Introduction
Parental alienation has emerged as one of the most heart-wrenching dilemmas in South African family law, surfacing with alarming frequency in high-conflict divorces and custody battles. At its core, parental alienation describes a systematic campaign by one parent to erode a child’s natural bond with the other—planting seeds of unwarranted fear, resentment or outright rejection. In recent years our courts have come to recognise that, far from a mere tussle over time-sharing, severe alienating conduct can constitute emotional abuse, inflicting enduring harm on a child’s psychological development and sense of security. Yet, despite its gravity, parental alienation remains legally nebulous: there is no dedicated statute, no bespoke rule in the Uniform Rules of Court, and no explicit provision in the Children’s Act that names it. Instead, judges and practitioners have had to draw upon broad principles—the constitutional mandate that a child’s best interests are paramount, the Children’s Act factors favouring meaningful relationships with both parents, and the courts’ inherent power as parens patriae—to fill the gaps.
This article offers a deep dive into parental alienation in the South African milieu. We begin by unpacking its psychological roots—contrasting the well-known Parental Alienation Syndrome model with modern attachment-based frameworks—before turning to the legal architecture: the best-interests standard, parental responsibilities and rights, and a survey of the landmark judgments that have shaped our jurisprudence. Building on that foundation, we map out the practical toolkit available to litigants—from urgent interim relief and Family Advocate inquiries to expert assessments, parenting coordinators and enforcement mechanisms.
No jurisdiction exists in isolation, so we then cast our gaze abroad, comparing South Africa’s approach with that of the United Kingdom, United States and Australia: highlighting shared remedies, divergent procedures and particularly instructive innovations. Finally, we critique our current system—its ad hoc nature, resource constraints, risk of misdiagnosis and the drag of protracted litigation—and propose a suite of reforms drawing on both domestic experience and international best practices.
By weaving together psychological insight, robust case analysis and comparative perspectives, this article aims to equip family-law practitioners, judges and policymakers with a clear, holistic blueprint for confronting parental alienation—and, above all, for safeguarding the fundamental right of every South African child to maintain a loving, balanced relationship with both parents.
Understanding Parental Alienation: Definition and Psychological Underpinnings
At its most basic, parental alienation occurs when one parent deliberately poisons a child’s perception of the other, transforming a once-secure bond into unfounded fear, hostility or rejection. Richard Gardner first coined the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in the 1980s, describing a constellation of behaviours in which a child is systematically coached to denigrate, distance themselves from, or even reject the targeted parent. Although Gardner’s PAS model remains influential, its status as a formal diagnosis has long been debated. What is no longer in dispute—among psychologists and the courts alike—is that when a parent’s manipulative conduct drives a child’s unwarranted estrangement, the result is a form of psychological abuse that can scar the child’s emotional development for life.
A crucial first step in any legal or therapeutic response is to distinguish true alienation from justified estrangement. If a child’s reluctance to see a parent stems from genuine abuse, neglect or other legitimate safety concerns, it cannot be labelled “alienation.” Flourishing jurisprudence in South Africa has therefore emphasised the role of independent expert assessment to sift out valid fears from those implanted by a parent’s malign influence.
Attachment-Based Parental Alienation (AB-PA) offers a modern, clinically robust lens through which to view this phenomenon. Developed by Dr Craig Childress, AB-PA reframes parental alienation not as an exotic new syndrome, but as a pathogenic disruption of the child’s attachment system—one recognised in DSM-5 as V995.51, child psychological abuse. Under this model, an “allied” parent (often exhibiting narcissistic or borderline traits) weaponises the child’s innate need for secure attachment by implanting a shared persecutory delusion: the child comes to believe, without evidence, that the “targeted” parent is dangerous or unloving. This alliance effectively severs the child’s natural bond, meeting the allied parent’s emotional needs—be they vindictive, controlling or custody-minded—at the expense of the child’s well-being.
Childress’s framework integrates insights from multiple psychological domains:
Attachment Theory: sees the child’s abrupt, irrational rejection as a collapse of the secure base that all caregivers provide.
Family Systems Therapy: highlights how triangulation and cross-generational coalitions draw the child into the parents’ conflict, distorting family roles.
Personality Disorders: identifies the allied parent’s own pathology (e.g. narcissism, borderline features) as the driving force behind the abuse.
Complex Trauma: parallels the ongoing emotional injury to trauma models, such as those described by Bessel van der Kolk.
Delusional Disorder: underscores the factitious, persecutory beliefs forced upon the child, akin to shared psychosis.
Unlike Gardner’s PAS—which Childress critiques for lacking empirical rigour and for positing a new psychiatric “syndrome”—AB-PA rests entirely on existing DSM-5 criteria and demands a differential diagnosis. Before concluding alienation, professionals must exclude genuine abuse by the targeted parent. Only when all three of Childress’s core diagnostic indicators are present can one be confident of pathological alienation:
Attachment Suppression: the child abruptly withholds normal affection and refuses comforting gestures from a previously loving parent.
Child-Exhibited Pathology: the child manifests narcissistic, haughty or phobic traits toward the targeted parent that are incongruent with the parent’s actual behaviour.
Persecutory Delusion: the child holds a fixed, false belief that the targeted parent intends harm, despite a lack of supporting evidence.
Supplemented by a set of twelve associated clinical signs, this diagnostic checklist guides evaluators in preparing thorough, ethically sound reports for court. While some critics argue AB-PA’s emphasis on parental pathology can feel stark or polarising, Childress insists that ignoring these indicators only perpetuates the child’s trauma—and undermines both professional ethics and the child’s fundamental right to a balanced family life.
Regardless of which model one employs, mental-health experts agree on a core truth: a child’s sudden, extreme rejection of a once-caring parent is never self-generated, but the product either of real harm or of orchestrated manipulation. Courts and practitioners must therefore probe every claim with both psychological acumen and legal precision, ensuring the response protects the child’s welfare rather than punishing the wrong parent.
Lack of Guilt and Spreading Animosity: One of the most striking hallmarks of parental alienation is the child’s absence of remorse when cutting off or even mistreating the previously cherished parent. Rather than experiencing guilt, the child may eagerly adopt the alienator’s negative narratives—directed not only at the targeted parent but sometimes at that parent’s wider family network. This unchecked hostility often extends to grandparents, aunts or uncles, amplifying the circle of emotional damage.
In B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (Limpopo Division), the Family Advocate’s report sounded the alarm on precisely this dynamic. The mother had repeatedly bad-mouthed the father in the children’s presence and excluded him from decisions about their therapy. As a result, the children began parroting irrational accusations—complete with language that betrayed the mother’s framing rather than their own experience. One child even confided feeling torn between “loyalty” to her mother and “betrayal” of her father, clear evidence of coaching rather than genuine distress. Acting Judge Mangena observed that, left unaddressed, this pattern “quickly calcifies into entrenched animus,” because time itself cements the alienator’s narrative. The judgment emphasised that courts must move rapidly to interrupt these dynamics before the child’s negative beliefs harden into near-irreversible perceptions.
Psychological Impact on Children: Empirical research and clinical practice agree that parental alienation inflicts psychological abuse and trauma comparable to other forms of maltreatment. Children exposed to alienating tactics often resort to splitting, a defence mechanism in which they rigidly classify one parent as “all good” and the other as “all bad.” This extreme black-and-white thinking undermines their capacity for balanced relationships later in life.
Under the umbrella of complex trauma, these children frequently develop:
Chronic Anxiety & Depression: A persistent dread of “doing wrong,” fearful of displeasing the favoured parent.
Identity Confusion: Internalising the message that half of their own self is unacceptable or “dangerous.”
Low Self-Esteem: Equating rejection of a parent with personal unworthiness.
PTSD-Like Symptoms: Intrusive thoughts, hypervigilance, and avoidance behaviours.
In S v S [2020] JOL 46685 (GJ), the Johannesburg High Court went so far as to declare that proven parental alienation “amounts to emotional abuse” of the child. The Constitutional Court has likewise underscored the state’s duty to safeguard children’s mental health and stable relationships—a duty directly infringed when one parent weaponises the other.
At its worst, alienation culminates in complete estrangement—the child severs ties with a loving parent, leaving a legacy of complicated grief and bereavement. Mental-health experts warn of inter-generational transmission: without timely intervention, an alienated child may unconsciously replay the same patterns of manipulation and relational breakdown in their own future families.
Crucially, however, none of these symptoms—no matter how severe—can standalone prove alienation. A child’s reluctance to see a parent must be rigorously examined to discern whether it reflects genuine fear or manufactured aversion. That is why multidisciplinary expert evaluation—by psychologists, social workers and family assessors—remains indispensable. As Dr Childress reminds us, only a careful differential diagnosis can separate authentic abuse from Attachment-Based Parental Alienation, ensuring the child’s true needs guide the court’s response rather than untested assumptions.
