QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION IN ISRAELI COURT CASES

BY

R. DAVID WEISSKOPF

DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
Doctor of Psychology in Human Organizational Psychology
with a concentration in organizational leadership.

Touro University Worldwide, 2022

Doctoral Committee:

Jessica Shoemaker, Psy.D, Chair

Dawn Campbell, Psy.D, Committee
Michael Hamlin, Psy.D, Committee
Yair Maman, Psy.D, Committee

i
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

[SIGNATURE PAGE PLACEHOLDER]

ii
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

© 2022
R. David Weisskopf
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Acknowledgments

Thank you Dr. Robert Kenedy, Pnina Shapira, and Sharon Spira for encouraging me to

pursue this doctorate degree. Special thanks to Nevo for allowing this analysis free access to

your database. Thank you also to MAXQDA for allowing this analysis free use of your

systematic content analysis software. This dissertation was possible thanks to all of you.

iv
‫‪QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION‬‬

‫‪This dissertation is dedicated to victims of parental alienation.‬‬

‫הנה אנכי שלח לכם את אליה הנביא לפני בוא יום יי הגדול והנורא והשיב לב אבות על בנים ולב בנים על‬
‫אבותם פן אבוא והכיתי את הארץ חרם )מלאכי ג‪:‬כג‪-‬כד(‬

‫‪v‬‬
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Abstract

This quantitative analysis has 3 research questions.

• What is the relationship between court decisions on parental alienation and frequency or

severity of parental alienation?

• In light of the Israeli Supreme Court's order in October 2020, what are the current

management needs of parental alienation cases in Israel?

• Should Israel scale Erez Shani's specialized court on parental alienation in Tel Aviv to a

nationwide infrastructure?

To answer the questions, there was a case law analysis that started with all of the 430 published

Israeli court decisions on parental alienation between 1996-2020 in the Nevo database. The

analysis focused on 198 cases in which the court determined there to be parental alienation

during the time period. The analysis then sifted through 6,084 published cases with signs of

parental alienation but failed to address parental alienation. This sifting was to find decisions to

serve as a control group for the analysis. To accomplish this, the analysis used a quantitative

systematic content analysis to identify cases that most resembled the 198 cases in the target

group. There were 86 cases from lower courts that closely resembled the target group. The

target group also contained 86 cases from lower courts. Therefore, the analysis proceeded with a

quantitative study of the 86 cases from lower courts in the control group to compare with the 86

cases from lower courts in the target group. While the analysis found statistical significance with

time and severity, the most significant finding was a pilot program in Tel Aviv that set up a

specialized court in 2019. This specialized court substantially reduced the time, frequency, and

severity of parental alienation. Therefore, the analysis recommends scaling the pilot from Tel

Aviv into a nationwide infrastructure with recommendations for specific Israeli authorities.

vi
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iv
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................1
Background.................................................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................................4
Conceptual Framework...............................................................................................................9
Research Questions...................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................................................................................11
International Publications..........................................................................................................11
Skeptics ................................................................................................................................11
Advocates ............................................................................................................................13
Israeli Publications....................................................................................................................17
Israeli Case Law .......................................................................................................................20
Summary...................................................................................................................................22
Chapter 3: Methodology................................................................................................................23
Population & Sample................................................................................................................23
Instrumentation & Procedure ...................................................................................................25
Data Analysis............................................................................................................................26
Chapter 4: Results..........................................................................................................................27
Child Litigants...........................................................................................................................27
Supervised Visitation................................................................................................................28
Gender.......................................................................................................................................29
Court Types & Location............................................................................................................30
Rabbinical Courts......................................................................................................................33
Length of Time..........................................................................................................................33
Severity of Alienation...............................................................................................................35
Bivariate Analysis.....................................................................................................................37
Multivariate Analysis................................................................................................................37
Time by Locality.......................................................................................................................38
Severity by Locality..................................................................................................................39
National Frequency...................................................................................................................40
Tel Aviv....................................................................................................................................40
Tel Aviv - Time....................................................................................................................41
Tel Aviv - Severity...............................................................................................................41
Tel Aviv - Frequency............................................................................................................42
Chapter 5: Discussion....................................................................................................................43
Interpretation of the Findings....................................................................................................43
Case Law .............................................................................................................................43
The Tender Years Presumption ...........................................................................................44
Child Support .......................................................................................................................46
Litigating Minors..................................................................................................................48
Supervised Visitation............................................................................................................48
Gender..................................................................................................................................49
Lack of Accountability in the FCSS ....................................................................................50
Generally Speaking..............................................................................................................54
vii
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

The Best Interest of the Child Doctrine ...............................................................................58

Philip Marcus .......................................................................................................................59
A Milestone in 2017.............................................................................................................61
Erez Shani ............................................................................................................................64
Halperin-Kaddari et al. (2020) ............................................................................................70
Implications...............................................................................................................................71
Future Research ........................................................................................................................73
Conclusions...............................................................................................................................74
Chapter 6: Recommendations........................................................................................................76
The Judiciary ............................................................................................................................76
The Ministry of Welfare ...........................................................................................................78
The Ministry of Health .............................................................................................................80
The Knesset ..............................................................................................................................81
Summary ..................................................................................................................................84
References......................................................................................................................................85
Appendix A: ..................................................................................................................................94
Appendix B: ..................................................................................................................................96
Appendix C: ................................................................................................................................100

viii
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

List of Figures

Figure 1: Independent & dependent variables...............................................................................10

Figure 2: Litigants by gender.........................................................................................................30
Figure 3: Number of decisions by location....................................................................................31
Figure 4: Length of time cases were open.....................................................................................34
Figure 5: Comparison of severity of parental alienation...............................................................35
Figure 6: Linear regression charts of severity over time...............................................................37
Figure 7: Marcus' decisions on a linear regression chart...............................................................61

ix
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Chapter 1: Introduction

Dr. Richard Gardner (1985) coined the term “parental alienation syndrome” to describe a

phenomenon usually in divorce cases whereby a custodial parent turns the children against the

non-custodial parent. The children in such cases develop irrational resentment against the

targeted parent. Templer et al. (2017) reaffirmed that this phenomenon has 3 levels of severity,

with up to 8 symptoms in severe cases. While the term in English is sometimes “parental

alienation syndrome” and sometimes is “parental alienation” - in Hebrew the term is ‫ניכור הורי‬,

which translates as “parental alienation”. Therefore, this dissertation uses the term “parental

alienation” to be consistent across the two languages.

