International experts launch family justice series on parental alienation

A new multilingual, multidisciplinary family justice series argues that parental alienation has been minimized in policy and court practice, and says children lose when debate is narrowed. The collection, published in July 2026 and now distributed internationally, calls for more scientific scrutiny of child welfare decisions.

Why it matters: - The series argues that family courts and child welfare systems are making decisions about children without enough attention to developmental psychology, attachment science and trauma research. - Contributors say denying parental alienation can silence victims, delay reform and harm children’s long-term psychological development and family relationships. - The project frames open debate as a safeguard for science, justice and child welfare.

What happened: - An international group of psychologists, family law professionals, former judicial figures, therapists, researchers, police investigators, academics and child advocates published a landmark family justice series in July 2026. - British psychologist, attachment specialist and forensic consultant Melanie Gill conceived and coordinated the project. - The series was originally commissioned and published by The Conservative Woman and is now available internationally through a growing network of organizations focused on children and families. - The release was issued from London on Aug. 6, 2026.

The details: - The collection examines parental alienation, family justice policy and what contributors describe as an increasingly dominant orthodoxy that has narrowed professional debate. - Contributors include Professor Nigel MacLennan, former president elect of the British Psychological Society; educator Brian O'Sullivan; Dr. Stan Korosi; reunification specialists Dr. Lynn Steinberg and Stuart Hontree; Jesper Lohse of the Denmark fathers association; and Simon Cobb of PAPA, or People Against Parental Alienation. - The series also includes voices from the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Australia and other countries. - Contributors say decisions affecting children should be based on robust evidence, scientific inquiry and open professional debate. - Several contributors wrote anonymously because they feared complaints, reputational attacks or professional consequences for holding minority views. - The article says family justice has become intellectually captured by a single prevailing orthodoxy and questions what that means for children and families. - A LinkedIn profile for Dr. Lynn Steinberg appears in the source material: Dr. Lynn Steinberg's profile.

Between the lines: - The project is as much a challenge to institutional culture as it is a publication about one legal and psychological concept. - By stressing anonymous contributors and professional risk, the series suggests dissent inside family justice is being discouraged, not just debated. - The framing signals a push to re-open a contested issue that many contributors believe has been pushed to the margins.

What's next: - The network behind the series plans to keep the collection available internationally and use it to advance discussion about family justice reform. - The contributors are pressing for renewed scientific scrutiny of how courts and policymakers handle allegations of parental alienation. - The series suggests future changes will depend on whether family justice systems widen the range of evidence and professional voices they accept.

The bottom line: - The series argues that children are being harmed when family justice treats parental alienation as unworthy of serious scientific debate.