South Africa’s Legal Framework: Best Interests of the Child and Judicial Recognition of Alienation
Best Interests Principle: South Africa’s legal approach to any dispute involving children is governed first and foremost by the best interests of the child standard, enshrined in Section 28(2) of the Constitution and given effect through the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The Children’s Act does not mention “parental alienation” by name, but it provides broad factors for courts to consider in determining a child’s best interests (Section 7). These include the nature of the child’s relationship with each parent, the effect of any change in care, and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm (which would include harm from abuse, neglect, or exposure to “ill-treatment”). Importantly, the Act also emphasises that a child has the right to maintain personal relations with both parents, except when contact with a particular parent would be contrary to the child’s best interests. In practice, courts interpret this to mean that unjustified obstruction of the child’s relationship with a parent runs afoul of the child’s welfare. The principle of parental responsibilities and rights (Section 18 of the Children’s Act) implies a duty on each co-holder of parental rights to facilitate the other’s involvement, not frustrate it. Thus, while the term “parental alienation” is not codified, alienating conduct is actionable as being inconsistent with the child’s best interests and potentially abusive. Childress’s AB-PA model aligns with Section 7 of the Children’s Act by classifying alienating conduct as pathogenic parenting that exploits the child’s attachment system, amounting to abuse and warranting intervention to protect against psychological harm.
South African case law has increasingly reflected this understanding. In S v S the court confronted allegations that a mother had alienated a minor child from the father. The judgment stressed that if proved, such conduct causes serious emotional harm to the child and could warrant a change in custody to protect the child’s welfare. The court in S v S highlighted that the child’s right to a relationship with both parents must be safeguarded unless contact with a parent poses a risk – echoing the principle that a parent’s deliberate interference in that relationship is anathema to the child’s interests. Similarly, in D v G (T.L.D v B.G) [2023] ZAGPJHC 801, Adams J described PAS as having a detrimental effect on a child’s psychological and mental well-being, affirming that a court “should not hesitate to intervene in the interest of the minor child” when confronted with clear alienation. In that case, the alienating parent’s behaviour was deemed so harmful that the court temporarily deprived the parent of contact with the child pending therapeutic intervention. These cases exemplify the judiciary’s recognition that parental alienation directly implicates the constitutional injunction that a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child.
Judicial Recognition in Case Law
Over the past decade, South African courts have moved from tentative grappling with parental alienation to a mature, interventionist stance—willing to name the phenomenon, demand rigorous proof, and deploy robust remedies when alienating conduct is established. This evolution reflects two interwoven threads: a deepening reliance on expert evidence to separate authentic estrangement from manufactured aversion, and a growing judicial appetite to exercise their parens patriae authority swiftly when a child’s emotional welfare is at stake.
A leading example is the Eastern Cape High Court’s decision in M.D v L.N (3051/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 4. In that matter, the father alleged that after separation the mother had systematically “poisoned” the children against him—turning them into unwitting agents of her hostility. The court appointed Dr Le Roux, an independent clinical psychologist, to conduct a full forensic assessment. Her report painted a textbook case of alienation: the children had absorbed the mother’s narrative so completely that they viewed their father as a “cruel, untrustworthy figure,” exhibiting no ambivalence despite having previously enjoyed a loving bond. Crucially, Dr Le Roux found no evidence of actual abuse by the father—confirming that the children’s fears were induced rather than grounded in reality.
Acting Judge Rossi embraced Dr Le Roux’s findings in full. Observing that the expert’s conclusions were undisputed, impartial and logically consistent, the court held that urgent judicial intervention was required to “rescue” the children from a worsening psychological crisis. In a striking departure from routine custody adjustments, the High Court:
Transferred primary residence and care from the mother (the alleged alienator) to the father (the alienated parent);
Imposed supervised contact for the mother pending restorative therapy, to prevent further harm;
Mandated therapeutic interventions for all parties—mandating psychotherapy for the mother, family therapy for the children, and ongoing reports to the court;
Appointed a parenting coordinator to oversee compliance, manage day-to-day disputes, and ease the transition;
Ordered a punitive costs award against the mother, condemning her litigation tactics as contrary to the children’s best interests.
This landmark ruling exemplifies the modern South African approach:
Proof before punishment—courts will not brandish the “alienation” label without independent expert corroboration;
Decisive, child-centred remedies—from supervised contact to custody transfers;
Integrated therapeutic planning—linking legal orders with mental-health interventions;
Enforcement through costs and coordination—underscoring that parental responsibilities carry real consequences.
By aligning its findings with Childress’s differential-diagnosis principle—excluding genuine abuse before concluding induced pathology—M.D v L.N stands as a powerful testament to how expert-driven, constitutionally grounded adjudication can restore a child’s fractured family ties and affirm the courts’ role as the ultimate guardians of minors’ welfare.
In D, T.E. v G, B [2023] ZAGPJHC 801, the Johannesburg High Court confronted one of the clearest manifestations of parental alienation yet: an 8-year-old boy caught in what the court termed a “psychologically chaotic warzone” between his parents. The mother’s urgent application led to the appointment of both a curator ad litem—to advocate the child’s best interests—and Mr Carr, an independent child psychologist, whose report described the boy’s mindset as teetering on a folie à deux, or shared delusion. Under the father’s influence, the child had internalised a wholly unfounded belief that his mother and maternal grandparents posed a real threat—“the very definition of Parental Alienation Syndrome,” as the court observed.
Earlier mediation and therapeutic efforts had only deepened the conflict, prompting the judge to take the extraordinary step of protective separation. For an initial period of three months, the father was granted no-contact, while the child underwent intensive, attachment-focused therapy designed to dismantle the implanted hostility and rekindle a healthy mother-child bond. Only after mental-health professionals certified the boy’s readiness would supervised reintroduction begin—under strict safeguards to prevent a relapse into alienation.
In the interim, the mother was awarded sole parental rights and full residence, notwithstanding a pre-existing joint‐custody order. This dramatic interim rearrangement—normally unthinkable—was justified squarely on the child’s best-interests, the court holding that the boy’s expressed desire to remain with the father could not be relied upon, given it was the product of pathogenic parenting rather than free will.
The order further mandated:
Reconstruction therapy for the child, focusing on repairing the ruptured attachment;
Co-parenting coaching for the father, to recalibrate his approach and prevent future alienation;
Family counselling to rebuild the broader mother-child relationship.
By echoing Childress’s AB-PA framework—particularly the notion of a shared persecutory delusion—the court crafted a remedy that was as therapeutic as it was legal. This case stands as a stark reminder that, when expert evidence confirms induced psychopathology, South African courts will not shrink from radical but necessary interventions to restore a child’s fractured family bonds.
Not every claim of parental alienation demands an immediate custody overhaul. When the corrosive effects are still nascent, South African courts have shown a willingness to deploy proactive, proportionate interventions aimed at halting the slide before the child’s loyalty barriers harden. A prime example is B.P.M v J.L.M [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (Limpopo Division).
There, the father approached the court under Rule 43(6), alleging the mother was subtly eroding his relationship with their young children—excluding him from key decisions such as the children’s therapeutic care and making disparaging remarks in their presence. The Family Advocate’s report warned that such behaviour, though less overt than outright hostility, risked “poisoning” the children’s affection over time. Drawing on psychological insights the judge recognised that delay only entrenches the alienator’s narrative.
Rather than await a full trial, the court took swift interim action:
Expanded Contact: the father’s visitation was increased to include alternating long weekends and mid-week sessions, a practical solution leveraging the parents’ shared property to minimise logistical hurdles and maximise parent–child time.
Forensic Psychological Assessment: an independent psychologist, appointed via the Health Professions Council, was tasked with conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the children’s best interests—ensuring that any final order would rest on a solid foundation of expert evidence.
Emphasis on Early Warning Signs: the judgment explicitly cited the risk factors highlighted by Childress—such as the children parroting adult grievances (“borrowed narratives”) and displaying all-or-nothing attitudes toward their father (a hallmark of attachment suppression)—to justify the urgency of intervention.
Importantly, the court used its order not only to recalibrate contact but also to signal that prolonged, adversarial interim litigation could compound harm. The judgment rebuked both parents—and by extension their legal teams—for indulging in sprawling affidavits and procedural skirmishes that distracted from the children’s welfare. It urged a child-centric ethos, encouraging mediation, collaborative parenting plans and respectful conduct over combative brinkmanship.
B.P.M v J.L.M illustrates a middle path: one that leverages the courts’ inherent authority to “arrest the dynamic” of alienation early, while reserving final custody decisions for a later stage once expert assessments and, ideally, therapeutic efforts have had time to work. By coupling measured legal adjustments with multi-disciplinary input, South African courts can nip emerging alienation in the bud—protecting the child’s right to meaningful relationships with both parents without resorting prematurely to drastic custody shifts.
Not every refusal by a child to see a parent signals parental alienation. Our courts proceed with deliberate caution, demanding clear proof before imposing draconian remedies. Y.S v S.S (9895/25) [2025] ZAWCHC 125 (WCC) illustrates this nuance.
Allegations on Both Sides
The father claimed the mother had turned their 13-year-old daughter against him. The mother counter-alleged that the child’s reluctance stemmed from the father’s own abusive conduct—he faced criminal charges for physical and verbal assault, according to the child.
