Concerns with the name “Parental Alienation”
Before anything else, I want to express my deep gratitude and respect. Without giants like Dr. Gardner, Dr. Warshak, and others who dedicated their energy to understanding the psychology of separation, I would probably not be part of my children’s lives today. The book “Divorce Poison” helped me recognize what was happening and gave me some tools to stay connected with both of my children through the most painful years of my life.
Even with know how, it took me years to become a daily part of my children’s lives again, the label itself did not help courts feel the medical urgency of timely intervention.
What I’m about to ask may sound ambitious — I realize that when a term has been used for decades, it becomes part of a field’s identity. Still, I keep wondering: could go back in time, could a different name serve the mankind better?
The term “Parental Alienation” emerged thanks to pioneers like Richard Gardner, Richard Warshak, and many others who refused to ignore a painful reality. They gave language to something children had suffered in silence for decades. Everything that follows stands on their foundation. Without their courage to face denial, we would have nothing to compare or reimagine today.
The name “Parental Alienation” might be describing the phenomenon so that everyone can imagine how severe the issue is, yet is not in DSM or ICD (The International Classification of Diseases) yet. So why not to imagine using a less controversial and more descriptimve name and leverage what we know from medicine?
The very word “alienation” may be part of the reason why “Parental Alienation” has not entered DSM or ICD and may never enter those systems. The word carries negative energy, it invites blame and defense, almost nobody wants to be diagnosed as an alienator or alienated. Definitions are not uniform, experts who describe a similar pattern end up coding different things, dialogue might suffer. The dynamic is hard to grasp for the parents involved.
“Parental Amblyopia” might evoke a clear medical language, care and rehabilitation. It might provide a scientifically proven parallel that may be easier for courts, social workers and all shareholders to grasp. It might increase the likelihood of making it to DSM and ICD.
Adults and maybe even social workers, some psychologists and judges might subconsciously operate under a myth that a child knows best what is best for her/ him. Target parents can argue with arguments about activities children usually do not want to do and parents force them to do it anyway – like going to elementary school, brushing teeth, etc. Yet these arguments might fail with the judges, as they often do. Amblyopia shows the sad truth – when a child is willing to use only one eye and the adults will not interfere, the consequences are fatal, negative and non-reversible. Every ophtalmologists knows many sad stories leaving children with damaged eyesight just because their childish decision.
My story
My name is Ales Pektor and I am the author of the concept Parental Amblyopia. My children consented that I share what happened and try my best to keep their privacy. In the book I am working on they will be called Elisabeth and Aneta, names they picked themselves.
“Help, save me.” Elisabeth, name changed for privacy, shouted this loudly down the street in spring 2017 while running away from me as I came to pick her up from school. I would not wish that to anyone. It was about to get even harder before it got better.
Elisabeth did not sleep under my roof for almost three years, even though during that period there were seven months of the mother’s care, then sixteen months of court approved 50:50 shared custody, and later months of my custody. Enforcement of the court order happened anyway, yet she still spent about six months away from me, first six weeks in a child psychiatry ward, the child was psychologically fine, only too influenced to come to me, then four more months in an integration facility, then about three and a half months of parents rotating in the mother’s flat, only after that did the child begin to sleep under my roof where the child now spends most nights according to the court order.
Elisabeth lived what people call “Parental Alienation.” I had been an everyday father from the start, school meetings, doctors, ordinary days. In July 2015 we stood before the court and agreed on shared custody after divorce, and maternal care until the divorce. A week earlier we had been at my father’s with the kids, a beautiful time for me, but for the grandparents of my ex it raised fear that I had become a danger. Shared custody never actually started. One child was so influenced that the only night under my roof between the separation and April 2018 was a single chaotic night in April 2016. The family around my ex was convinced I was dangerous, the child felt pressure and began to fear me, although I was never a danger.
To avoid losing my children I accepted supervised meetings with professionals. The sessions went well, nothing changed in practice. Every evening and morning the child was back under the influence of the same narrative. A good lawyer and a university educated father and a final judgment on shared custody did not help. The biggest shift came when I met a peer who had survived a similar story. He pointed me to books by Dr. Warshak and others opened my eyes. I am a former chess player, translating a raw emotional battle into rules helped me keep my head.
I filed for sole custody. The court approved that part of the spring holidays in 2017 would be with me, the family of my ex refused to hand the children over and disappeared with them.
On 9 June 2017 the court gave me custody. I still could not get to one child, they refused to hand the child over. On 30 June enforcement of the court order finally happened, the lock was cut, the child was taken to child psychiatry. There I heard, “The child does not want to see you, please leave,” which was a shocking mistake. Within days we were meeting under supervision even in the ward. It was surreal to know more about “Parental Alienation” than staff in a top hospital. A transfer to a more competent facility followed, thankfully such places exist. From mid December 2017, the child stayed in the mother’s flat while parents rotated until March 2018. From April 2018 both children slept under my roof. Three brutal years followed by seven better and better years. We have since celebrated our daughter’s 18th birthday at one table, parents and both siblings, and later sat together at our son’s school ball. It worked. I am a better father now and I thank life for every ordinary day. I started DivorceOptimist.com because I do not want other children to live what mine and I lived.
In parallel, my other child, Aneta (named changed for privacy reasons) was diagnosed with amblyopia. I already held a master university degree and had still never heard the word. I then spent dozens hours studying it. Amblyopia works differently than most childhood eye problems. If it is not addressed in time, the child loses practical access to one of their eyes, career choices narrow, spatial orientation suffers. The amblyopic eye is not broken, it is ignored by the brain. The occluder limits the dominant eye for a time, the amblyopic eye must re-engage, the goal is binocular vision again.
