Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts: What Lorandos (2020) Found Across 34 Years of Cases
A plain-language summary of the authors' 2020 research in Family Court Review 58(2), 322–339 — Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018.
Summarised by Malcolm Smith on behalf of Love Over Exile. Last updated 9 June 2026 .
TL;DR
- The study · 34 years of US cases. Demosthenes Lorandos, a psychologist and attorney, searched US court records from 1985 to 2018 and analysed nearly 1,200 trial and appellate cases involving parental alienation. It is the most-cited evidence that US courts routinely engage with the concept.
- The headline finding · admissible in every state. Lorandos reported that evidence of parental alienation has been found relevant and admissible in every one of the United States, and that courts increasingly engage with it — sometimes ordering significant custody changes.
- The important caveat · the sample was pre-filtered. Cases were included only where a judge or expert had already found parental alienation 'of value'. That selection means the study shows courts entertain the concept across the country — not that it is scientifically validated or always safely applied.
- The dispute · Meier reaches different conclusions. Joan Meier's 2020 study of US custody outcomes found that alienation cross-claims can roughly double a mother's risk of losing custody when she alleges abuse. The two bodies of work measure different things and are part of an unresolved exchange.
- Author context · a pro-construct advocate. Lorandos is a prominent advocate of the parental-alienation construct, a member of the Parental Alienation Study Group, and a paid expert witness. That stance is relevant when weighing how the findings are framed.
The Study at a Glance
| Authors | Lorandos, D. |
|---|---|
| Published | 2020 |
| Journal | Family Court Review 58(2), 322–339 , pp. 322–339 |
| Method | A legal case-law analysis. Lorandos searched 34 years of US court records and analysed how often parental alienation was raised, treated as admissible, and acted on — including custody changes ordered. Because cases were included only where a judge or expert had already found parental alienation 'of value', the sample is pre-selected toward cases where the concept was treated as relevant, which the page flags as a limit on what the 'admissibility' findings can show. |
| Sample | Nearly 1,200 US trial and appellate cases (1985–2018), drawn from a Westlaw search; included only where a judge or independent expert found the concept of parental alienation to be of value |
| Full paper | View primary source → |
Love Over Exile is a plain-language research archive on parental alienation, written by Malcolm Smith — an alienated parent and author of the forthcoming book Love Over Exile — for non-specialist readers who want to understand the evidence base without a law degree or a journal subscription. This page explains an influential legal study fairly, including what it cannot show.
If you want to know whether US courts take parental alienation seriously, Lorandos's 2020 study is the paper most often cited to say they do. It is a useful and much-quoted piece of work — but, like any study, it answers one question and not others, and reading it well means knowing which is which.
Definition · Admissibility versus validity
Parental alienation is the process by which a child is turned against one parent, without legitimate justification, through another person's influence. This study is about its standing in court. Admissibility means a court is willing to hear and consider evidence about something. Scientific validity means the underlying concept is well-supported by research. They are not the same: a concept can be widely admitted in litigation while remaining scientifically contested. Lorandos's study measures the first, not the second.
Per Lorandos (2020), Family Court Review 58(2), 322–339.
What did Lorandos (2020) actually study?
Demosthenes Lorandos is unusual in the field: he is both a forensic psychologist and a practising attorney. In 2020 he published "Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018" in Family Court Review, drawing on a Westlaw search of more than three decades of US court records.
The dataset is large. He analysed nearly 1,200 US trial and appellate cases across the 34-year window. (You will sometimes see "1,181" quoted as the exact figure; the openly published wording is "nearly 1,200", so that is the safer number to use.) For each case he looked at how parental alienation was raised, whether the court treated it as relevant and admissible, the sex of the alienating parent, and how often the court ordered a significant change of custody.
One detail about the sample matters more than any other, and we will come back to it: cases were included only where the record showed that a judge or an independent expert had already found the concept of parental alienation to be "of value" in the litigation.
The headline finding: admissible in every state
The result Lorandos is cited for is striking in its reach. Across the cases he reviewed, evidence of possible parental alienation was found "relevant, admissible, and worthy of discussion", and he documented its admissibility in every one of the United States. Over the 34 years, courts engaged with the concept more and more, and in a meaningful share of cases ordered significant changes to custody.
Figure 1 · What the study shows, and what it doesn't. From nearly 1,200 US trial and appellate cases (1985–2018), pre-filtered to those where a judge or expert had found parental alienation "of value", the study establishes that the concept has been found relevant and admissible in every US state and that court engagement grew over time. What it cannot establish is the other column: that the construct is scientifically valid, that it is applied reliably or safely, or how often courts reject it — because rejected cases sit largely outside the filtered sample.
Admissibility is a fact about legal practice; validity is a fact about science. This study measures the first. After Lorandos (2020), Family Court Review 58(2).
The caveat that changes how you read it
Now back to that detail about the sample. Because cases were included only where a judge or expert had already found parental alienation "of value", the study is not a neutral cross-section of how courts treat the concept. It is, in effect, a collection of cases where the concept was taken seriously.