The diagnosis of parental alienation has sparked international controversy in courts,

clinics, and academia for decades. Templer et al. (2017) affirmed there to be a consensus in the

legal and academic literature that parental alienation does occur. Critics often argue that

recognizing parental alienation violates women's rights. For example, the World Health

Organization (2019) recognized parental alienation (without the syndrome) as a psychological

disorder in a draft of its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) publication. Neilson

et al. (2019) sent a memo to the World Health Organization opposing the inclusion of parental

alienation in the upcoming ICD-11, claiming that its inclusion violates gender equality. Israeli

signatories to this memo included Gali Etzion, Daphna Hacker, Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Dana

Eisner-Lavi, and the Rackman Center at Bar Ilan University. All of the Israeli signatories were

experts in gender law, not psychology or medicine. The following year, the World Health

Organization (2020) removed the term “parental alienation” from the updated draft of the ICD-

11. The final version of the ICD-11 is scheduled for publication in 2023 and the exact wording

of the section currently entitled “caregiver-child relationship problems” is still up for debate.

1
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

In Israel, (2020) ‫( בית המשפט העליוון‬Supreme Court, 2020) issued an order entitled ‫הוראות‬

‫( נוהל של נשיאת בית המשפט העליון‬Procedural Provisions of the President of the Supreme Court) to

intervene and protect relationships between children and their parents. The order states:

In cases of harm to the relationship between parents and their children and due to the

concern for the normal emotional development of the child, time is of the essence

and has a decisive influence on effective treatment and intervention in problems with

relationships between parents and their minor children1 (para 1).

There is not yet a peer-reviewed needs assessment of how Israeli leadership should manage cases

of parental alienation in accordance with the above-referenced order. Currently, there is one

court in Tel Aviv that specializes in parental alienation files, but none of the other jurisdictions

have yet followed suit (nor is there a national infrastructure to do so). The purpose of this

analysis is to begin the needs assessment process with the research question whether there is a

relationship between court decisions on parental alienation and the frequency or severity of

parental alienation. Since the context of this management is within a legal system, this

dissertation will focus on an analysis of published court decisions on parental alienation. In so

doing, the needs assessment process can begin within the emerging environment in the Israeli

court system to help determine Israel's starting point in addressing parental alienation.

Background

The modern discussion about parental alienation began with Gardner (1985). He

emphasized that contact refusal was not the same as parental alienation (syndrome). Contact

refusal was a child's reaction to abuse, neglect, or abandonment; whereas parental alienation

(syndrome) was a sudden and irrational rejection of a previously loved parent. He distinguished

three levels of severity – mild, moderate, and severe. This analysis is especially interested in the

severe level. In severe cases, custodial parents make false allegations of abuse to instill parental
1 Translated from Hebrew to English by the author.
2
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

alienation (syndrome) in the children. Gardner (1985) described eight symptoms of parental

alienation syndrome. Baker (2008) listed these symptoms as follows:

● A campaign of denigration – A child refuses contact with a previously loved parent.

Furthermore, the child expresses hate, contempt, or fear of the alienated parent whom the child

previously loved.

● Weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations – When therapists ask the child about the

sudden change in relationship, the child either gives a vague answer or frivolous excuses such as

the targeted parent is boring or ugly. Alternatively, the child makes false allegations against the

targeted parent.

● Lack of ambivalence about the alienating parent – The child expresses as strong of an

allegiance for the alienating parent as he or she expresses animosity against the targeted parent.

● The “independent thinker” phenomenon – Both the alienating parent and the child insist

that the child reached these conclusions on her or her own.

● Absence of guilt about the treatment of the targeted parent – Neither the alienating parent

nor the child expresses any sympathy whatsoever for the targeted parent.

● Reflexive support for the alienating parent in parental conflict – The parental conflict

becomes a black-and-white issue for the child whereby the alienating parent is always right and

the targeted parent is always wrong.

● Presence of borrowed scenarios – The child makes claims against the targeted parent that

the child could not possibly have observed firsthand such as the targeted parent failing to pay

child support. Such claims originate from the alienating parent.

● Rejection of extended family – As the child rejects a previously loved parent, he or she

may also reject previously loved relatives of the targeted parent.

3
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Statement of the Problem

Since 2019, the Israeli judiciary has launched a pilot program in Tel Aviv to address

parental alienation. It is important to note the Israeli family court has adopted a therapeutic

jurisprudence model in which judicial and welfare authorities collaborate in family court cases –

including parental alienation cases. Judicial and welfare authorities rely on studies to determine

their policies. However, most of these studies are not peer-reviewed and contain biased data

with spurious results. For example, Bayer-Topilsky et al. (2015) was a study funded by the

Ministry of Welfare to show an association between new mandated arbitration within the Family

Court Social Services (FCSS) on every petition filed in family court and increased client

satisfaction. The positive report resulted in the Ministry of Welfare (which funded the study)

receiving a multi-billion shekel increase per year to their annual budget. Bayer-Topilsky et al.

(2015) conducted telephone surveys with clients whose conflicts were successfully resolved

between November 2012 and July 2013. Intake for the study was conducted by FCSS social

workers who themselves had a vested interest in the outcome of the report. Clients were pre-

screened by the FCSS social workers to determine who would participate in the surveys. This

study seemed to be laden with researcher bias to ensure a significant increase in funding for the

Ministry of Welfare. In contrast, an independent evidence-based approach would have been

more reliable. Contrary to the report's findings, the months of additional bureaucracy alienated

parents had to go through to seek relief from the authorities seemed to exacerbate parental

alienation.

As mentioned in the introduction, the Israeli Supreme Court (2020) issued an order

entitled “‫( ”הוראות נוהל של נשיאת בית המשפט העליון‬Procedural Provisions of the President of the

Supreme Court) to establish uniform operational procedures for all family courts nationwide that,

among other things, consistently ensure contact between parents and children. The pilot program

4
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

in Tel Aviv seemed successful and could be expanded into a national infrastructure. However,

there has not yet been a peer-reviewed needs assessment of how Israeli leadership should

manage parental alienation cases in accordance with the above order. Currently, the one court in

Tel Aviv that specializes in parental alienation files pursuant to the above order is the only

specialized court. None of the other jurisdictions have yet followed suit (nor is there a national

infrastructure to do so). Moreover, Israeli scholarship on parental alienation is sparse with no

peer-reviewed studies conducted within the past five years.