Why Parental Amblyopia
We have all seen a child with amblyopia. They are the small kids in glasses with one eye patched. The patch is called an occluder, the aim is simple, the doctor temporarily limits the dominant eye so that the amblyopic eye must work again.
The analogy is simple. In amblyopia, the developing brain suppresses input from the amblyopic eye because two images are hard to integrate, short term peace wins over long term function. In “Parental Alienation,” the developing brain may suppress input from the amblyopic parent because two parental signals are hard to integrate, short term peace wins over long term development. Relief is real, health is something else. Adaptation is not healing.
I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. This is a working hypothesis and a metaphor, not a psychiatric diagnosis and not medical or legal advice. The term “Parental Alienation” is not an official diagnosis in DSM or ICD, there are broader relational codes for caregiver child problems, the word “alienation” is not there. My aim is not to replace any expert process, my aim is to give non specialists a clear mechanism once safety is established.
Terminology mapping
| Conventional term inside “Parental Alienation” | Parental Amblyopia term | Meaning in this analogy |
|---|---|---|
| Programming or Favored Parent | Dominant Parent | The parent whose signal overwhelms the child, comparable to the dominant eye |
| Target or Rejected Parent | Amblyopic Parent | The parent the child suppresses, comparable to the amblyopic eye |
| Reunification program | Occlusion guided rehabilitation | A temporary, humane limit on the dominant input so the amblyopic side can re-engage |
| Skills training and support | Glasses for the Amblyopic Parent | Corrective support so the amblyopic side sends a clean, usable signal |
| Vision therapy, pleoptics | Pleoparenting | Targeted, time limited work to stabilise balance and prevent relapse |
Mapping the treatment logic
| Ophthalmology for amblyopia | “Parental Amblyopia” approach |
|---|---|
| First correct the amblyopic eye with glasses if needed and measure function | First assess and strengthen the Amblyopic Parent with concrete parenting skills and supports |
| If no improvement across two checkups, begin active therapy | If no improvement across two assisted contacts, begin a structured time limited plan |
| Temporarily limit the Dominant Eye with occlusion or penalisation | Temporarily reduce the Dominant Parent’s influence or time, or use a neutral setting with supervision when needed |
| Taper limits as binocular function returns | Rebalance time with both parents as the relationship stabilises |
| Monitor to prevent relapse | Professional review points to prevent relapse |
| Goal, restore binocular vision and maximal acuity | Goal, restore safe development with both parents and repair the relationship with the Amblyopic Parent |
Why the occluder matters
An occluder is not a punishment. It is a clear tool to reduce dominance, so the amblyopic eye must be used again. A child’s brain chose short term comfort by ignoring one signal, the patch helps restore the capacity to use both eyes together. In families the equivalent is clear. If the Amblyopic Parent has already done their part, the emotional equivalent of getting glasses, and the child still refuses contact without any safety reason, then the system can temporarily limit the Dominant Parent’s influence as therapy. This is not about forcing love, it is about restoring the capacity to see.
Courts, opinions, and measurement
Courts often say they must know a child’s opinion. Ophthalmology offers a cleaner model. No doctor asks a child which eye they would like to stop using for the rest of their life. Doctors measure both eyes, they test function, and if one is amblyopic they start occlusion therapy without waiting for a future mood. The only exception is when the amblyopic eye is itself diseased, for example a tumor, then the plan changes. Family systems should follow that logic. Do not ask children to pick a parent, examine the function and safety of both parents, then build a plan that restores balance. It is not about making the child love someone, it is about restoring the child’s ability to use both sides of their family.
Two causes, one goal
In amblyopia either the amblyopic eye needs correction or the dominant eye needs to be limited for a time. In families the same logic applies. Strengthen the Amblyopic Parent first, and if that is not enough, limit dominance for a time, then taper as balance returns. No eye loses when both are treated, no parent has to be erased for a child to see clearly.
Exceptions that are not Parental Amblyopia
Violence, sexual abuse, severe untreated addiction. These are not Parental Amblyopia, these are like cancer of the eye. Protection comes first, contact is limited until real treatment and real safety are in place. Many conditions can be treated, and when they are, contact can be rebuilt. The aim is a healthy relationship with both parents when it is safe.
What this text is and is not
This is a reflection based on my lived experience and thousands hours of study of both “Parental Alienation” and “Amblyopia” combined. It is a metaphor and a working hypothesis, it is not a diagnosis, it is not a protocol, it is not legal advice. “Parental Alienation” is not in DSM or ICD. My aim is modest and clear, fewer children growing up with one parent erased, fewer children losing binocular vision, children need both eyes, children need both parents when it is safe.
Short glossary
Dominant Parent means the parent whose signal overwhelms the child, comparable to the dominant eye.
Amblyopic Parent means the parent the child suppresses, comparable to the amblyopic eye.
Occlusion means a temporary and humane limit on dominance so the amblyopic side can re-engage.
Pleoptics means rehabilitation in amblyopia, the relational analogy is targeted, time limited work that strengthens the Amblyopic Parent until balance stabilises and than training the cooperation between both parents.
Binocular vision means using both eyes together, the relational analogy is the child’s capacity to hold both parents when it is safe.
A by-product that would save sight
If the “Parental Alienation” experts had spoken in this language from the beginning, we might imagine judges, teachers, journalists, and parents would already know what amblyopia is. More parents would recognise the signs in their children’s eyes, more children would be diagnosed in time, fewer would lose binocular vision for life. Language would save families and, quite literally, save sight. There are millions of new children suffering from amblyopia every year, as amblyopia is the most spread child eye decease.
So I can promise you I will work on spreading the knowledge about dangerous Amblyopia. And dangerous Parental Amblyopia.