Children’s Court Intervention
Initially, the Children’s Court ordered a psychologist’s inquiry into possible alienation and restricted the father to supervised contact pending the outcome.
High Court’s “Complex” Assessment
When the father urgently sought a new expert and unsupervised visits, Thulare J described the dispute as “complex,” not reducible to a simple claim of alienation.
Key findings included:
Both parents had drawn the child into their conflict—“toxic adult politics.”
The mother had, at times, encouraged contact, even physically escorting the child to see the father (albeit unsuccessfully).
The child’s refusal, while firm, showed signs of legitimate fear rather than unilateral coaching.
Decision to Defer to Ongoing Therapy
The High Court refused to replace the court-appointed psychologist or accelerate more contact. Instead, it endorsed the existing therapeutic process, recognising that:
An older child’s autonomy and preferences warrant weight when untainted by manipulation.
Abrupt changes risk exacerbating trauma if genuine abuse concerns remain unresolved.
Thulare J’s judgment underscores several principles:
Rigorous Expert Scrutiny: Allegations of alienation must be tested against possible justifications—true abuse must be ruled out first (per APA Standard 2.01 on competence).
Measured, “Go-Slow” Remedies: Supervised visits and continued therapy may be preferable to dramatic custody shifts when facts are deeply contested.
Child’s Voice and Representation: The child had a Legal Aid attorney, ensuring her concerns were heard independently of parental agendas.
South African courts treat parental alienation not as a one-size-fits-all problem but as existing along a continuum of severity, tailoring their interventions accordingly. At the extreme end—where expert evidence confirms that one parent’s conduct amounts to clear psychological abuse—judges have ordered immediate custody transfers, no-contact directives, and mandatory therapeutic programmes (as seen in M.D v L.N). In situations where alienating behaviours are emerging but not yet entrenched, the courts have favoured calibrated interim relief: increasing supervised visitation, appointing forensic psychologists to assess the children’s best interests, and closely monitoring the family dynamic (as in B.P.M v J.L.M). And where the child’s resistance may stem from a genuine mix of fear, past harm or possible influence, the judiciary has adopted a cautious, go-slow approach—continuing therapy, maintaining supervised contact and deferring to the insights of the appointed experts rather than imposing dramatic custody changes (illustrated by Y.S v S.S). In every scenario, the unchanging imperative is the child’s best interests, guiding courts to strike a careful balance between the urgency of halting further harm and the necessity of basing their orders on robust, reliable evidence and the child’s own free-from-influence views.
Practical Litigation Strategies and Remedies in Parental Alienation Cases
Addressing parental alienation demands a blend of legal muscle and therapeutic insight. South African courts have developed a toolkit of finely tuned remedies, deploying more or less forceful measures depending on how far the alienation has progressed and what the family’s specific needs are.
Early Intervention through Urgent Interim Relief
Time is the alienator’s greatest ally—every day of unchallenged bad-mouthing, exclusion and coaching allows distorted perceptions to take root. Accordingly, parties frequently invoke Rule 43 (pending divorce) or urgent High Court and Children’s Court applications to secure interim orders that hit pause on further damage. In M.D v L.N, the father obtained a rule nisi ordering a prompt psychological investigation and Family Advocate report, alongside immediate supervised contact, rather than waiting for final trial dates. Likewise, in D v G, the mother’s Rule 6(12) application suspended the father’s unsupervised visits and brought in a curator and expert, with the court expressly condoning deviations from procedural formalities in light of the child’s welfare. Such interim orders can mandate supervised visitation, require both parents and children to attend therapy, or—in cases like B.P.M v J.L.M—expand the targeted parent’s pendente lite contact to counteract subtle alienation. By stabilising the status quo and generating fresh expert evidence, these measures set the stage for a more informed and final resolution.
Family Advocate Inquiries and Section 33 Conferences
The Family Advocate’s office plays a central, quasi-judicial role in many alienation disputes. Appointed under the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987, Family Advocates—often supported by social workers or counsellors—conduct holistic interviews, observe family interactions and prepare a neutral report on the children’s best interests. Although not binding, courts regard these findings with “qualified deference,” as Judge Mangena emphasised in B.P.M v J.L.M. There, the Advocate’s recommendation for a structured co-parenting plan and concerns about the mother’s negative influence shaped the interim order. Beyond reports, courts may invoke Section 33 to convene parenting-plan conferences or instruct the Family Advocate to help draft plans that explicitly forbid denigrating the other parent. The mere prospect of a Family Advocate inquiry often prompts intransigent parents to recalibrate their conduct, injecting an early, expert-driven mediation and monitoring presence into the dispute.
Together, these strategies—swift interim relief and Family Advocate engagement—illustrate the courts’ commitment to combining legal authority with psychological expertise to protect children from the corrosive effects of parental alienation.
Expert Evidence (Psychologists & Psychiatrists
When parental alienation is alleged, South African courts almost invariably call upon independent mental-health professionals to cut through competing narratives and discern the child’s true experience. Whether a child psychologist, social worker, or even a psychiatrist, these experts deploy a suite of tools—clinical interviews, play-based observations, standardised psychological testing and collateral interviews with teachers or caregivers—to determine whether a child’s rejection of a parent springs from undue influence or from legitimate safety concerns.
Take M.D v L.N, where Acting Judge Rossi appointed Dr Le Roux to carry out a full forensic assessment of the family. Her meticulous report found classic signs of alienation—children parroting rehearsed accusations, black-and-white thinking, and uncharacteristic hostility—but no shred of evidence that the father had ever harmed them. Judge Rossi described Dr Le Roux’s work as “impartial and invaluable,” and adopted nearly all her recommendations, including transferring primary residence, imposing supervised contact and mandating targeted therapy for each family member.
Similarly, in D v G, the court relied on a two-pronged expert team: Mr Carr conducted the child’s primary evaluation, cataloguing the boy’s shared persecutory delusion, while Dr de Wit assessed the father’s own personality dynamics—identifying narcissistic and aggressive litigation tactics at the root of the alienation. Armed with these insights, the court concluded that the child’s expressed wishes were tainted by the father’s influence and ordered no-contact for three months, coupled with an intensive deprogramming regimen.
These cases illustrate that, despite the cost and logistical challenges of arranging expert assessments, South African judges regard forensic evaluations as indispensable. A skilled clinician can not only detect subtle coaching or triangulation but can also confirm when a child’s fear is well-founded, thereby preventing both false positives and false negatives. Recognising this, savvy litigants often request early appointment of experts—or ask the court to do so on its own motion—knowing that a robust psychological report can make or break an alienation claim.
In particularly complex disputes, courts may even appoint multiple experts—for instance, one specialising in child attachment and another in adult psychopathology—to ensure a multi-angle view of the family dynamics. This approach aligns neatly with Dr Craig Childress’s call for a differential-diagnosis framework, employing his Diagnostic Checklist for Pathogenic Parenting to uphold ethical standards and avoid the competence lapses he critiques in some traditional custody evaluations.
Ultimately, when it comes to parental alienation, expert evidence is the court’s most reliable compass—guiding judges toward remedies that genuinely serve the child’s best interests rather than the strategic aims of either parent.
Appointment of a Curator ad Litem / Child’s Legal Representative:
In the most high-stakes alienation disputes, courts often enlist an independent legal advocate to speak solely for the child. In High Court matters this takes the form of a curator ad litem, while in Children’s Court proceedings a qualified Legal Aid attorney may be appointed as the child’s representative. This neutral counsel acts as the child’s “voice in court,” ensuring that no parent’s agenda drowns out the youngster’s true needs.
For example, in D v G the judge appointed a senior advocate to serve as curator for the eight-year-old boy. The curator met privately with the child, liaised with the psychologists on both sides and filed submissions focused exclusively on what would best restore the mother–child bond. His independent perspective helped the court to cut through the acrimony and confirm that the boy’s expressed hostility toward his mother was the product of manipulation rather than genuine fear.
Likewise, in Y.S v S.S the Children’s Court assigned a Legal Aid attorney to represent the 13-year-old. That attorney guided the child through a specialist psychological assessment, monitored compliance with supervised-contact orders and reported back on whether the child’s resistance seemed coached or authentic. Because the representative’s loyalty lay only with the child, their input carried significant weight: judges know that a curator or child’s attorney will not spin the facts or colour the narrative for a parent’s advantage.
Beyond advocacy, a curator or legal representative provides vital oversight of court-ordered therapies and contact regimes. They can lodge prompt objections if, for instance, a parent speaks negatively about the other at hand-over, or if a therapist’s report suggests the child is still under undue influence. In this way, the child’s lawyer or curator functions as both mouthpiece and monitor—adding a robust check against further manipulation.
While not yet universal, the use of curators and children’s representatives is growing, particularly in major centres like Gauteng. As parental alienation cases become more complex, having an independent officer of the court champion the child’s interests helps ensure that the remedies ordered are not only legally sound but genuinely therapeutic and child-centred.