A month after the Supreme Court order, (2020) ‫קדרי ואחרים‬-‫( הלפרין‬Halperin-Kaddari et

al. 2020) wrote a letter criticizing the order and the pilot program in Tel Aviv. Most signatories

to this letter were also signatories to Neilson et al. (2019). The letter placed blame on targeted

parents for the breakdown in relationships with their children. They claimed “dozens of studies”

worldwide proved that parental alienation was unscientific. However, the only peer-reviewed

studies they cited were Mercer (2019) and Meier (2020). Lorandos (2020b) refuted these studies

as unscientific and detailed how they used biased data and spurious results. Halperin-Kaddari et

al. (2020) further claimed that there was not a single peer-reviewed study in the world that

scientifically validated the parental alienation diagnosis. This claim was contrary to the literature

review that (2019) ‫און & מזאה‬-‫( בר‬Bar-On & Mazeh, 2019) submitted to the Ministry of Welfare.

Additionally, the Touro University library contains over 1,600 peer-reviewed publications on

parental alienation with over 100 of them published since 2021. Bar-On and Mazeh (2019),

Lorandos (2020a), Lee-Maturana (2020), and Miralles et al. (2021) covered many of these peer-

reviewed publications in their surveys.

The letter further argued that 8% of Israeli children reported being sexually abused and

that 80% of the abusers were men in their families. The letter did not specify how many of these

incidents involved parents who sexually abused their own children. When caught, according to

5
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

the letter, these men could allegedly claim parental alienation to hide their crimes. Even at face

value, the argument was a red herring. That a small segment of the population sexually abused

their own relatives does not translate into a large segment of targeted parents from both genders

tricking the court system into accepting false claims of parental alienation. Furthermore,

Mackenzie et al. (2020) as well as Harman and Lorandos (2021) detail how such incitement

creates an atmosphere of paranoia in the family court that causes further trauma to the children in

parental alienation cases.

The letter claimed that “in recent years” the court had aggressively transferred custody

away from protective mothers due to parental alienation into the hands of abusive fathers only to

return custody to the mothers after discovering further abuse to the children in the fathers'

homes. The implication was the pilot program in Tel Aviv failed to protect children's safety.

Prior to this dissertation, there has not been a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that scrutinized

the track record of the pilot program in Tel Aviv. Halperin-Kaddari et al. (2020) distributed this

letter to various authorities in the court and welfare systems. While it did not shut down the pilot

program in Tel Aviv, it caused reluctance to expand the pilot program from Tel Aviv into a

nationwide infrastructure.

Morag (2015) expressed concern that, due to differences between the American and

Israeli legal systems, treatment of parental alienation could not be implemented in Israel as it was

in the United States; and that parental alienation as expressed in Gardner's teachings does not

give sufficient weight to the child's wishes and opinions as required by the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child. She pointed out that the United States was not a

signatory to this particular convention, while Israel was. Although there has been no factual

basis for the above claim against adopting practices from the American judiciary, this mindset

6
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

nevertheless presented a challenge to the development of a coherent infrastructure to treat

parental alienation in Israel based on data from American courts.

Marcus (2019)2 praised the Israeli FCSS as a leader in therapeutic jurisprudence with

continuous improvements based largely on the study by Bayer-Topilsky et al. (2015). He

suggested that various professionals in the child's community monitor parents and report abuse to

FCSS professionals. His argument that the Israeli court system was on the cutting edge of child

welfare contradicted the claim of Morag (2019), who criticized Israel's inadequate

implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also

contradicted data found in the literature discussed in this analysis. Prior to the pilot program in

2019, there was no established policy for the courts to handle parental alienation; nor did the

FCSS offer specialized treatment. The Israeli judiciary has not yet established a consistent and

clear national infrastructure to address parental alienation in compliance with the Supreme Court

(2020) directive. The main guiding principle was ‫( התשנ''ה‬1995) ‫חוק בית המשפט לענייני משפחה‬

(the Family Court Law,1995),3 which gave family court judges broad and ambiguous powers to

make decisions under the guidance of the FCSS that the FCSS deemed to be “in the child's best

interest” without any defined parameters. Besides Erez Shani, who will be discussed in chapters

4 and 5, the case law on parental alienation has tended to be mishmash and even contradictory.

It is therefore hard to reconcile Marcus' assertion that such a system is more advanced on the

issue of parental alienation than any other country in the world. If Israel were to expand Shani's

model in Tel Aviv into a nationwide infrastructure, then it could be possible in the future for

Israel to lead the world in parental alienation intervention.

2 (2019) ‫מרכוס‬
3 The law is available in Hebrew on the Knesset website:
https://www.knesset.gov.il/review/data/heb/law/kns13_familycourt.pdf
7
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Israeli lawmakers have mostly ignored parental alienation. A policy handbook about

parental alienation was written by (2019) ‫גבעון‬-‫( מוניקנדם‬Monnickendam-Givon, 2019)4 for the

Knesset5. The handbook acknowledged that there was no legislation related to parental

alienation; which complicated intervention and treatment. A previous attempt to pass such

legislation had failed. The handbook proposed measures in hopes that such legislation would

pass in the future. These included diagnosis and treatment. While the handbook explained the

need for diagnosis and treatment, it did not include specific criteria. Rather, it provided a broad

overview of the issue and the need for action. As of 2020 policies related to parental alienation

were mostly via piecemeal case law that sometimes contradicted itself.

Bar-On and Mazeh (2019)6 conducted a literature review for the Ministry of Welfare.

Their review included quantitative and qualitative studies on parental alienation. It was an

interdisciplinary psychological and legal review designed to help the Ministry of Welfare

develop policy on parental alienation – especially in severe cases. This literature review

confirmed the findings of international peer-reviewed surveys and reviews. The key finding was

long-term effects of parental alienation negatively impacted children of all genders even into

adulthood.

It is worth noting that Neilson et al. (2019) sent a memo to the World Health

Organization (WHO) opposing the proposed inclusion of parental alienation as a psychological

disorder in the ICD-11 publication. While this memo was not itself a peer-reviewed publication,

the authors and many of the signatories were academics who publish articles in peer-reviewed

journals. Therefore, this memo influenced the WHO in its discussion of parental alienation and
4 The handbook is available online in Hebrew at: https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/362831bc-ad82-
e911-80f1-00155d0a9536/2_362831bc-ad82-e911-80f1-00155d0a9536_11_13679.pdf
5 The Knesset is the Israeli national parliament.
6 The document is available online in Hebrew at: https://mazeh.co.il/source/Articles/-
%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA-
%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%93%D7%A8-
%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9F.pdf
8
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

the upcoming ICD-11. The memo claimed that the WHO would violate gender equality if it

included parental alienation as a psychological disorder in the upcoming ICD-11. Israeli

signatories to this memo included Gali Etzion, Daphna Hacker, Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, Dana

Eisner-Lavi, and Bar Ilan University's Rackman Center. All of the Israeli signatories were

experts in gender law and none of them were experts in psychology or medicine (the only

subjects that the ICD-11 addresses). Furthermore, all the Israeli signatories have political

influence over Israeli authorities on various issues, including parental alienation.