That selection matters. It means the high rate of "admissibility" is partly built in: cases where alienation was raised and firmly rejected are largely outside the sample. So the honest reading of "admissible in every state" is that courts across the country are willing to entertain parental alienation — not that the concept is scientifically validated, not that it is applied reliably, and not that it is always used safely. Those are different claims, and this study was not designed to test them.
Admissible is not the same as valid
This is the distinction the whole page turns on, so it is worth stating plainly. Admissibility is about whether a court will hear evidence on something. Scientific validity is about whether the underlying concept is well-supported by research. A concept can be routinely admitted in litigation and still be contested in the journals — and parental alienation is exactly such a concept.
So Lorandos's study is strong evidence for one proposition: US courts engage with parental alienation, widely and increasingly. It is not evidence for a second proposition that is often smuggled in alongside it — that this engagement proves the science is settled. For the science question, the better sources are the dedicated evidence reviews, such as our page on the scientific status of the field and the diagnostic-manuals story.
The dispute over outcomes: Lorandos, Harman and Meier
There is a second, sharper debate this study sits inside — about what actually happens to families in court. It is essential not to confuse the studies involved.
Joan Meier's 2020 study examined US custody outcomes and reported a troubling pattern: when mothers allege abuse, a father's cross-claim of alienation roughly doubles the mother's risk of losing custody, and the effect is gender-specific. Critics read this as evidence that alienation arguments can be weaponised to defeat genuine abuse allegations. Separately, Harman and Lorandos (2021) analysed roughly 967 appellate cases and argued the opposite — that they found little support for Meier's conclusions. Meier and colleagues then published replies disputing that critique.
The table keeps the three pieces of work straight.
| Study | What it analysed | What it measured | Headline | |---|---|---|---| | Lorandos (2020) — this page | ~1,200 trial + appellate US cases, 1985–2018 | How often PA is admitted and discussed | PA admissible in every state | | Harman & Lorandos (2021) | ~967 appellate cases | Whether PA findings skew custody by gender | Disputes Meier; little sign of systematic misuse | | Meier et al. (2020) | ~10 years of US custody opinions | Custody outcomes when abuse + alienation are alleged | Alienation cross-claims roughly double a mother's custody-loss risk |
The exchange is genuine and unresolved. A careful reader holds all three in view rather than picking the one that flatters a prior view.
Figure 2 · Three studies, three questions. Lorandos (2020), on this page, measures legal engagement — how often US courts admit and discuss parental alienation ("admissible in every state"). Meier et al. (2020) measures outcomes — finding that alienation cross-claims roughly double a mother's custody-loss risk when she alleges abuse. Harman and Lorandos (2021) is a separate appellate-only analysis that disputes Meier's conclusions, to which Meier and colleagues replied.
Because the studies ask different questions, they cannot simply be stacked against each other — and the dispute over outcomes remains unresolved. Sources: Lorandos (2020); Meier et al. (2020); Harman & Lorandos (2021).
Why the author's standpoint matters
None of this means Lorandos's case counts are wrong. But who conducted the study is relevant context. Lorandos is a leading advocate of the parental-alienation construct — a member of the Parental Alienation Study Group, co-author of the field's main pro-construct texts, and a paid expert witness in alienation cases.
His framing — that wide admissibility shows the concept is well-established — is precisely the interpretive step critics challenge. Read the numbers as solid; read the framing as one side of a live argument.
What does this mean for you?
If you are an alienated parent in the United States, this study is useful background: it shows courts across the country do recognise and admit parental-alienation evidence. But it is not a shortcut. Courts decide on the facts in front of them, and a general claim that "courts accept alienation" is not evidence in your case.
The stronger approach is the one this archive keeps returning to: document the specific behaviours and their impact on your child, and get advice from a family lawyer in your own jurisdiction about whether and how to raise alienation — including the real risk that overreaching on the label can cost you credibility. "Courts will consider it" is true; "so it will win my case" does not follow.
What are the honest limitations?
The study's main limitation is the one built into its sample: by including only cases where the concept was already found "of value", it can show that courts entertain parental alienation but not how reliably or safely they apply it, nor how often they reject it. It is also a legal analysis, not a scientific one — it measures court practice, not whether the construct is valid. And it is authored by a committed advocate, whose interpretation of the data is itself part of the field's central dispute.
What is not in serious doubt is the narrow, well-evidenced core: across nearly 1,200 cases over 34 years, US courts have been willing to admit and discuss parental alienation in every state. That is a real and useful fact — provided it is not stretched into claims about validity or safety that the study was never built to support.
Primary Sources Cited
- Lorandos, D. (2020) — Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018. Family Court Review 58(2), 322–339. DOI 10.1111/fcre.12475.
- Harman, J. J., & Lorandos, D. (2021) — Allegations of family violence in court: How parental alienation affects judicial outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 27(2), 184–208. DOI 10.1037/law0000301.
- Meier, J. S. (2020) — U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 42(1), 92–105. DOI 10.1080/09649069.2020.1701941.