Therapeutic Court Orders
Recognising that legal decrees alone cannot heal the fractured bonds at the heart of parental alienation, South African courts routinely embed therapeutic directives within their orders. Drawing on Section 7 of the Divorce Act and their inherent parens patriae jurisdiction, judges frequently require parents—and, critically, the child—to participate in structured therapy or educational programmes.
In D v G, for instance, the court laid down a regimen of reunification therapy under a psychologist specialising in alienation, tasked with gently dismantling the child’s implanted hostility and rebuilding trust in the previously rejected parent. Simultaneously, the father had to undergo co-parenting guidance, learning to support his son’s emotional reintegration rather than inadvertently perpetuating conflict. Similarly, in M.D v L.N, the mother was ordered to engage in individual psychotherapy aimed at fostering insight into her alienating conduct, while the children received tailored therapeutic support throughout their adjustment to a new residence.
Beyond one-on-one counselling, courts have crafted orders for parenting skills programmes and family therapy, recognising that lasting change often requires all parties to learn healthier patterns of communication. Where the risk of entrenched alienation is lower, a straightforward joint attendance at a co-parenting workshop—sometimes coordinated by the Family Advocate under Section 33 of the Children’s Act—can pre-empt more serious conflict. In the most severe cases, judges have even combined no-contact directives (to halt further psychological harm) with sequenced therapeutic interventions, echoing the Attachment-Based Parental Alienation model’s call for protective separation followed by evidence-based treatment.
By weaving together legal authority and clinical expertise, these therapeutic court orders address not merely the symptoms of alienation but its root causes—transforming adversarial disputes into opportunities for genuine emotional repair and, ultimately, protecting the child’s fundamental right to a balanced relationship with both parents.
Parenting Coordinators
An increasingly favoured tool in high-conflict alienation disputes is the parenting coordinator—typically a psychologist or lawyer with specialised mediation training—tasked with guiding parents through the day-to-day implementation of contact and behavioural orders. Though not expressly provided for in statute, coordinators are appointed by agreement of the parties or, where necessary, by court order under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. In M.D v L.N, for example, the judge, having transferred primary residence to the father, directed the appointment of a coordinator “to establish calm and stability” during the transition. That coordinator’s brief included monitoring the mother’s supervised contact, ensuring compliance with therapeutic directives and resolving minor disputes—such as scheduling changes or communication breakdowns—without returning to court. This ongoing oversight closes the gaps that alienating parents often exploit, keeps both parties focused on the child’s welfare, and aligns with Childress’s emphasis on structured, measurable treatment plans to prevent relapse. A key caveat, however, is cost: parties must usually share the coordinator’s fees, and an entirely uncooperative parent can still frustrate the process. Nonetheless, South African courts are increasingly willing to incorporate this hybrid legal–therapeutic role into comprehensive remedies for parental alienation.
Variation of Custody/Residence
When all else fails—when alienating conduct has inflicted significant psychological harm and lesser measures are inadequate—the court’s ultimate sanction is to vary primary residence. As seen in M.D v L.N and D v G, courts have not hesitated to transfer a child’s care to the alienated parent, typically coupling the change with protective conditions: the alienating parent’s contact may be suspended or strictly supervised, and mandatory therapy for all involved is imposed to mend the fractured relationship. Such a custody shift is never undertaken lightly, given its disruptive impact on the child’s life; it requires clear, expert-backed evidence of ongoing harm. Yet, by making continued custody contingent on the parent’s willingness to support the child’s bond with the other parent, the court sends a powerful deterrent message. Importantly, these orders are usually framed as reversible, allowing for restoration of the original care arrangements once the alienating behaviour ceases and the child’s welfare is secured. This approach reflects the constitutional imperative that a child’s best interests—not parental prerogatives—must guide every decision.
Contact Enforcement and Contempt
When a parent simply refuses to honour a court’s contact or therapeutic orders—an all-too-common tactic in entrenched alienation disputes—South African courts have powerful enforcement tools at their disposal. Breach of a contact order can lead to a finding of contempt of court, exposing the recalcitrant parent to fines, suspended sentences or, in the most extreme cases, actual imprisonment. Although custodial sanctions are rare—given the potential collateral harm to the child—the mere spectre of committal often compels compliance. In S.S v V.V.S [2018] ZACC 5, the Constitutional Court reminded us that defying a court order not only flouts the rule of law but also infringes a child’s right to maintain a parent–child relationship.
Beyond contempt, judges may place a matter under judicial case management—assigning a dedicated judge to oversee timetables, enforce deadlines and accelerate progress toward final relief. In D v G, for example, the court appointed a judge to shepherd the case toward trial, ensuring that interim orders and therapeutic directives did not languish unmonitored. Alternatively, courts can direct the Family Advocate or a court-appointed case manager to report periodically on each parent’s adherence to contact, therapy and communication requirements.
In rare instances, courts have even ordered assistance from the sheriff or police to secure a child’s attendance at a scheduled visit—an option reserved for only the most intransigent alienating parents, given its traumatic potential. More commonly, the knowledge that contempt proceedings or sheriff involvement loom large is enough to break the deadlock.
Effectively combating parental alienation in South Africa requires weaving together swift legal interventions, rigorous expert assessments and carefully calibrated therapeutic remedies. At one end of the spectrum, urgent interim orders—supervised contact, Family Advocate inquiries and forensic evaluations—can halt the alienator’s advances and stabilise the child’s relationships. Where evidence is overwhelming, courts will resort to dramatic measures such as custody transfers or protective no-contact orders, always buttressed by mandatory therapy and parenting coordination. In more ambiguous or early-stage disputes, measured approaches—expanded visitation, continued counselling and deference to a child’s legal representative—allow the situation to be nipped in the bud. Throughout, the threat of contempt and ongoing judicial oversight remind parents that court orders are not mere suggestions but enforceable mandates.
No two alienation cases are alike. The challenge is to craft a bespoke remedy—sometimes counterintuitive, often interdisciplinary—that truly serves the child’s welfare. As one expert observed, “there is no one-size-fits-all cure for parental alienation; interventions must be tailor-made to fit the pathology.” By combining legal authority with psychological insight, South African courts are forging a dynamic, child-centred model that aims to break the cycle of alienation and restore the fundamental right every child has to a loving, balanced relationship with both parents.
Comparative Perspectives: United Kingdom, United States, and Australia
Parental alienation is a challenge not unique to South Africa; family courts worldwide have encountered similar issues. A comparative look at the UK, US, and Australian legal systems reveals both convergence and divergence in how they recognise and remedy parental alienation. In all these jurisdictions, the best interests of the child remains the lodestar, and there is a common understanding that unjustified estrangement from a parent can be deeply harmful to a child. However, the degree of formal recognition and available legal mechanisms can differ.
United Kingdom: The UK has no specific statute mentioning “parental alienation,” but English and Welsh courts address the phenomenon under their Children Act 1989 welfare framework (analogous to SA’s Children’s Act in emphasising the child’s welfare as paramount). British courts have long dealt with cases of “implacable hostility”, where one parent (often the parent with residence) persistently thwarts the child’s contact with the other parent. In recent years, the term “parental alienation” itself has gained traction in the UK family justice lexicon, and courts have become more proactive in combating it. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), which assists the court in children’s cases, developed guidelines for cases featuring potential alienating behaviors. CAFCASS practitioners are trained to identify if a child’s resistance/refusal to see a parent may stem from undue influence or legitimate reasons (such as abuse).
UK judges have shown willingness to take stern measures in severe alienation cases, much like their South African counterparts. In an illustrative High Court decision – Re A and B (Children: “Parental Alienation”) (No. 5) in the Family Division in London – the court confronted an extreme scenario of a parent who had persistently alienated the children. After numerous interventions failed, the judge ordered that the alienating parent “should play no future role” in the children’s lives. In effect, that parent’s contact and involvement were terminated to protect the children. This draconian outcome mirrored the conclusion that continued exposure to that parent’s influence would irrevocably harm the children. Another case, Re C (“Parental Alienation”; Instruction of Expert), demonstrated the English courts’ readiness to remove children from an alienating parent’s care altogether. In Re C, the High Court authorised the transfer of residence of two children to their father (the alienated parent) and placed them in a structured foster care setting temporarily, to facilitate a professionally supervised reunification with the father, free from the mother’s alienating influence. The court-appointed expert had advised that such a radical step was necessary to “reset” the children’s perspective in a neutral environment before reintroducing them to the father. These cases underscore that UK courts, in line with their welfare mandate, will not shy away from drastic remedies (including switching custody or suspending contact) when convinced that one parent’s behaviour is emotionally harming the child.
