P.O. Box 16168

Scotland

Phone : 0141 959 4194

Parental Alienation Syndrome is a serious form of Emotional Abuse of children, constituting a significant issue of Public Health under Article 152, Title XIII, of the Consolidated Treaty Establishing the European Community, and formerly Article 129, Title X, of the Maastricht Treaty.

We assert that in bringing this petition, we are not asking the Scottish Parliament to grant the citizens and children of Scotland a new protection in the Law, for clearly what we are asking for is already secured for Scottish Citizens in European Community Law without further enactment.

We are asking that the Scottish Parliament secures compulsion in Scotland for the recognition of Parental Alienation Syndrome as a form of Child Abuse where the children involved are at high risk of suffering serious long-term injury to their mental health, and that this compulsion to recognise PAS should involve full training of the Judiciary, the Child Care Authorities (including medical practitioners, schools and nurseries), and of Legal Representation in Scotland.

NB. In presenting this Petition we are complying with European Community Law and the requirement that the Scottish Parliament resolve the issue of Parental Alienation Syndrome prior to our making applications to the European Community itself.

The refusal to acknowledge and enforce protection for children who are the subjects of Parental Alienation Syndrome in the knowledge that such children will be caused long-term injury to their mental health can only be viewed in terms of subjecting such children to inhumane treatment, if not torture, contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR Convention.

The full text can be accessed at

We rely upon Article 152 of the Consolidated Treaty Establishing the European Community

TITLE XIII (ex Title X)

PUBLIC HEALTH

The Community shall complement the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention.

2. Consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Community policies and activities.

(b) measures which support, supplement and monitor the policy pursued by the Member States.

4. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 3(b).

Article 95 (ex Article lOOa) TEC

1. By way of derogation from Article 94 and save where otherwise provided in this Treaty, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 14. The Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

4. If, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 30, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.

5. Moreover, without prejudice to paragraph 4, if, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.

6. The Commission shall, within six months of the notifications as referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5, approve or reject the national provisions involved after having verified whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States and whether or not they shall constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market.

In the absence of a decision by the Commission within this period the national provisions referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be deemed to have been approved.

When justified by the complexity of the matter and in the absence of danger for human health, the Commission may notify the Member State concerned that the period referred to in this paragraph may be extended for a further period of up to six months.

7. When, pursuant to paragraph 6, a Member State is authorised to maintain or introduce national provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure, the Commission shall immediately examine whether to propose an adaptation to that measure.

8. When a Member State raises a specific problem on public health in a field which has been the subject of prior harmonisation measures, it shall bring it to the attention of the Commission which shall immediately examine whether to propose appropriate measures to the Council.

9. By way of derogation from the procedure laid down in Articles 226 and 227, the Commission and any Member State may bring the matter directly before the Court of Justice if it considers that another Member State is making improper use of the powers provided for in this Article.

10. The harmonisation measures referred to above shall, in appropriate cases, include a safeguard clause authorising the Member States to take, for one or more of the non-economic reasons referred to in Article 30, provisional measures subject to a Community control procedure.

The full text can be accessed at

We also rely upon Articles 6 and 7 from the Consolidated Treaty on European Union

Article 6 (ex Article F) TEU

1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.

2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.

3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States.

4. The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.

Article 7 (ex Article F.1) TEU

1. The Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government and acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1), after inviting the government of the Member State in question to submit its observations.

2. Where such a determination has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under this Treaty shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

3. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 2 in response to changes in the situation, which led to their being imposed.

4. For the purposes of this Article, the Council shall act without taking into account the vote of the representative of the government of the Member State in question. Abstentions by members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption of decisions referred to in paragraph 1. A qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes of the members of the Council concerned as laid down in Article 205(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

This paragraph shall also apply in the event of voting rights being suspended pursuant to paragraph 2.

The full text can be accessed at

The 1963 case of Van Gend & Loos v the Netherlands established that European Community Citizens should benefit from Community Legislation aimed at National Governments as much as Public Bodies or Companies can.