Conceptual Framework

This analysis used grounded theory with an inductive approach as the theoretical

framework so that the data could drive the theory rather than a hypothesis influencing the data.

By taking a strictly scientific approach to the data, this analysis serves to introduce evidence-

based practice into Israel as a needs assessment without disrupting the burgeoning infrastructure

of the Israeli judicial system to manage parental alienation cases. It is critical that leadership

engage in an atmosphere of collaboration throughout the process of establishing a clear and

consistent national infrastructure. As leadership exemplifies the ongoing issues of managing

parental alienation cases – evidence-based practice can also be introduced into the Israeli

administrative infrastructure.

Parental alienation is a controversial issue that Israel has begun to take seriously in recent

years. It began in 2019 with a pilot program in Tel Aviv. Israel's Supreme Court ordered in

October 2020 that each jurisdiction needs to create infrastructures to “ensure contact between

parents and children”. This order could become a catalyst for a collaborative nationwide

interdisciplinary infrastructure to address parental alienation. One of the obstacles to effective

management of parental alienation in Israel is the lack of scientific research in Israel on the issue.

Critics such as Etzion, Hacker, Halperin-Kaddari, Eisner-Lavi, and Bar Ilan University's

9
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Rackman Center resist progress on parental alienation in Israel without evidence-based research

to support their claims. Therefore, this analysis employed evidence-based research to provide a

basis for a needs assessment based on data from published Israeli court decisions in the Nevo

database.

The first step was to conduct an analysis of published court decisions related to parental

alienation claims and compare them to published decisions in similar cases that did not address

parental alienation. The published data enabled this analysis to examine the relationship between

court decisions on parental alienation and the frequency or severity of parental alienation.

Figure 1: Independent & dependent variables

Independent
Variables
Contentious custody
cases without
intervention Dependent
Variable
Contentious custody
Rate/Severity
cases involving
of parental alienation
intervention

Research Questions

1. What is the relationship between court decisions on parental alienation and

frequency or severity of parental alienation?

2. In light of the Israeli Supreme Court's order in October 2020, what are the current

management needs of parental alienation cases in Israel?

3. Should Israel scale Erez Shani's specialized court on parental alienation in Tel

Aviv to nationwide infrastructure?

10
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Chapter 2: Literature Review

International Publications

As stated in the introduction, the modern-day discussion about parental alienation began

with Gardner (1985). He identified three levels of severity – mild, moderate, and severe. In

severe cases, custodial parents raise false allegations of abuse (including sexual abuse) to instill

parental alienation in the children. He identified up to eight signs of parental alienation,

especially in severe cases, which were detailed by Baker (2008), and reaffirmed by Templer et

al. (2017), and Lorandos (2020a).

Skeptics

Lubit (2019) critiqued each of the eight symptoms of parental alienation as defined by

Gardner (1985). Of the eight characteristics, Lubit (2019) alleged that all but one were “back

door” claims to switch child custody from one parent to the other. The only characteristic that he

asserted to be legitimate was “sudden rejection of previously loved parent for no reason”, which

corresponded to “a campaign of denigration”. He conducted qualitative interviews with 14

children ages 9-15 in cases where parental alienation was diagnosed, and he confirmed parental

alienation in one case. He concluded that there needed to be a quantitative study before

advocates of parental alienation could claim the theory to be legitimate science.

Mercer (2019) did a literature review of peer-reviewed publications on parental alienation

and included five testimonies of adults who experienced treatments for parental alienation as

children. The article asserted that diagnosing parental alienation needed clear criteria. The

conclusion was that treatments were harmful to children while also asserting that proponents of

parental alienation failed to use evidence-based practice in their approaches. As stated in chapter

1, Lorandos (2020b) refuted this article.

11
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Shaw (2019) likewise claimed that a parental alienation diagnosis was unscientific and

failed to protect children from abuse. While the standard for criminal conviction was beyond a

reasonable doubt, he asserted that the standard for abuse should be a preponderance of the

evidence. The article claimed that “most experts” do not recognize parental alienation –

however, the article also failed to quantify or cite sources that would support this claim.

Additional opposition to parental alienation was expressed by Milchman et al. (2020).

She portrayed parental alienation as a “misogynistic” reaction to efforts at including child sexual

abuse as a psychological disorder. The claim was that fathers were typically the parents who

face allegations of sexually abusing their children. When those allegations proved to be true, the

trauma that the children experience should be classified as a psychological disorder. Whereas,

she claimed that parental alienation as outlined by Gardner (1985) merely provided an excuse for

such abusive fathers to sidestep the allegations in court. Mothers who attempted to protect their

children from sexual abuse by such fathers could face accusations of parental alienation. She

argued that proponents of parental alienation lacked scientific evidence to prove its existence in

the first place. Bernet (2020), and Lorandos (2020b) refuted this article.

Rao (2021) argued against allowing parental alienation experts in court. She claimed the

origin of parental alienation was “an anti-feminist theory”. Those who opposed the theory were

“domestic violence advocates” - seemingly feminists who would advocate against domestic

violence. This feminist group opposed the use of parental alienation in court because it may

undermine the safety of custodial mothers and their children from domestic violence disguised as

parental alienation. Ironically, the example in the introduction to this article involved a case

where the father was the custodial parent and the daughter testified against the non-custodial

mother with allegations of domestic violence by the mother. The article pointed out that no

scientific organization has adopted parental alienation as a formal diagnosis. She claimed there

12
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

to be a lack of general acceptance of parental alienation in the relevant professional fields. She

further claimed there to be a lack of scientifically observable, testable, and measurable

quantitative data on a national scale that would prove the parental alienation diagnosis.

Therefore, parental alienation does not meet American judicial standards to be admissible in

American courts.

Advocates

Those who validated parental alienation as a psychological disorder constitute most of the

peer-reviewed literature. Contrary to criticisms that parental alienation lacks scientific study,

Lee-Maturana et al. (2020) conducted a literature review of publications in academic databases

that related to targeted parents in parental alienation cases. Publications had to be peer-reviewed

and were published between 2006 and 2018. Most studies came from the United States and

English-speaking countries with one study from Israel. There were quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed-method studies in the review. Despite the claim by Milchman et al. (2020) that targeted

parents were mostly fathers, the literature showed approximately equal distribution between

fathers and mothers as targeted parents. In fact, the Israeli study in the literature review (Finzi-

Dottan et al., 2012) was a qualitative study exclusively of alienated mothers. The review

concluded there to be a gap in the literature about targeted parents and studies from other

cultures outside the USA and that more such studies need to be conducted.