One difference in the UK is the explicit integration of guardian ad litem (children’s guardian) input via CAFCASS in most contested cases. The CAFCASS officer’s recommendations, akin to the Family Advocate’s in SA, carry significant weight. If CAFCASS identifies alienation, they may recommend interventions such as therapeutic work, supervised contact centers, or even a change in residence. British courts also make use of expert psychologists in more complex cases, much as in SA, though cost and resource issues mean not every case gets an expert. There has been debate and some caution in the UK about the concept of “parental alienation syndrome” – judges tend to avoid the term “syndrome” (due to its controversial history) and focus on factual behaviours and the impact on the child. Nonetheless, the substance is addressed. Notably, UK law was amended in 2014 to make the enforcement of contact orders more robust (courts can impose community service or compensation for breaches), reflecting a policy concern about parents undermining contact. In practice, enforcement remains tricky, but the threat is there.
Where the UK might diverge from South Africa is largely in emphasis and procedure: the UK has a well-developed system of problem-solving courts and often emphasises rehabilitation of the parent–child relationship through resources like contact centers or family therapy programs (where available). However, similar challenges occur – e.g., lack of access to funded therapy or delays can impede progress, just as in SA. Overall, South Africa’s approach aligns quite closely with the UK’s: both rely on the best-interests principle, case-by-case judicial discretion, and an array of remedies from mild to drastic. Both systems also recognise alienating behavior as a form of emotional abuse against the child, even if UK judges might use slightly different verbiage. The convergence is exemplified by the fact that both UK and SA courts have, in appropriate cases, approved no-contact orders for an offending parent until the child’s welfare is secured.
United States: The United States presents a more varied picture due to its federal system – custody law differs by state. However, certain commonalities exist across American jurisdictions. U.S. courts, like those in SA and the UK, ultimately decide custody based on the best interests of the child, and many state statutes include factors related to a parent’s behaviour that can encompass alienation. For example, a number of states explicitly consider a parent’s willingness to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent as a factor in custody determinations (often called the “friendly parent” factor). An alienating parent, by definition, fails this test, and this can heavily count against them in a custody contest. In practice, American family courts have certainly identified and sanctioned parental alienation, though the terminology and consistency vary. Some courts speak of “parental alienation” or even “PAS”, while others avoid the label but condemn the conduct (e.g., referring to it as “systematic interference with the child’s relationship with the other parent”).
One notable aspect is that U.S. courts have a substantial body of psychological literature at their disposal. Experts like Dr. Richard Warshak and others have written extensively on managing parental alienation in the legal context. Warshak’s recommendations – which mirror much of what we see in SA orders – suggest that early intervention is critical and outline custodial options ranging from enforced remedies while leaving the child with the favoured parent, to temporary or permanent custody transfer to the rejected parent. He argues that attempts to remedy alienation while the child remains in the alienator’s home have a limited window for success, and courts should be prepared to escalate interventions if compliance is not forthcoming. U.S. experts like Dr. Craig Childress build on Warshak by advocating AB-PA, which grounds alienation in DSM-5 abuse criteria and calls for ending flawed forensic evaluations—echoing critiques in a 2019 GWU Law study on misuse in abuse cases.
Many U.S. courts have effectively followed these principles. For instance, there have been cases in various states (New York, California, Illinois, etc.) where judges reversed custody in response to extreme alienating conduct, placing children with the alienated parent and either suspending or strictly supervising the alienator’s contact. American courts also frequently order reunification therapy and may utilise intensive programs (one well-known program is Warshak’s Family Bridges workshop for severely alienated kids). Additionally, the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence has made some headway: a few U.S. jurisdictions have pilot “Family Treatment Courts” or specialised dockets for high-conflict cases.
However, the U.S. experience also showcases significant controversy around parental alienation. Critics have raised concerns that claims of PAS can be misused to discredit legitimate abuse allegations, particularly in cases of domestic violence. Indeed, research by some U.S. legal scholars (e.g., a 2019 GWU Law study) found that mothers who reported abuse by fathers sometimes faced counter-allegations of alienation, and courts in some instances transferred custody to the father despite abuse claims – raising debates about gender bias and the weight given to alienation claims. As a result, some advocates urge caution and more rigorous scientific validation when using “parental alienation” in court. A reflection of this debate is that the DSM-5 (the psychiatric diagnostic manual) does not list “parental alienation syndrome” as a disorder, though it acknowledges that a child’s strained relationship with a parent can be a product of various relational problems. Many U.S. judges are aware of the controversies and thus prefer to focus on observable behavior (e.g., one parent’s violation of court orders, coaching, etc.) rather than declaring a child a victim of “PAS” per se. Nonetheless, functionally, courts intervene similarly to South Africa: if a parent deliberately sabotages the child’s relationship with the other, judges view it as a form of emotional harm to the child and act to stop it. Some states have even legislated on this indirectly. For example, statutes in states like Illinois and Georgia consider “willful denial of visitation” as a potential change of circumstances to modify custody. In California, the law mandates that courts consider which parent is more likely to allow frequent and continuing contact with the other parent (except where one parent is shown to be abusive) – effectively discouraging alienation by rewarding the cooperative parent.
In terms of enforcement, U.S. courts can also hold contumacious parents in contempt and have occasionally jailed severe offenders (though, as anywhere, that’s rare). The U.S. system’s fragmentation means one might find, say, a court in New York using a completely different approach than one in Texas. But the trend over recent decades has been a growing acceptance of the concept of parental alienation in many courts and a toolkit of remedies that mirrors those used in SA/UK: therapy, parenting coordination (especially in some states like Colorado which have statutes for “parenting coordinators”/“decision-makers”), and custody modification as a last resort. The U.S. also has a cadre of private providers and experts specialising in alienation, given the larger population and litigation market.
Australia: Australia’s family law system under the Family Law Act 1975 has undergone reforms that indirectly relate to parental alienation. The Act stresses two primary considerations in custody (called “parenting orders”) decisions: the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, and the need to protect the child from harm (with the latter given greater weight in cases of conflict) – this is analogous to the tension between facilitating contact and guarding against abuse. The term “parental alienation” does not appear in Australian statutes, but Australian courts have unequivocally dealt with the issue as a subset of the child’s best interests. Australian family judges have even used the term in judgments and have recognised the concept much as others do. There have been several high-profile cases in the Family Court of Australia and Federal Circuit Court where findings of parental alienation led to decisive action. One such case, Ralton v Ralton [2016] FCCA 1832, is often cited: the court found the mother had persistently alienated the children from the father, including making false abuse allegations. After careful consideration (and expert evidence), the court ordered a change of primary residence – removing the children from the mother’s care and placing them with the father – and stipulated that the mother’s contact be limited to supervised visits. The judge noted that despite the trauma any move might entail, the greater long-term risk was leaving the children in an environment of continued psychological manipulation. This mirrors the outcomes in SA and UK where warranted. Australian courts have also experimented with adjunct therapies and programs. For example, there have been cases where judges ordered the family to participate in a “Family Therapy Intervention Program” or engage with reunification specialists.
Australia’s system also employs Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs) in many contentious cases – lawyers appointed to represent the child’s interests (similar to a curator/guardian). These ICLs can, like CAFCASS or the Family Advocate, recommend psychiatric or psychological evaluations if alienation is suspected. One challenge noted in Australian practice (and this echoes globally) is that proving alienation can be difficult and time-consuming – something not easily resolved within the constraints of typical court timelines. However, Australian judges have at times fast-tracked cases where alienation is alleged, recognising that the usual slow litigation could let the situation deteriorate beyond repair. In Ralton, for instance, the matter was treated with urgency. The Australian family law community is well aware of parental alienation, and organizations exist (like the Australian Association of Family Therapists) providing training on it. Public inquiries, such as a 2019-2021 parliamentary inquiry into the family law system, heard extensive testimony on parental alienation, indicating it’s a prominent concern.
A difference in Australia might be the backdrop of prior reforms: In 2006, Australia introduced a presumption of shared parental responsibility and provisions to encourage shared time – which some say inadvertently gave a boost to alienation claims (and misuse of them in some instances). In 2012, responding to concerns, the law was amended to prioritise child safety (e.g., requiring courts to weigh allegations of family violence more heavily). The upshot is that Australian courts are careful to filter genuine alienation from situations where a parent may be justifiably estranged (for example, if there was domestic violence). The case Ralton is instructive because it involved false allegations – once those were debunked, the court saw the situation as one of alienation and acted. Another case, Ralston v Ralston [2009] (no relation, just similar name) similarly transferred custody due to alienation. Australian judges often cite overseas case law, including from the UK and occasionally from Canada/USA, when dealing with these issues, showing a cross-pollination of ideas.
Alignment and Divergence: Across the UK, US, and Australia, there is a shared recognition that unwarranted impediment of a child’s relationship with a parent is a serious family law problem. All systems view the child’s welfare as paramount, and thus all will – at least in theory – curtail the rights of an alienating parent in service of the child’s needs. Concrete similarities include: the use of expert psychological evidence, the possibility of changing custody as a remedy, and orders for therapy or supervised contact. In each jurisdiction, there are cases reflecting strong judicial condemnation of alienating conduct and even references to it as a form of abuse. Childress’s model offers a comparative lens for South Africa, promoting standardized diagnostics over controversial PAS, similar to cautious UK/Australian approaches that focus on behaviours rather than syndromes.