"THOSE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THIS IS THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSTITUTES A NEW LEGAL ORDER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE BENEFIT OF WHICH THE STATES HAVE LIMITED THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, ALBEIT WITHIN LIMITED FIELDS, AND THE SUBJECTS OF WHICH COMPRISE NOT ONLY MEMBER STATES BUT ALSO THEIR NATIONALS. INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEGISLATION OF MEMBER STATES, COMMUNITY LAW THEREFORE NOT ONLY IMPOSES OBLIGATIONS ON INDIVIDUALS BUT IS ALSO INTENDED TO CONFER UPON THEM RIGHTS WHICH BECOME PART OF THEIR LEGAL HERITAGE. THESE RIGHTS ARISE NOT ONLY WHERE THEY ARE EXPRESSLY GRANTED BY THE TREATY, BUT ALSO BY REASON OF OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE TREATY IMPOSES IN A CLEARLY DEFINED WAY UPON INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS UPON THE MEMBER STATES AND UPON THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ~

The full text can be accessed at

42 As the Court has held (see the judgment in Joined Cases C-60 and C-61/84 Cin�th�que v F�d�ration Nationale des Cin�mas Fran�ais [1985] ECR 2605, paragraph 25, and the judgment in Case C-12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwaebisch Gmund [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 28), it has no power to examine the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of national rules which do not fall within the scope of Community law. On the other hand, where such rules do fall within the scope of Community law, and reference is made to the Court for a preliminary ruling, it must provide all the criteria of interpretation needed by the national court to determine whether those rules are compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures and which derive in particular from the European Convention on Human Rights.

The full text can be accessed at

Please note that European Court of Justice case law refers to the full European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; not the Human Rights Act 1998

We rely upon the 13 July 2000 European Court of Human Rights Judgement in the case of Elsholz v Germany Application no. 25735/94

33.  These statements by the child were, in the applicant's submission, extremely important because they showed that the mother programmed the child against his father, making him a victim of what was called the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). The child therefore totally rejected any contact with his father. If a report had been obtained from a competent family or child psychologist at that time, it could have shown that the child had been influenced or used by the mother against the father. For this reason, the decision of the two courts not to appoint an expert, as requested by him and recommended by the Youth Office, was not only a violation of the father's interests but also of those of the child, since contacts with the other parent were in the child's best medium- and long-term interests.

34.  By refusing to allow the father access to his child and by ruling in favour of the mother, who had been given sole custody, the German courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court, violated the State's constitutional duty to protect its citizens against violations of their rights by private individuals. The State must enforce the observance of human rights in its domestic legal order.

35.  The results of American research concerning the PAS had been available since 1984 and 1992. They very soon led to a large number of specialised publications and were taken into account by American and Canadian courts in their case-law.

If Germany had been prepared to adopt the results of the research carried out in the United States, where far larger research budgets were available, and to act upon them, the court could, at the time, have reached a different decision, because the judge who questioned the child could have interpreted differently the child's remarks rejecting his father. At the very least, however, the court should have appointed a competent expert familiar with the specific psycho-dynamics of family relations.

36.  The applicant concluded that the German authorities had violated their duty resulting from Article 8 of the Convention to protect citizens' human rights, in that they had failed, up to that point, to make the results of international research on the PAS known to the German youth authorities and family courts by providing them with suitable training.

The full text can be accessed at

We further rely upon: -

Hendriks v. Netherlands (1983) 5 EHRR 233. As regards Article 8 of the ECHR Convention and the right to respect of family life including the right of a divorced parent, who is deprived of custody following the break-up of marriage, to have access to or contact with his or her child; Clearly, Authorities are under a duty to facilitate contact between parents and children in the best interests of the child, although the best interests of the child are paramount and a true examination of their interests should be undertaken.

Hokkanen v. Finland (1995) 19 EHRR 139, the Strasbourg Court held that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 8 because of the non-enforcement of his right of access to his child. Hence, "Mutatis Mutandis" it is possible to claim that a deprivation of Contact can also be regarded as a continuing breach of the Convention.

We additionally refer to the flawed research into the "Tender Years Presumption" by Bowlby back in 1951, and relied upon by the Family Courts, which cites unsubstantiated evidence and misguided observations to suggest that there is an untenable bond between Mothers and their children that if broken will cause their children to suffer irreparable harm to their mental health.

Such poor research as that of Bowlby has been proven to be wrong by the research of Professor Sir Michael Rutter who has been knighted for his work, which is supported by Newson (1974), Schaffer and Emerson (1964), plus a host of other academics.

Children develop relationships with parents that care and show appropriate empathy for them and this includes fathers.

European Community Law is quite clear on this matter. Member States are required to ensure that the Child Care Authorities and Courts under their direction and control are made aware of Parental Alienation Syndrome and provided with suitable training.

Any refusal by the Scottish Parliament to acknowledge, implement and enforce training of the Child Care Authorities and Family Courts in Parental Alienation Syndrome based in claims that the issues can be addressed under alternative means by the Family Courts is clearly an intentional act aimed at the destruction or limitation of a parent’s rights to fair and just intervention in their Family Lives contrary to Articles 17 and/or 18 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

There is much European Court of Justice case law to the effect that no Member State may carry out any act that is incompatible with ECHR Convention Law, where above we refer to European Court of Justice case C-260-89.