Baker (2005) conducted qualitative interviews with 38 adults who had been victims of

parental alienation as children. As for gender, 2/3 of the participants were female, 1/3 were male

and none identified as any gender other than male or female. The focus was on the long-term

effects of parental alienation on children – none were positive. The severity of the negative

psychological impact included self-hatred, alcoholism, and even suicidal tendencies. Aloia and

13
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Strutzenberg (2019), and Bentley and Matthewson (2020) confirmed these findings in more

recent studies.

Garber (2011) was a case study that identified three ways in which alienating parents

manipulated their children – adultification, parentification, and infantilization. Adultification

was when a parent promoted a child to serve a parent or partner against the alienated parent.

Parentification was when a parent reversed roles with the child who became the protector.

Infantilization was when a parent inhibited a child's natural development. The study framed

these behaviors in a context of intervention and treatment of parental alienation. Rowlands

(2019) and (2020) updated these concepts in his measurement tools.

Greenberg et al. (2016) proposed an intervention called Child-Centered Conjoint Therapy

(CCCT). This model focused on families in contentious court cases in the USA and surrounded

the children with support structures. Part of this included requiring both parents to cooperate

fully. The hope was that both parents would voluntarily cooperate. However, the model allowed

for the family court to limit and even terminate contact between an uncooperative parent and the

children. Scharp et al, (2020) revisited this program in their report.

Templer, et al (2017) conducted a study that reviewed international literature on parental

alienation. The purpose was to make recommendations for therapists and legal practitioners to

collaborate on treating parental alienation. The study asserted that such inter-disciplinary

collaboration was essential for the treatment to be effective. Part and parcel of this strategy was

shifting parental rights and responsibilities to the targeted parent. This would be in the context

of a specialized infrastructure (both legal and therapeutic) for parental alienation. The study

recommended a statewide therapeutic jurisprudence infrastructure that employs evidence-based

practice in the management of parental alienation cases. The court needs to strictly enforce

14
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

rulings on non-compliant parents in order for the therapists to effectively treat parental

alienation.

Verrocchio et al. (2019) conducted a quantitative study on 491 Italians and found

statistical significance between the control group and adults who claimed to have been victims of

parental alienation as children. The study found that adults who had been alienated from their

parents as children were more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem, and inadequacy. Of

the participants, 60% were female and 40% were male (none identified as any other gender).

The article concluded that there needed to be follow-up research on the long-term effects of

parental alienation on children.

Lorandos (2020a) conducted a quantitative survey of the evolution of alienating

behaviors in American courts. While he primarily focused on the period after 1985 (when

Gardner first discussed the phenomenon) his survey referred to prior cases that manifest signs of

alienation before there was a term for the phenomenon. The survey focused on cases in which

American courts and court-appointed experts found the concept of parental alienation to be

relevant and admissible in the proceedings. He additionally documented demographic data

including gender, ethnicity, geography, etc. There were 3,555 cases in his survey. He observed

parental alienation negatively affected both mothers and fathers despite gender-based claims that

only fathers raise claims as victims of parental alienation.

Warshak (2019) published a review of a program called “Family Bridges”. Lorandos

(2020c) also reviewed Family Bridges. The purpose of this educational program was to help

alienated children develop skills to resist outside pressure that would cause them to hate the

alienated parent, and taught alienated parents how to sensitively manage their children's

behavior. He also asserted that temporarily excluding the children from the alienating parent

was an essential first step to reverse the harm in cases of severe parental alienation. The Family

15
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Bridges program could then effectively educate such children to think critically and

independently of pressure from others.

Baker (2020) proposed a four-factor model to accurately diagnose parental alienation.

The 4 factors were as follows.

• A prior positive relationship between the child and rejected parent.

• Absence of maltreatment by the rejected parent.

• Use of alienating behaviors by the alienating parent.

• Presence of behavioral manifestations of alienation in the child.

The study tested the model's reliability and accuracy with vignettes presented to therapists who

treat parental alienation cases. The study determined the model to be highly accurate and

reliable. The conclusion was two or more of the above factors needed to be present to diagnose a

case with parental alienation.

Miralles et al. (2021) did an updated survey of international peer-reviewed studies on the

long-term effects of parental alienation. They surveyed qualitative and quantitative studies that

measured how parental alienation affected adults who had grown up as children in families that

suffered from parental alienation. This survey found that children exposed to parental alienation

frequently grew in adulthood with depression, anxiety, a higher risk of psychopathology, lower

self-esteem, and self-sufficiency. This population further manifests higher alcohol and drug use

rates, parental relationship difficulties, insecure attachment, lower life quality, higher divorce

rates, feelings of loss, abandonment, and guilt. These negative effects manifest in both males and

females as they grew into adulthood.

Lee-Maturana et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study on participants who self-

described as targeted parents. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 54

participants. The study found two common themes among the participants – a history of family

16
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

violence before separation and coercion after the separation. These themes manifest in both

male and female victims. The study concluded that therapists and court authorities needed to be

sensitive to the psychological traumas targeted parents suffered – including the loss of their

children.

Israeli Publications

One of the earliest peer-reviewed Hebrew publications on parental alienation was

Bergman et al. (1995)7. They adopted Gardner's position on parental alienation and argued that

the child is subjected to psychological pressure that causes him or her to sever contact with the

targeted parent while simultaneously causing the child to develop a dependence on the alienating

parent. Such psychological pressure often leads to false complaints by the child about physical or

mental harm against the estranged parent.

Rudnicki et al. (2003)8 proposed a therapeutic model that differed from Gardner's

recommendations. Their model operated on the premise that the psychological mechanisms

operating in families with parental alienation had multiple sources from several family members

and not only with the alienating parent. Their model described children forced to choose one of

the two parents, and not presented with other options. In such cases, the split became a survival

mechanism for the child. In this way, the child managed to deal with the feeling that he or she

betrayed the targeted parent without feeling guilty about his or her alienating behavior.