Differences are mostly of degree and process. South Africa’s jurisprudence has evolved rapidly and in some ways is very bold (for example, South African High Courts like in D v G explicitly use the terminology “parental alienation syndrome” and prescribe detailed therapeutic regimes. UK courts might not use the word “syndrome” as freely but achieve the same results under welfare language. The U.S. is heterogeneous – some states or judges may still be skeptical of the concept, while others are champions of stamping it out. One could argue South African courts have shown a relatively unified acceptance of the concept in recent years (perhaps because a handful of influential High Court judgments have set a tone). In the U.S., without a singular apex court family law decision or uniform approach, one finds more variation. Yet, practically speaking, a parent in Texas or New York who behaves like the mother in M.D v L.N or the father in D v G would also risk losing custody; it might just be couched in slightly different legal reasoning.
Another point of divergence is legislative action: Some countries have moved to legislate on parental alienation. Notably, Brazil (outside our three comparators, but relevant internationally) enacted Law No. 12.318/2010 which explicitly defines parental alienation and provides measures and even criminal penalties against it. This law enumerates acts that constitute alienation and allows courts to order psychological evaluations, therapy, warnings, fines, and changes in custody.
In 2022 Brazil even amended the law to toughen procedures. While Brazil’s approach is controversial (critics say it might be misused), it shows a more codified route. Neither the UK, US, nor Australia has a dedicated statute on “parental alienation” – they handle it under general welfare and abuse provisions. South Africa similarly has no specific law, relying on general principles. This absence of explicit statutory definition in common law jurisdictions means it’s largely up to judicial discretion and the evolving case law to address the problem.
One might also note differences in ancillary support: the UK has CAFCASS, Australia has a nationwide family court system (now a unified Federal Circuit and Family Court) with resources like family consultants, and the US has court-connected services varying by county (mediation is mandatory in some states for custody disputes, some courts have in-house custody evaluators, etc.). South Africa’s Family Advocate system is somewhat analogous and has proven quite useful in these cases.
In summary, South Africa’s developing approach to parental alienation is broadly in line with international trends. It neither lags nor leads in a significant way, except that one could say South African courts have been commendably explicit in naming and condemning the issue in published judgments over the last few years. The willingness to, for example, temporarily suspend an alienating parent’s contact and even impose cost orders (as seen in SA cases) is on par with – and sometimes even more forceful than – what we see in the UK or Australia. There is a shared philosophy: that the child’s right to have both parents in their life (absent abuse) is something the courts will strive to uphold, and that a parent who breaches that right is effectively harming the child. All jurisdictions struggle with the how – how to repair relationships, how to enforce orders without making things worse, how to afford services, etc. Each can learn from the others in fine-tuning responses. For instance, South Africa might look to the UK’s CAFCASS model for ideas on specialised social work interventions, while UK courts have drawn on North American research (like Warshak’s work) in crafting solutions. The comparative takeaway is that parental alienation is a universally recognised phenomenon in family law, and global best practices emphasise early identification, multi-disciplinary intervention, and a readiness to act decisively when a child’s healthy bond with a parent is at stake.
Critiques of the Current South African Approach
Despite the advances in South African case law, several critiques can be made about how parental alienation is addressed, highlighting areas for improvement:
Lack of a Specific Legal Framework: South Africa has no statute or unified guidelines explicitly dealing with parental alienation. This means much is left to judicial discretion and the particular evidence in each case. The absence of codified standards can lead to inconsistency – some judges might be very familiar with the concept and handle it expertly, while others might be less versed or even skeptical, yielding uneven outcomes. Legal practitioners have noted the difficulty in proving alienation in the current framework; without a statutory definition, one must piece together circumstantial evidence and expert opinions to persuade the court. A related concern is that without clear legislative or procedural directives, some alienation cases might not get the urgent attention they need in every court (though as seen, many courts do treat them urgently). Overall, the ad hoc nature of addressing alienation can result in what one commentator called a “justice by geography” problem – depending on which judge, or division hears your case, the approach might differ.
High Cost and Resource Constraints: Parental alienation cases often entail heavy use of experts (psychologists, social workers, etc.), multiple court hearings, and sometimes prolonged therapy – all of which can be prohibitively expensive for many families. South Africa, like many countries, has limited publicly-funded resources for family mental health interventions. The Family Advocate’s office is one valuable free resource, but their capacity is stretched and they may not have the time for intensive involvement in every case. Private expert assessments, on the other hand, can cost tens of thousands of rand – out of reach for a lot of litigants. This raises an access to justice issue: parental alienation might be occurring across all social strata, but the elaborate court battles we read about (with multiple experts and lengthy judgments) may reflect a subset of cases where parties have the means or are in big cities with more services. In cases with fewer resources, alienation could go unaddressed or under-addressed. Additionally, specialised programs (like multi-modal family therapy or reunification workshops) are scarcely available and often expensive. Judges have lamented that even when they order interventions, the lack of local qualified therapists or programs (especially in rural areas) can frustrate the implementation. The cost and resource barrier can also pressure judges to make decisions on limited information; for example, a judge might have to rule on alienation without the benefit of a comprehensive expert report if the parties cannot afford one or the timeline does not allow. This is far from ideal in such complex matters.
Delays and Protracted Litigation: Time is the enemy in parental alienation cases – every month of no (or negative) contact further ingrains the child’s rejection. However, the court process can be slow. Even though many of these cases are heard urgently or on an interim basis, getting to a final resolution can take months or years if the matter is heavily contested (like D v G which involved numerous interventions from 2015 to 2023). During that period, status quo often prevails, which in an alienation scenario may mean the child continues to reside with the favoured (possibly alienating) parent with only partial measures in place. As was noted in B.P.M v J.L.M, over-burdened court rolls and voluminous, acrimonious filings can bog down what should be swift interim proceedings. Judges have sternly criticised parties (and lawyers) for contributing to delay – for instance, by filing overly long affidavits or engaging in “tit-for-tat” litigation that distracts from the child. The prolixity issue noted by Mangena AJ is a systemic challenge: Rule 43 applications (or urgent motions) are meant to be brief and focused, but when alienation is alleged, parents often throw in everything, including historical grievances, which the judge then has to wade through. This not only wastes time and money but can entrench conflict further (each round of hostile litigation can deepen the rift). Delays in obtaining Family Advocate reports or in securing trial dates for final hearings also pose problems – by the time a case is “ripe” for trial, the child may have spent another year in a toxic setup. As one judge observed, “time favours the alienating parent”, so any inefficiency in the system effectively rewards the strategy of obstruction. There is a real risk that justice delayed becomes justice denied for the child who, after years of alienation, may become essentially unreachable even by the courts.
Potential for Misdiagnosis and Misuse: A significant critique (raised both domestically and internationally) is the potential for misidentifying a situation as parental alienation when it might not be, or vice versa. If courts are too quick to accept an alienation claim, they might unjustly minimise real abuse or a child’s genuine reasons for avoiding a parent. Conversely, if courts are too cautious, they might miss a case where a devious parent has successfully brainwashed a child. The Villa Crop case highlighted the need for careful consideration of evidence in complex cases – essentially warning courts to guard against both “tactical allegations” of alienation by abusers and false abuse claims by alienators. The Y.S v S.S case we discussed exemplifies how murky it can get when allegations on both sides fly. Critics argue that without clear diagnostic criteria, courts might rely on subjective impressions. Indeed, PAS as a “syndrome” is not universally accepted science; some mental health professionals prefer to talk about “alienating behaviors” or “child affected by parental relationship distress” (a term in the DSM-5) rather than endorsing Gardner’s PAS model. South African judges have referenced PAS positively, but they must do so with nuance. There is a risk that a savvy, but abusive parent could cry “alienation” simply because the child is fearful of them for valid reasons – flipping the script to paint the protective parent as an alienator. This concern is especially pronounced in cases with a history of domestic violence; researchers have noted that abusive fathers may use the allegation of alienation to retaliate against mothers and avoid accountability. The South African legal community is aware of this risk, and thus experts and judges stress the importance of thorough, neutral investigations. However, the critique remains that the courts need to improve methodologies for distinguishing these situations. Some have called for better training of family advocates, judges, and experts to recognise true vs. false alienation claims. Childress critiques traditional PAS for lacking empirical grounding, warning it can be weaponised against protective parents, and urges differential diagnosis to avoid ethical violations.
Adversarial System and Ethical Challenges: The inherently adversarial nature of our litigation system can exacerbate parental alienation cases. By the time parties are in an alienation dispute, their trust and communication are nil. The process of slinging affidavits with accusations and denials often pours fuel on the fire – each parent feels attacked and becomes more entrenched. This can, ironically, make the alienating parent even more defensive and perhaps more covert in alienating (“Look what lies your dad/mom is telling about me in court!,” they might tell the child, further poisoning the well). Judges in SA have started to call out this problem. In B.P.M, for example, the court admonished both sides for “vengeful litigation” and highlighted lawyers’ ethical duty to de-escalate rather than inflame. There is a criticism that some legal practitioners might exploit alienation claims to gain tactical advantage, knowing how emotive and powerful the allegation can be. The judge in B.P.M even refused costs to either party to signal disapproval of how the case was litigated. Essentially, the adversarial process might not be the ideal forum to solve what is at root a familial and psychological problem. This critique ties into calls for more collaborative law approaches or problem-solving forums to handle such cases (I will discuss in reforms). Additionally, the emotional toll of the adversarial process on the child is a concern – children can be subtly aware of the litigation, and it can stress them (as seen when the child in Y.S v S.S learned of his father’s application to reduce maintenance, fueling his resentment).
