love of a parent who refused to give up.
Alienation does not end with one generation; it becomes a destructive pattern that ripples through families like a silent inheritance. A child who learns to reject and vilify a parent may one day repeat the same cycle, alienating that parent from their own grandchildren.
This is not just a momentary rupture; it is a learned behavior, a toxic legacy that fractures families for decades. Without intervention, the child’s loyalty conflicts and internalized anger can transform into a generational wound, passed on like a curse.
What DPA Describes
Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA) describes a clinically observed rupture in a child’s attachment to a once loved and safe parent, which occurs without substantiated abuse or neglect, and is typically the result of systemic manipulation, psychological triangulation, or coercive alignment by another caregiver or family member. To truly grasp the impact of DPA, we must look beyond definitions and into the tangible signs of disrupted attachment.
Key Points About DPA
- A Pattern, Not a Disorder
DPA is not a mental illness or pathology within the child. Instead, it describes a relational disruption caused by unhealthy family dynamics (e.g., DSM-5-TR code Z62.820). - The Child as Victim
The child is not the problem, but the casualty of coercive behaviors, loyalty conflicts, and emotional manipulation, often used as weapons during custody disputes or high-conflict divorces (e.g., DSM-5-TR code Z62.820). - Observable Behaviors
DPA focuses on behavioral and emotional indicators (e.g., sudden rejection of a loving parent, extreme loyalty to one parent, unwarranted fear or hatred toward the other) that cannot be explained by actual abuse or neglect (e.g., DSM-5-TR code V995.51). - A Trauma-Informed Lens
DPA is grounded in trauma theory and attachment science, recognizing that this rupture is a form of psychological abuse (e.g., DSM-5-TR code V995.51). - Legal & Clinical Application
It provides language and a framework for courts, therapists, and evaluators to differentiate between legitimate estrangement (due to abuse) and coercive alienation (due to manipulation) (Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 2015; DSM-5-TR code V995.51 and Z62.820)
Definition of Disruptive Parental Attachment
Dr. Hudgins describes DPA as: Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA) is a trauma-informed, clinically grounded framework that identifies the observable rupture of a child’s bond with a once-safe and loving parent. Unlike outdated concepts such as PAS, DPA recognizes that this rejection occurs in the absence of substantiated abuse and is most often the result of psychological manipulation, coercive alignment, or boundary collapse within the caregiving environment. It shifts the focus from blaming the child to exposing the relational harm and coercive dynamics that fracture families.
Why DPA Outperforms PAS
While PAS pathologizes the child’s rejection as part of a “syndrome,” it fails to address the underlying relational harm and coercive dynamics that lead to that rejection. DPA shifts the focus outward, examining the systemic patterns of manipulation, fear, and loyalty conflicts that distort attachment.
By uncovering these dynamics, DPA provides actionable insights for courts and clinicians to recognize when a child’s rejection is coerced, enabling interventions that restore safety and trust.
Unlike PAS, DPA:
- Centers the child’s lived experience rather than blaming them.
- Integrates DSM-5-TR codes (e.g., V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Z62.820 Parent-Child Relational Problem) for clinical credibility.
- Recognizes alienating behaviors as family violence (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018).
- Equips courts and clinicians with actionable language and behavioral criteria to separate genuine estrangement (due to abuse) from coercive alienation caused by manipulation
The Call for Reform
I have seen, time and again, how warring parents weaponize children like pawns on a chessboard, and every time, the child loses. This is not just a legal failure; it is a human one. Children need the stability and love of both parents, unless there is substantiated abuse, because loyalty conflicts and emotional manipulation leave invisible scars that last a lifetime.
Courts must stop relying on outdated frameworks like PAS and adopt trauma-informed models such as DPA that expose manipulation, hold the right people accountable, and prioritize the child’s emotional health.
As I wrote:
“Being dragged into court repeatedly, not for abuse or neglect, but for trying to remain present in my child’s life, revealed to me the deeply flawed nature of a system that too often rewards the loudest, not the healthiest. DPA was born to change that narrative.”
Conclusion
PAS is a failed concept. It has misled courts, silenced protective parents, and left children emotionally scarred. DPA is not merely a replacement; it is an essential evolution; one that delivers ethical clarity, clinical grounding, and a trauma-informed approach to one of the most misunderstood crises of our time.
I do not write these words as a distant observer. I am a father who lived through alienation, a man who walked away from a successful engineering career to become a therapist, and an advocate who earned a doctorate in community counseling to better understand and heal fractured families. My work reframed the very language of family, introducing the concept of Mosaic Families to honor the complexity, individuality, and resilience of modern homes.
My forthcoming book on DPA weaves together legal analysis, clinical research, and personal narrative to create a roadmap for protecting children and restoring the integrity of the court system.
Every child deserves the love of both parents, free from manipulation and coercion. If you believe our courts must do better, share this article and join the movement to replace outdated PAS frameworks with trauma-informed solutions like DPA. Together, we can ensure that no child becomes the next silent casualty. It is time for professionals, courts, and families to recognize these destructive patterns and fight for frameworks like DPA that protect the sacred bonds of family. Every voice matters, and change begins when we refuse to stay silent
References
- American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.
- Bernet, W., von Boch-Galhau, W., Baker, A. J. L., & Morrison, S. L. (2010). Parental alienation, DSM-V, and ICD-11. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(2), 76–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180903586583
- Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. Basic Books.
- Bowen, M., & Kerr, M. E. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. W. W. Norton & Company.
- Fidler, B. J., & Bala, N. (2020). Concepts, controversies, and conundrums of “alienation”: Lessons learned in a decade and reflections on challenges ahead. Family Court Review, 58(2), 576–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12488
- Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000175
- Hudgins, S. (2025). A hermeneutical phenomenological study exploring divorce in blended families (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
- Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00609.x
- Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 131 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).
- van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
© 2025 Dr. Steve Hudgins. All rights reserved.