Gottlieb (2004)9 claimed targeted parents were mostly fathers and custodial parents were

mostly women. He suggested early intervention and treatment of parental alienation were

necessary. His model considered intervention and treatment to likely fail when there was a

complete disconnection and the family court judge needed to intervene. He cited a study

7 (1995) ‫ברגמן ואחרים‬

8 (2003) ‫רודניקי ואחרים‬
9 (2004) ‫גוטליב‬
17
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

showing low success rates when the court intervened and transferred custody in parental

alienation cases. He also cited studies showing children needed healthy contact with both

parents. Denying relationships with both parents was detrimental to the children. He described

Gardner as a controversial figure and discussed the controversy surrounding parental alienation

in Israel. Having said this, he concluded there to be a need for courts to act quickly and

decisively to prevent long-term psychological harm to children in cases of parental alienation.

A publication that influenced Israel's policies on supervised visitation in parental

alienation cases was (2005) ‫( לסר‬Lesser, 2005) She analyzed Israel's struggle with parental

alienation. She admitted there was a lack of peer-reviewed quantitative data on the subject in

Israel. At that time the only venue to treat parental alienation was through supervised visitation

centers run by the Family Court Social Services (FCSS)10. She expressed skepticism over

Gardner's classification of parental alienation as a syndrome and further alleged the scientific

community rejected his approach. According to Lesser, most children in divorce hear negative

things from custodial parents about non-custodial parents, yet do not develop parental alienation.

She cited Cohen & Finzi (2001)11 to raise a gender-based argument that targeted parents tended

to be non-custodial fathers with weak and fragile egos. Such targeted fathers raised claims of

parental alienation when in reality their narcissistic egos as parents were harmed. Instead, she

argued some children naturally need one parent more due to age, environment, and other reasons

unique to each child. Her model was for the FCSS to provide guidance to targeted fathers in

supervised visitation centers to help them improve the relationship with their children without

putting undue pressure on the children.

10. The FCSS is responsible for providing court-ordered assistance to families, which includes overseeing the
treatment of parental alienation.
11 (2001) ‫כהן ופינצי‬
18
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Finzi-Dottan et al. (2012) conducted a qualitative study on targeted mothers in Israel.

The study found these mothers experienced abuse, discord, rejection, isolation, and detachment

from significant figures in their lives, including parents, husbands, extended families, husbands'

families, and their own children. These targeted mothers felt a sense of hopelessness with no

therapeutic relief available to them. Lavee (2017) did a broader qualitative study beyond

parental alienation on single-parent Israeli mothers who received services from the FCSS. The

study found the FCSS services contributed to the women's experience of feeling poor and

feelings of exclusion, dis-empowerment, and humiliation. She described numerous hostile

interactions between social workers and clients whenever the mothers would seek assistance.

These two studies relate to each other because the FCSS is responsible for overseeing court-

ordered therapy, including parental alienation. However, there seemed to be a lack of

professional accountability and lack of criteria in treating families who turned to the FCSS for

help – including therapy for parental alienation.

Toren et al. (2013) was a quantitative study that compared families undergoing group

therapy for parental alienation with those that did not and found significant improvement with

the families that underwent treatment for parental alienation. In fact, the study found the more

severe cases of parental alienation improved beyond mild cases when the participants completed

the 16-week regiment of group therapy sessions. The starting point was that the court referred

the families for parental alienation therapy and enforced the rulings. The community-based

therapists could not effectively treat the families without the family court first intervening and

requiring therapy for parental alienation. However, there have not been any citations of this

study in Israeli court decisions nor any Hebrew language articles. Despite the study concluding

that there needed to be more expansive follow-up on their findings in Israel, there was not any

kind of follow-up to their study.

19
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Marcus (2019) wrote an article in Hebrew in which he preferred to use the term “contact

refusal” over “parental alienation” because he claimed “contact refusal” did not place blame on

anyone. He asserted the judge is powerless to enforce rulings on contact refusal. His proposed

solution was the most effective treatment for “contact refusal” was through the FCSS, though he

did not offer any studies to support this claim. Marcus (2020) published a peer-reviewed article

in English in which he asserted prevention depended on public awareness and the training of

professionals to take preventative steps. In his model, the court should intervene only after

contact failure has set in to supervise the progress of reconciliation and therapy, and impose

sanctions for “parental disobedience”.

Israeli Case Law

Between 1996-2020 there were 6,514 published court decisions from Israeli family

courts that had at least 1 sign of parental alienation. Of these,430 published decisions related to

parental alienation in Israel. Ploni v Plonit (1996)12 was the first Israeli court decision relating to

parental alienation. In this case, the father had custody of the children due to the mother's

psychiatric issues that included attempted suicide and psychiatric hospitalization for six months.

After her release from the hospital, the psychiatrist and welfare authorities determined she

improved enough to care for the children. However, both the custodial father and the children

resisted unsupervised visits with the mother. Firstly, the court determined that a prior

psychological illness should not hinder a parent from receiving custody. Meanwhile, one of the

children wrote a letter to the judge stating she did not love her mother and would do anything for

her father. She stated that she hoped her letter would change the judge's mind about forcing her

to live with her mother. The court interpreted this letter to be a manifestation of parental

alienation. Therefore, the court reasoned, the letter did not express the child's true intent. The

12 33-96 (‫יפו‬-‫( עע"מ )תל אביב‬1996) ‫פלוני נ' פלונית‬

20
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

decision was to transfer custody of the children from the father to the mother and sever contact

between the children and the father during the first stage of treatment for parental alienation.

The first published decision from the Supreme Court on parental alienation was Plonit v.

Ploni (2002)13. In this case, the lower court determined there to be severe parental alienation

based on reports from the FCSS. The FCSS requested that the lower court remove the children

from the custodial mother for placement into a children's shelter pending a psychological

evaluation. On appeal, the Supreme Court had to determine which venue had the authority to

remove children from the custody of a parent. In so doing, they validated the use of parental

alienation as a justification in such proceedings. The 42-page decision included a detailed

analysis of parental alienation, including citations of Gardner (1998), Rand (1997), and Bone and

Walsh (1999). The Supreme Court decided children could be removed to a shelter for up to 30

days in emergency situations (including parental alienation). After 30 days there needed to be a

hearing to determine a follow-up plan.

However, in 2004 the Supreme Court reversed the above decision14. In the second appeal

of the same case, the mother raised arguments against the validity of parental alienation and the

science behind it. While the Supreme Court did not address the mother's general claim against

parental alienation, the court found that parental alienation in her specific case did not constitute

an emergency that justified the removal of the children from the mother's custody. The

reasoning was that parental rights to raise one's children was a fundamental right. Therefore, the

FCSS had a heavy burden of proof to justify emergency removal of children from their parents

and transfer to a children's shelter. While the Supreme Court seemed to acknowledge the

validity of parental alienation, these two conflicting decisions on the same matter caused

uncertainty in family courts on how to manage parental alienation for years until 2019 when the
13 3009/02 ‫( רע"א‬2002) ‫פלונית נ' פלוני‬
14 6041/02 ‫( דנ''א‬2002) ‫פלונית נ' פלוני‬
21
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Tel Aviv family court appointed Erez Shani as a specialized judge presiding over parental

alienation cases in a fast-track pilot program. Decisions from this pilot program will be

discussed in chapter 5.