Enforcement Difficulties: Even when courts issue orders to address alienation, enforcing those orders is not straightforward. A common critique is that “court orders are only as effective as the willingness to enforce them.” If an alienating parent is truly recalcitrant, they may risk contempt rather than comply (believing, perhaps, that the court will be reluctant to jail them or that the child’s continued refusal will tie the court’s hands). Indeed, some judges have acknowledged that bringing the hammer down on an alienating parent (like incarcerating them) might sometimes hurt the child more, so courts feel hamstrung. The Constitutional Court in S v VVS highlighted the chronic challenge of enforcement in child cases – a piece of paper (court order) does not automatically translate to changed behavior. This is not unique to SA, but it is a real critique: there is only so much a court can do if a determined parent ignores orders or subtly undermines them. Short of transferring custody (which is drastic and not always feasible immediately), courts rely on the good faith of parents, which in these cases is in short supply. One might say there is insufficient follow-up: a judge might issue a brilliant order, but without continuous monitoring, the alienator could gradually resume their tactics once the spotlight is off. This aligns with Childress’s condemnation of forensic psychologists’ incompetence, which prolongs trauma and violates APA ethics, as seen in his support for eliminating custody evaluations.
Cultural and Social Nuances: Some critics point out that the discourse on parental alienation in SA (and elsewhere) needs to be culturally informed. Notions of appropriate parent–child relationships, discipline, and family roles can vary across cultures. What one group views as alienating (e.g., a parent involving a grandparent heavily such that the other parent is sidelined) might in another cultural context be seen as normal extended family involvement. There’s a need for cultural sensitivity – courts must differentiate between true malign alienation and situations possibly influenced by cultural practices or a child’s personal temperament. Additionally, socio-economic factors (like one parent working far from home or one parent being largely absent historically) can complicate these cases – sometimes a child’s preference is labeled “alienation” when perhaps it is a byproduct of circumstance. Critics urge that mental health professionals and courts be trained to consider these nuances so as not to apply a one-dimensional view.
In summary, while South African courts have made great strides in handling parental alienation, the approach is not without shortcomings. The lack of formal guidelines means outcomes can depend on the luck of the draw. The process is costly and emotionally draining, which can perversely worsen the situation it’s trying to solve. And the fine line between protecting children and inadvertently empowering abusers is one the courts must constantly walk. Acknowledging these critiques is essential in order to refine the legal response to parental alienation. It points to the need for reforms and improvements, which we turn to next.
Proposals for Reform and Best Practices Going Forward
Building on the above critiques and learning from international best practices, several reforms and clarifications could improve how South African family law addresses parental alienation. The overarching goal of these proposals is to ensure clarity, consistency, and effectiveness in protecting children’s relationships with both parents, while filtering out false claims and minimising harm. Key recommendations include:
Develop Clear Guidelines or Protocols: Incorporate Childress’s Diagnostic Checklist and AB-PA indicators into protocols for Family Advocates, ensuring standardised, ethical assessments.
The Department of Justice, perhaps in collaboration with the Office of the Family Advocate and judicial leaders, should consider promulgating official guidelines for handling allegations of parental alienation. This could take the form of a Practice Directive to all divisions, or even an annex to the Family Advocate’s mediation standards. Such guidelines could define what behaviors constitute alienation (drawing on widely accepted characteristics), outline steps for courts to take when alienation is raised (e.g., expediting a Family Advocate inquiry, considering interim supervised contact), and emphasise the need to hear the child’s voice appropriately. By having a standardised protocol, judges across the country would be more consistent in their approach, and litigants would know what to expect. It would reduce the current uncertainty (where parties are not sure how much evidence is enough, or whether a particular judge will recognise the problem readily). These guidelines should stress early neutral evaluation – for instance, recommending that a suitably qualified forensic psychologist be appointed at the earliest signs of alienation claims, rather than as a last resort. They can also warn judges to be mindful of the difference between genuine abuse and alienation, echoing the caution that has been expressed in case law. In effect, a uniform guideline will encode the best practices that have emerged (like those used in cases such as M.D v L.N and D v G) so that even less-experienced judges can handle these tricky cases competently.
Statutory Recognition and Remedies: In the longer term, Parliament could consider amendments to the Children’s Act to explicitly address unwarranted visitation/contact blocking or poisoning of a child against a parent. For example, a provision could be added to Section 7 (the best interests factors) to include “the extent to which each parent facilitates or sabotages the child’s relationship with the other parent” as a factor. This would cement the “friendly parent” principle in our law and put alienating conduct squarely in view for any court deciding custody. Additionally, a new section could empower courts with specific remedies in cases of proven alienation – mirroring what is already done via inherent powers but making it explicit. Inspired by Brazil’s law, the Act could list measures like: warning the offending parent, imposing a structured plan for contact reintroduction, temporary transfer of residence, mandatory counselling, and even referral for investigation of emotional abuse. One could even contemplate a mild offence for extreme cases (e.g., wilful and repeated non-compliance with contact orders might be made punishable via fine or community service), though criminalising it (as Brazil did) is contentious and would have to be approached carefully to avoid unintended consequences for the child. Even without a criminal element, codifying these remedies sends a strong signal and provides consistency. It also gives legislators a chance to debate and refine definitions – lending democratic legitimacy to what has so far been a judicially-driven area. However, any statutory change must be careful to maintain balance: it should not create a presumption that every refusal by a child equals parental alienation, nor should it undermine the emphasis on child safety in cases of actual abuse. A well-drafted amendment could actually clarify that distinction.
Enhance the Role and Capacity of the Family Advocate and Court Social Services: The Family Advocate’s office could be given additional resources and training to deal with alienation cases more swiftly and expertly. Special interdisciplinary units might be established – e.g., a High-Conflict Case Unit comprising family counselors experienced in alienation and possibly child psychologists on retainer. This unit could step in when a case is identified as potentially involving alienation, to perform faster, more detailed assessments than the usual process. This would alleviate reliance on purely private experts (who are costly and can delay matters due to scheduling). Furthermore, training programs for Family Advocates and court social workers on the latest research in parental alienation and estrangement should be implemented, possibly in partnership with universities or organisations like the South African Association of Social Workers in Private Practice. The aim would be to ensure that those writing reports for court are well-versed in detecting alienation and suggesting appropriate remedies. Another idea is to empower the Family Advocate to play a more ongoing monitoring role post-judgment: courts could routinely require the Family Advocate to oversee the implementation of a contact regime in alienation cases and report back on any non-compliance, rather than leaving enforcement solely to parties. This creates a built-in follow-up mechanism.
Specialised Court Processes and Expedited Hearings: Introducing specialised court processes for high-conflict parenting cases could be transformative. For instance, the judiciary could pilot a “Family Solutions Court” in major centers that employs a problem-solving approach (similar to children’s courts). In this model, the same judge (or panel) manages the case from start to finish, ensuring continuity and a deep understanding of the family dynamics. There could be an emphasis on alternative dispute resolution: mandatory mediation at a very early stage (but with a mediator skilled in high-conflict dynamics), or even therapeutic mediation where a mental health professional co-mediates. Early case management is vital – a judge could, at the first return date of an alienation allegation, order a timeline for actions (expert report due by X date, interim contact plan, etc.) and hold the parties to it, with status check-ins every few weeks. By micro-managing the timeline, the case is prevented from drifting. Also, creating a fast-track on the court roll for these cases is key: perhaps a directive that any contact denial case gets preference (somewhat like how maintenance or child abduction cases are treated urgently). This might require more judges or longer hours, but the investment is warranted given the stakes. The idea of judicial case managers (as actually used in D v G where a Deputy Judge President was asked to assign a case manager) can be systematised.
Additionally, the courts might utilise special masters or senior family advocates to assist the judge. For example, a special master (an experienced attorney or mental health professional) could be appointed with authority to make interim decisions or to facilitate discovery, etc., easing the court’s burden and speeding resolution. Legislative or rule changes might be needed to formally authorise such roles, but it is feasible.
Strengthen Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration: Parental alienation sits at the crossroads of law and psychology. A reform that has been suggested by experts is more institutionalised collaboration between the courts and mental health professionals. This could mean having court-appointed family therapy teams or contracting certain therapists to the court who are on standby to take referrals. Another concept is therapeutic jurisprudence in practice: e.g., having review hearings where the judge meets not only with lawyers but also gets input from therapists on how the family is progressing, adjusting orders dynamically as needed. The Children’s Act already allows somewhat creative orders; we could expand on that. Some jurisdictions overseas have experimented with intensive interventions like workshops for the whole family. South Africa could consider importing programs like Family Bridges or the Family Reflections Reunification Program (cited in Canadian case law). Perhaps courts could make greater use of section 38 of the Children’s Act, which permits ordering “specific cases” like ordering a party to participate in a program or activity as part of a remedy. Ensuring that orders are not purely punitive but also rehabilitative is key.