Last reviewed and updated on 9 June 2026 by Malcolm Smith.
Frequently asked questions
Is parental alienation accepted in US courts?
Largely yes, as something courts will consider — and that is what Lorandos's 2020 study documents. Reviewing nearly 1,200 US cases from 1985 to 2018, he reported that evidence of parental alienation has been found relevant and admissible in every state, with courts increasingly engaging with it. The important qualification is that 'admissible and discussed' is not the same as 'scientifically proven' or 'always correctly applied'. Courts entertaining the concept tells you about legal practice, not about whether the underlying science is settled — which it is not.
How many cases did Lorandos analyse?
Nearly 1,200 US trial and appellate cases, drawn from a Westlaw search covering 34 years, from 1985 to 2018. You will sometimes see the precise figure '1,181' quoted, but the openly published wording is 'nearly 1,200', so that is the safer number to rely on. Note also that this 2020 study covered both trial and appellate cases — it should not be confused with a separate 2021 study by Harman and Lorandos that analysed roughly 967 appellate cases only.
Does this study prove parental alienation is real?
No — and it does not claim to. It is a study of how US courts have treated parental alienation, not a test of whether the construct is scientifically valid. Admissibility in court and scientific validity are different things: a concept can be routinely admitted in litigation while remaining contested among researchers. The study shows courts across the country engage with parental alienation; whether that engagement is scientifically well-founded, and whether it leads to safe decisions, are separate questions this study was not designed to answer.
What is the catch with the 'admissible in every state' finding?
The sample was pre-filtered. Cases were included only where the record already showed a judge or expert finding parental alienation 'of value' in the case. That selection naturally inflates how often the concept appears to be accepted, because cases where it was raised and rejected are largely left out. So the finding genuinely shows that courts across the United States are willing to entertain parental alienation — but it cannot tell you how often it is rejected, how reliably it is applied, or whether it is used safely. Read it as evidence of legal engagement, not of validity or safe practice.
How does this square with Joan Meier's research?
They measure different things and reach different-feeling conclusions. Lorandos's 2020 study counts how often courts admit and discuss parental alienation; Joan Meier's 2020 study examined custody outcomes and found that when mothers allege abuse, fathers' cross-claims of alienation roughly double the mothers' risk of losing custody, in a gender-specific pattern. Critics read Meier as evidence that alienation claims can be weaponised against genuine abuse allegations. Lorandos and Harman published a separate 2021 appellate analysis disputing Meier, and Meier's team replied. The dispute is real and ongoing — an honest reader should hold both bodies of work in view.
Who is Demosthenes Lorandos?
Demosthenes Lorandos is an American forensic psychologist and attorney — holding both a PhD and a JD — and one of the most prominent advocates of the parental-alienation construct. He is a member of the Parental Alienation Study Group and co-author of the field's main pro-construct reference texts, including the Parental Alienation handbook. He has also worked extensively as a paid expert witness in custody cases involving alienation. That dual standing as scholar and advocate is worth knowing when reading how this study frames its findings.
Can I use this study to prove alienation in my own case?
It can be useful background for showing that US courts recognise and admit parental-alienation evidence, but it is not a substitute for evidence in your specific case. Courts decide on the facts in front of them, and the stronger approach is to document specific behaviours and their impact on your child rather than to rely on a general claim that 'courts accept alienation'. A qualified family lawyer in your jurisdiction can advise on how — and whether — to introduce parental-alienation arguments, including the real risk that overreaching on the label can backfire.
References
- Lorandos, D. (2020). Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018 . Family Court Review 58(2), 322–339 , 322–339. · Primary study summarised on this page.
- Meier, J. S. (2020). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show? . Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 42(1), 92–105. Source
- Harman, J. J., & Lorandos, D. (2021). Allegations of family violence in court: How parental alienation affects judicial outcomes . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 27(2), 184–208. Source
See the full curated bibliography on the research page.
How to cite this summary
APA 7th edition
Smith, M. (2026). Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts: What Lorandos (2020) Found Across 34 Years of Cases [Summary of Lorandos, D. (2020)]. Love Over Exile. https://loveoverexile.com/parental-alienation-research/lorandos-2020-parental-alienation-us-courts/
When citing the underlying research, please cite the primary study (entry 1 above) directly.
About the researchers
Parental Alienation in U.S. Courts, 1985 to 2018 (2020) was authored by 1 researchers:
-
Demosthenes Lorandos, PhD, JD · Author
Forensic psychologist and attorney; founder of the PsychLaw practice (United States)
Demosthenes Lorandos is an American forensic psychologist and attorney, holding both a doctorate in clinical psychology and a law degree. He is one of the most prominent advocates of the parental-alienation construct, a member of the Parental Alienation Study Group, and co-author of the field's principal pro-construct reference works, including Parental Alienation: The Handbook for Mental Health and Legal Professionals and Parental Alienation: Science and Law. He has worked extensively as an expert witness in custody cases involving alienation — an explicitly pro-construct standing that this page notes for balance when weighing how the study's findings are framed.
