Proponents Bear the Burden of Proof

Abstract

Richard Gardner claimed to be able to diagnose parental alienation among contentious parents disputing custody, and asserted that his “syndrome” is supported by scientific and legal authority. Despite influencing many custody proceedings, Gardner's ideas fail to meet even minimal scientific standards. The burden of proving any new hypothesis falls on its proponents, and given the complete absence of objective replication, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) must be viewed as nothing more than a hypothesis. The lack of clear guidance in the law allows concepts like PAS to gain temporary credibility, as judges look to mental health professionals for help in making decisions under the vague best interests standard.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.