ECHR Case Law has established that the refusal to act upon Parental Alienation Syndrome and provide training and education of the Child Welfare Authorities and Family Courts is a violation of Convention Rights, as defined in paragraphs 33 through 36 of the Elsholz v Germany Judgement referred to above.

We now refer to Article 95 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, as referenced by Article 152 TEC and the fact that the European Community, in matters concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, will take as a base, a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts, as per Art 95 TEC.

See German Case Law

Parental Alienation Syndrome has fulfilled the criteria for the "Frye Test" in the USA, and the "Mohan Test" in Canada reflecting consensus amongst professionals upon recognition and treatment of Parental Alienation Syndrome. (It has been peer reviewed and accepted)

The Scottish Executive, in response to our earlier petition, claimed that Dr Gardner’s work has not been "peer reviewed" a statement that is factually incorrect, or to use a Civil Service phrase from another era, it is economical with the truth.

"It is accepted that Parental Alienation Syndrome has not yet been recognised in either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) – This fact is often used to deny the existence of PAS.

 The failure of PAS to have achieved acknowledgement in either the DSM or ICD simply states that it has not yet been entered in the DSM or ICD. Nothing more!

 The argument that PAS is not a real problem simply because of a failure at this time to acknowledge it in the DSM or ICD is an arbitrary and unjustified obfuscation, when it is considered that Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) were acted upon and treated as very real problems without having achieved an entry in either the DSM or ICD.

The Executive’s argument that PAS has not been "peer reviewed" is factually wrong, as the following passage of an email from Dr. Gardener to myself makes clear: -

Parental Alienation Syndrome has clearly gained International Judicial acceptance

We would also refer to the work of Deirdre Conway Rand as recently accepted by the Israeli Courts, a peer who acknowledges the involvement of children in Parental Conflict with the intent of stopping Contact is an abuse of the children concerned in terms of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Any argument to the effect that the issues involved in Parental Alienation Syndrome can be addressed by the Family Courts under alternative methods, is clearly irrationality itself: -

Subtypes of Conduct Disorder

Additional information about Child Conduct Disorder available on the Internet, further additional sources of information include: -

Parental Alienation Syndrome is a form of Emotional Abuse, where the impact upon the child is dependant to a great extent upon the severity of the Alienation tactics employed by the Alienating Parent.

Understanding that an Alienating Parent who involves a child in their psychopathology places the child at a high risk of developing Child Onset / Childhood Conduct Disorder is important.

It is not simply that the Alienating Parent is causing Parental Conflict, or involving the children of the marriage in their psychopathology to do so, but perhaps more importantly the Alienating Parent will often also suffer with a serious mental health disorder, e.g. Anti-Social Personality Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder, which the children of the marriage are at high risk of adopting as part of their own psychology.

The Implantation of False Memories

Inducing Unjustified Fear of the Target Parent

Because the now adolescent / adult child has thoroughly adopted the personality traits of the Alienating Parent, he/she will not seek medical attention for the ongoing inability to retain urine even though treatment can still relieve the problem, simply because to do so will reflect badly upon the Target Parent with whom the adolescent/adult child identifies.

In such cases the Alienating Parent very obviously perceives the child as a tool, and with little empathy or understanding of the child’s predicament uses the child as a weapon, again indicating a serious Personality Disorder.

 It is important to take into account that in any denial of Contact situations, the Parent with residential responsibility for the child will deny any symptoms of harm suffered by the children involved, for example ongoing Enuresis / Urinary Tract Infections / Unstable Bladder. The denial of such symptoms thereby preventing the child from receiving appropriate medical treatment, with long lasting harm being caused to the child, including a bladder with restricted capacity, through to the possibility of Pyelitis and the possibility of renal failure.

There are 2 areas where such behaviour is of consequence: -

1. Such parents recognise that the medical symptomology can be used in a Court of Law to suggest or provide evidence of their emotional abuse of the child; and

2. The parent manipulated real symptoms to suggest / provide evidence of abuse by the parent to be denied Contact.

Both areas demonstrate a serious disorder in the parent concerned.

The "Class" and background of a family is far more important to the eventual outcome for a child than the nature of the family.

Professor John Newson of the Child Development Research Unit: There has been a study into the development of Juvenile Delinquency: He states that it is the quality of the family rather than the quantity of Parents that is a crucial factor.

Professors David Farrington and Donald West of the Institute of Criminology gave evidence that the following indicators allow the probability of a child progressing into a life of criminality to be predicted: —

The factors: -

1. The socio-economic group of the parents — i.e. low income, or low disposable income groups.

2. Poor Parenting — No discipline, lack of parental support, rejection, emotional abuse or psychological maltreatment.

3. Criminal Parents - Parents who break the law, in whatever form, or disregard Court Orders, provide a role model that teaches a child that the law is to be ignored.