Parenting Coordination and Monitoring: Building on the positive experiences seen, it would be beneficial to formalise the role of Parenting Coordinators in our law. Currently, they operate in a bit of a gray area, mostly by parties’ consent. The legislature or rules board could consider a provision (as some U.S. states have) that in high-conflict cases, a court may appoint a parenting coordinator with specified powers (with or without the parties’ consent) to serve the best interests of the child. Setting standards for who can serve as a coordinator (training requirements, etc.) would also help professionalise the field. If coordinators are given clearer authority (e.g., their directives are immediately binding, subject to a party’s right to review by a court if they object – similar to arbitration review), then day-to-day friction that can fuel alienation might be reduced. Furthermore, parent coordinators can ensure compliance with therapeutic interventions – for instance, confirm both parents are attending scheduled therapy or not bad-mouthing each other to the child during transitions. While currently cost is a barrier (since parties pay them), perhaps a subsidy or sliding scale could be introduced for lower-income families, recognising that preventing a child’s psychological harm is a societal investment.
Emphasis on Early Education and Prevention: Often, by the time alienation is full-blown, much damage is done. A softer reform approach is to focus on preventive education for divorcing or separating parents. Courts (or the Family Advocate) could require parents in contested custody cases to attend a co-parenting course or information session that explicitly covers the harms of parental alienation. Some countries have successful mandatory parenting classes for those splitting up, which cover how to manage conflict and put children first. If parents, at the start of a separation, are made aware that “if you intentionally undermine your child’s relationship with the other parent, the courts can and will penalise you, and more importantly, your child will suffer in these concrete ways…”, it might dissuade some from going down that path. In other words, changing the culture through education might reduce the incidence. Even in ongoing cases, judges might order the alienating parent to undergo counseling or parenting coaching specifically aimed at stopping alienation, as part of the remedy. The order could state that the parent must, say, read certain materials or watch a video about children’s experience of divorce, as a way to foster empathy. While one cannot force insight, sometimes exposing a parent to an outside perspective can moderate their behavior.
Ensuring the Child’s Voice and Autonomy: Reforms should also consider older children’s autonomy. If a teenage child, for example, is genuinely adamant and of sufficient maturity, forcing custody change might backfire. Some jurisdictions (like some U.S. states) give weight to a mature child’s preference. South Africa’s Children’s Act (Section 10) already says a child who is of age and maturity has the right to participate and have their views considered. In implementing that, courts could more routinely engage the services of child psychologists or facilitators to conduct Voice of the Child reports. These would ascertain the child’s views in a safe environment and attempt to discern whether those views are independently formed. Strengthening this practice ensures children do not feel like mere pawns and might actually reveal subtle alienation that direct testimony would not. Also, perhaps older children (16-17) could be given more leeway (with guidance) to repair their relationships at their own pace rather than via court coercion, focusing interventions on younger, more impressionable kids where they can have more effect.
Research and Training: On a systemic level, South Africa would benefit from more research into our own cases of parental alienation – e.g., follow-up studies on outcomes of cases where interventions were ordered. Academia and the courts could collaborate to track, say, a sample of cases to see what worked and what didn’t. This evidence-based approach could then refine guidelines. Training for judges is crucial: ongoing judicial education seminars on family law should include the latest interdisciplinary knowledge on alienation. Given that many new judges come from backgrounds with little exposure to child psychology, equipping them with at least a basic understanding could avoid missteps.
Learn from International Models: Borrowing positive aspects from other countries can accelerate improvement. For example, the Brazilian model shows a comprehensive legislative stance (though with cautionary tales about misuse). The UK model via CAFCASS shows the value of having a single organisation deeply involved in these cases from start (assessment) to finish (perhaps supervising transitions). Perhaps the Family Advocate’s office could expand to play a CAFCASS-like continuous role in certain cases. The Australian model of Independent Children’s Lawyers suggests we might more frequently appoint legal representatives for children in high-conflict cases to ensure their rights are front and center. And the American experience highlights the importance of factoring in domestic violence screening in any alienation protocol – we could incorporate something like a checklist that courts/experts must go through to rule out bona fide abuse before concluding alienation. Also, the U.S. concept of graduated remedies (first try moderate interventions, escalate if no improvement, as Warshak outlines) is wise to formally adopt, so that courts do not jump to extreme measures without steps in between unless clearly necessary.
In proposing reforms, it is important to maintain a child-centric perspective. The goal is not to punish a parent per se, but to heal the child’s family relationships insofar as possible and to protect the child from harm. All reforms should be measured against that standard: will this help children caught in these situations? By implementing clearer laws, better resources, and more consistent procedures, South Africa can better fulfill its constitutional mandate to secure the best interests of children. In truth, as our Constitutional Court noted in AD v DW (2008), courts must not be “jurisdictional formalists” but rather take into account the nuanced human factors at play in each child’s life. Parental alienation cases present some of the most nuanced and challenging of all – requiring both the compassionate insight of psychology and the firm authority of law. A reformed approach that marries these disciplines holds the promise of breaking the tragic cycles of alienation and securing healthier outcomes for children and families.
Conclusion
Parental alienation remains one of the toughest tests for our family courts: a silent, psychological struggle in which the innocent victim is a child caught between warring parents. Yet, as our case law has evolved, South African judges have made it clear that deliberate attempts to sever a child’s bond with one parent will not go unanswered. Armed with the constitutional imperative to put the child’s best interests first—and supported by expert psychologists, social workers and the Family Advocate—courts now deploy a spectrum of remedies, from supervised contact and therapy to, in the most severe cases, temporary custody transfers.
When viewed alongside developments in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia, our approach stands confidently alongside international best practice: early identification, multidisciplinary assessment and a readiness to tailor interventions—from calibrated interim orders to intensive reunification programmes—to each family’s unique circumstances. Of course, no system is perfect. We still confront delays, resource shortages and the ever-present risk of misdiagnosis. To close these gaps, we must press for clear guidelines or even statutory recognition of alienating conduct, fast-track high-conflict parenting matters, expand publicly funded therapeutic services and enhance training for judges and experts in attachment-based diagnostics.
Ultimately, our goal must be twofold: first, to shield children from the trauma of being forced to “choose” between parents; and second, to equip separating couples with the tools—education, mediation, therapeutic support—to prevent alienation before it takes root. In doing so, South Africa can move from reaction to prevention, ensuring that every child who passes through our courts emerges with their right to love and be loved by both parents firmly intact—upholding the very heart of our law, that a child’s welfare is always paramount.
Sources Cited:
South African Cases
S v S [2020] JOL 46685 (GJ) (Gauteng Div, per Spilg J)
S.S v V.V.S (CCT 247/16) [2018] ZACC 5
S v Daniel Makibi (3451/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 77 (18 March 2022)
B.P.M v J.L.M (1909/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 96 (13 May 2025) (Limpopo Div)
D, T.E. v G, B (015642/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 801 (13 July 2023) (Gauteng Div)
M.D v L.N (3051/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 4 (3 Feb 2025) (Eastern Cape Bhc)
Y.S v S.S (9895/25) [2025] ZAWCHC 125 (18 March 2025) (WCC)
South African Commentary & Blogs
Preller, B. P., “Breaking the Cycle: Legal Insights into Parental Alienation in High-Conflict Divorces,” Family Laws SA Blog (12 Sept 2024)
Mangena AJ, “Parental Alienation, Prolixity and the Best Interests Principle in B.P.M v J.L.M,” Family Laws SA Blog (13 May 2025)
Key International & Psychological Sources
Childress, C. A., “Attachment-Based Model of ‘Parental Alienation’: Diagrams & Descriptions” (2013).
Childress, C. A., “Definitive Diagnostic Indicators of AB-PA” (2015).
APA, DSM-5 (2013)
APA, Ethical Principles of Psychologists & Code of Conduct (2010)
Bowlby, J., Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment (1969)
van der Kolk, B., The Body Keeps the Score (2014)
Minuchin, S., Families & Family Therapy (1974)
Warshak, R. A., “Parental Alienation: Overview & Practice Tips,” Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 28(1) (2015)
Friedlander, S. & Walters, M. G., “When a Child Rejects a Parent,” Family Court Review 48(1) (2010)
Gardner, R. A., “Follow-up Study of PAS Children,” American Journal of Forensic Psychology 19(3) (2001)
Brazil, Lei 12.318/2010 (Parental Alienation Act, with 2022 amendment)
Written by Bertus Preller, a Family Law and Divorce Law attorney and Mediator at Maurice Phillips Wisenberg in Cape Town and founder of DivorceOnline and iANC. A blog, managed by SplashLaw, for more information on Family Law read more here.