Two petitions to the Supreme Court challenged Shani's specialized court. Hila Yichzkel

et al. v. the Minister of Justice et al. (2019)15 was an attempted class-action petition to oppose the

establishment of a specialized court for parental alienation as a violation of Israel's “one family

one judge” policy in family court matters. The second petition was Plonit v. Ploni, 202016. In

this case, Shani imposed penalties on a custodial parent whom the court determined to cause

severe parental alienation, disobeyed court orders, and was uncooperative with the guardian ad

litem as well as the court-appointed therapist. The Supreme Court denied both of these petitions,

which enabled Shani to continue to specialize in claims of parental alienation even in cases that

were already pending before family court judges.

Summary

The Israeli controversy surrounding parental alienation is a microcosm of the global

debate on the subject. Skeptics portray parental alienation as a gender issue related to the parents

that would supplant child welfare that they see as linked to women's rights. However, neither

international nor Israeli literature has not supported such claims with evidence-based quantitative

studies. There have been no such studies on parental alienation in Israel have been within five

years, though there have been several international peer-reviewed studies that proposed

evidence-based strategies to address parental alienation. Meanwhile, Israeli case law has started

to address parental alienation – especially since 2019. The gaps of knowledge on parental

alienation in Israel are so vast as to require a needs assessment as a starting point. This

dissertation analyzed case law from 1996 to 2020 as a resource with enough data to conduct an
15 6561/19 ‫( בג''ץ‬2019) ‫הילה יחזקאל נ' שר המשפטים‬
16 6325/20 ‫( בע''ם‬2020) ‫פלונית נ' פלוני‬
22
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

evidence-based quantitative analysis. The purpose was to ascertain a direction in which the

Israeli judiciary is heading on the issue. Such an analysis provides Israeli leadership with a

current needs assessment on parental alienation.

23
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Chapter 3: Methodology

This dissertation employed quantitative evidence-based research to analyze parental

alienation in published decisions by Israeli courts. The analysis used grounded theory with an

inductive approach. Such an analysis was crucial to lay a foundation for a needs assessment for

Israeli leadership to create a national infrastructure that manages parental alienation cases. This

method allowed scientific data to steer the recommendations in chapter 6 while mitigating biased

results or spurious correlations.

Population & Sample

The judiciary has been the main Israeli authority to address parental alienation. Most

quantitative data in Israel comes from court cases. The Nevo17 database contains over 5 million

published court decisions in Israel, including all published court decisions on parental alienation.

These court decisions show the history and evolution of parental alienation in Israeli case law.

They also indicate the trajectory on which Israeli case law is heading in the intervention and

treatment of parental alienation. Furthermore, the model of the Israeli judiciary is therapeutic

jurisprudence. Therefore, the decisions on parental alienation also include the opinions of

psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers on intervention strategies for each case. Such

interdisciplinary opinions are essential in formulating a needs assessment on developing

consistent nationwide policies for Israeli leadership to manage cases of parental alienation.

The target group was published court decisions from 1996 to 2020 on parental alienation

where the court determined there to be parental alienation. The analysis searched the Nevo

database to locate such published court decisions. The search found 430 cases where the courts

addressed parental alienation between 1996-2020. Of these, 198 rulings determined there to be

17 www.nevo.co.il
24
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

parental alienation - 86 of which were from the lower courts (family and rabbinical). The other

105 decisions were from higher courts (District, High Rabbinical, and Supreme).

The control group needed to be similar decisions in the same period where symptoms of

parental alienation were manifest, but the courts did not address parental alienation. There were

6,084 decisions with at least one sign of parental alienation in the Nevo database between 1996-

2020. These addressed guardianship, custody, and visitation issues without addressing parental

alienation specifically. The analysis needed to identify decisions from this group that closely

resembled decisions from the target group.

To identify suitable decisions to serve as the control group, the analysis used systematic

content analysis to identify unique expressions in decisions where the courts determined there to

be parental alienation. This systematic content analysis created unique search terms for the Nevo

database to find suitable candidates for the control group. The 198 decisions that determined

there to be parental alienation were put into MAXQDA18 software for systematic content

analysis. The analysis found the most frequent expressions in these cases were “alienated from”,

“disconnected from”, and “contact renewal”.

There were 437 results that included the term “alienated from” while excluding the term

“parental alienation”. However, the analysis excluded these results to avoid potential confusion

between the terms “alienated from” and “parental alienation”. The database had 1,828 cases that

included the term “disconnected from” while excluding the term “parental alienation”. There

were 520 cases that included the term “contact renewal” while excluding the term “parental

alienation”. By combining both the term“disconnected from” and the term “contact renewal”

while excluding the term “parental alienation”; the search found 328 decisions that fit these

parameters.

18 www.maxqda.com
25
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

The next step was to sort through these 328 cases and remove cases where the court

determined there to be abuse, neglect, or abandonment. There were 53 such cases removed from

the list. Of the remaining 275 cases, 86 were from the lower courts (family and rabbinical).

There were 189 decisions from the higher courts (District, High Rabbinical, Supreme).

While the content data analysis included decisions from the higher courts that addressed

parental alienation; the quantitative data analysis focused on the decisions from the lower courts

both in the control group and in the target group. Since there were 86 decisions in each group

(N=172), the samples for the quantitative data analysis were restricted to decisions from the

lower courts that were published in the Nevo database (n=172). The control sample was 100%

of the 86 published decisions from the lower courts that included both search terms

“disconnected from” and “contact renewal” while excluding the term “parental alienation” and

excluding cases where the court determined there to be abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The

target sample was 100% of the 86 published decision from the lower courts that determined there

to be parental alienation between 1996-2020. Since n was 100% of N then SE=0.

Instrumentation & Procedure

There were no human subjects in this analysis. Therefore, there were no surveys or

interviews to collect data. Quantitative data was gathered directly from the court decisions in the

control and target groups and documented in spreadsheets for analysis. The analysis focused

mainly on quantitative data readily available in all court decisions included in the study, but also

noted data that affected results. The primary quantitative data included the length of time from

case opening to a decision, the severity of parental alienation, gender of litigants, locations, court

types, judges, and gender of judges. The analysis also gathered data on range, mean, and median

of time judges took to make decisions; and range, mean, and median severity level of parental

26
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

alienation when they issued their decisions. Additional data that came out of the analysis were

noted and discussed in chapters 4 and 5.