4. Impulsive behaviour in a child - A child who cannot wait for a Benefit or reward when there are greater prizes to be had for such patience. (I want it now and I am going to have it now)

5. Hyperactivity — A strong predictive factor that indicates progression into criminality.

6. Low intelligence.

7. High intelligence associated with low educational achievement. — is seen as a strong predictor factor for assessing the probability of a progression into criminality. Without education by which a career path can be followed the likelihood is that the child will misdirect his or her intellect to acquiring wants by criminal means.

8. Behavioural Factors - Anti-social behaviour. Dishonesty, Violence, Theft; during childhood, etc

Of a control group of 411 boys who were studied; 37 % of those who exhibited at least one of the predictor factors achieved a criminal record by the age of twenty; of those who demonstrated three or more of the predictor factors 75 % attained a criminal record by the age of twenty.

It is interesting to note that the evidence from the USA demonstrates that 70 % of young offenders committed to prison come from single parent homes.

We assert that the there is substantial case history of the Family Courts and Child Welfare Authorities determining that to interfere in any way with the placement of children with an Alienating Parent who is denying Contact between the children and separated parent will cause such children serious harm to their mental health. ~ This is clearly a decision of the gravest irrationality. Such children are in fact being emotionally abused and placed at very high risk of developing into Adolescents/Adults with serious Personality Disorders.

Such children will have a serious impact upon society as a whole, in terms of costs for teenage pregnancy, medical treatment, dependency upon the state for their care, and dealing with their problems through the Criminal Court and Prison System, not dismissing the distress caused to honest hardworking citizens when such Adolescents/Adults force their uninvited attentions upon them.

We recognise that not all children subjected to Parental Alienation Syndrome will develop the extremes of injury to their mental health identified above, but never the less all children denied relationships with the estranged parent through Parental Alienation Syndrome will suffer to some degree as a consequence of being involved in the Parental Conflict brought about by the Alienating Parent.

The Scottish Parliament cannot ignore the fact that Parental Alienation Syndrome is a more serious manifestation of Parental Conflict, where with the added complication of the subject children being involved in the psychopathology of the Alienating Parent there is a higher probability of the children concerned developing Child Conduct Disorder (or an associated Personality Disorder), where medical evidence suggests that higher than 40% of all such children will become Adults suffering with Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

We draw inspiration from the evidence of Richard Gardner MD, which states that the mere refusal to comply with Court ordered Contact is sufficient justification to place the Parental Alienation Syndrome in the Severe Category.

Since the UK Men’s Movement is primarily concerned with the instances where the Family Courts and Child Welfare Services fail to enforce Contact in the best interests of the child, and the Alienating Parent is supported in denying Contact without any fear of sanction, we have to concern ourselves with the fact that there is an imbalance in the Judicial and Child Welfare systems that induces: -

a) Criminality in its various manifestations;

b) Costs to Society as a whole (Welfare Services, Court Services, and Corporate Costs such as Insurance);

c) Serious Social Problems;

In Public Health matters the welfare of the child is clearly of paramount importance, it is a disgrace that during divorce the Child Protection System can be manipulated to act solely upon paragraph 1(3)(a) of the UK statute of the Children Act 1989, and the ascertainable wishes of the child, where the child in question can be psychologically manipulated to denigrate a formerly loved parent as part of a subtle form of Parental Conflict, if not actually threatened or punished in an effort to compel compliant responses., thereby subjecting children to a very serious cause of long term injury to their mental health

We demand that the Scottish Parliament reconsider its refusal to legislate for PAS recognition, and determine intervention strategies to protect children from PAS. This petition and the preceding public petition asking for recognition of PAS will be used as evidence in a submission to the European Court of Justice / European Commission should this petition be denied.

Any failure to respond to this Petition with 4 weeks will be seen as a refusal to implement the required measures for securing the protection of our children, where in any matters affecting the welfare of our children the issues should be dealt with in terms of days or weeks not months or years, as a matter of Primacy.

European Community Law already states that in areas of European Community Competency no Member State may carry out any act that is incompatible with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The case of Elsholz v Germany clearly states that the failure to provide training and education of Child Care Authorities and the Family Courts in respect of PAS is a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR Convention.

The Scottish Parliament is clearly in persistent and gross violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

The Scottish Parliament is clearly in violation of European Community Law, and it can be asserted that it is intentionally subjecting thousands of our children annually to State Sponsored Abuse in terms of inhumane treatment, if not torture, supported by the Family Courts, in the knowledge that many of our children will be caused long term damage to their mental health as a consequence.

Further procrastination can no longer be tolerated!