Data Analysis

First, the analysis presented descriptive statistics on gender, location, type of court,

number of child litigants, and supervised visitation rates. This data influenced analysis results.

Next, bivariate analyses were carried out to examine the relationship between the number of

years in legal proceedings and the severity of parental alienation when the case was closed.

Linear multivariate regression models were estimated to explain the variance among localities in

the dependent variables. In the regression models, the analysis measured data according to

judges who issued decisions in the target group compared to the control group. An ANOVA

analysis confirmed results from regression models that there was statistical significance to results

from Tel Aviv – especially since 2019.

The regression models and ANOVA found statistical significance linked to a specific

pilot program that began in 2019 in Tel Aviv that offered a fast-track specialized treatment of

parental alienation. The judge appointed to this specialized court was Erez Shani. Therefore, the

study conducted a t-test on Shani's results compared to the rest of the family court in Tel Aviv

without Shani and also compared to the national average. The Z scores, Pearson's R, and R2

were also measured, noted, and discussed in chapters 4 and 5.

27
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Chapter 4: Results

Data available for both groups include genders of parties, court types, geographic

locations, names of family court judges or rabbinical ‫( דיינים‬pronounced “dayanim”)19. The

majority of decisions lacked viable data on religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, or

socioeconomic status to be accurately quantified in this analysis. Therefore, this analysis did not

measure such data. Most names of parties were redacted in the Nevo database and were not

included in this analysis. The analysis focused on descriptive statistics that were available in all

decisions from both the control group and the target group. These included geographic data,

court types, judges, amount of time cases were open, the severity level of parental alienation at

the time of decisions, and the genders of parties. Additional data affected results – child litigants

and rates of supervised visitation. These are also discussed below.

Child Litigants

The Israeli court system allows custodial parents to attach their children as co-litigants

against non-custodial parents whether or not they have a license to practice law. The legal basis

is that they are the “natural guardian” of the children. Though the non-custodial parents are

usually natural guardians as well, custodial parents are typically the ones who exploit this legal

practice against the non-custodial parents.

The number of cases where children participated as litigants in the control group was 10.

Of these, 8 involved cases where parents attached children to themselves against the opposing

side. The remaining 2 cases involved children who were stand-alone litigants against a parent.

The target group had 2 cases involving child litigants, neither of which involved stand-alone

child litigants. There was a correlation with courts addressing parental alienation and a reduction

in child litigants r= -0.25, p<0.01. The greatest factor in the reduction for the target group was

19 A “dayan” serves as a rabbinical judge in rabbinical court.

28
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Erez Shani's specific policy to appoint a guardian ad litem in for the children as a third party in

each case. Shani's unique practices will be discussed further in chapter 5.

Supervised Visitation

Israeli judges and FCSS have the discretion to place non-custodial parents under

supervised visitation without needing evidence indicating the non-custodial parents pose a

danger of any kind to their children. Sometimes people familiar with the parties supervise the

visits. However, most supervised visitations take place in secure facilities called ‫ מרכזי קשר‬or

“contact centers” in English. There are no set parameters that delineate the time or circumstance

in which visits are supervised in or out of such locked facilities as will be discussed further in

chapter 5.

The analysis included 48 cases where parents were placed under supervised visitations.

The control group included 32 cases involving supervised visits, all of which were fathers and

none were mothers. The courts ruled in each case that these fathers did not abuse, neglect, or

abandon their children. The target group included 16 supervised visits, of which 14 were fathers

and 2 were mothers. There were 12 fathers placed under supervised visitation and afterward

determined to be targeted parents. There were 2 custodial fathers and 2 custodial mothers who

lost custody due to psychological harm they caused their children with parental alienation and

were subsequently placed under supervised visitation as a result. In cases where courts placed

parents under supervised visitation even though the parents did not endanger their children, there

was a strong correlation with gender. However, in cases where the courts placed parents under

supervised visitation because they psychologically abused their children, the results failed to

reject H0 based on gender.

The amount of time parents were under supervised visitation in the control group ranged

from 1 year to 8 years with a median of 3 years and a mean of 2.35 years. Whereas the range of
29
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

time for the target group was >1 year to 4 years with a median of 1.5 years and a mean of 1 year.

All of the cases in the control group resulted in severity that ranged from level 3 to level 5 with a

median of 3.75 and a mean of 3.34. Supervised visitation in the target group had severity that

ranged from level 2 to level 3 with a median of 2.5 and a mean of 2.16. The number of years

parents were under supervised visitation correlated to an increased level of severity, r(128)=

0.89, p<0.01.

Gender

All individuals in the analysis identified as male or female regardless of sexual

orientation. There were couples, groups, organizations, and governmental institutions that were

parties in the lawsuits. The analysis categorized the gender of such entities as “other”. As for

plaintiffs in the target group, 51 were male, 31 were female, and 1 was other. The genders of

defendants in the target group were 30 male, 49 female, and 4 other. Genders of plaintiffs in the

control group were 28 male, 38 female, and 17 other. As for the genders of defendants in the

control group, there were 44 male, 30 female, and 9 other.

While it was straightforward to quantify genders of litigants, categorizing the genders of

target parents was convoluted. The courts determined there to be parental alienation in the target

group. The genders of targeted parents in this group were 61 male and 25 female. However, the

courts did not address parental alienation in the control group. Therefore, there were 0 litigants

of either gender in the control group whom the courts determined to be targeted parents. The

issue was further complicated in cases from the control group where a governmental entity

intervened seeking to remove the children from custodial parents for adoption to third parties.

While this did not happen in any of the cases in the target group, it happened in 6 cases from the

control group as will be discussed in the severity section. Quantifying the number of targeted

parents was difficult to measure in the control group. However, the number of custodial parents
30
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

was clear for both groups. The results found the genders of custodial parents to be 61 female and

25 male. This data turned out to be the same in both the target group and the control group.

Figure 2: Litigants by gender

Male Female Other Male Female Other

Court Types & Location

Israel has two types of courts that decide family matters, the family court system and the

religious court system. Within the religious court system; Rabbinical courts, Sharia courts, and

Christian courts are the most common. Though the Israeli religious court system includes

several religious court systems, Nevo only published decisions from the Rabbinical courts and

family courts that were relevant to this analysis. There were no published cases in this analysis

that fell into the jurisdiction of other religious court systems. A few cases originated in Sharia,

Christian, and Rabbinical courts, but were transferred to the family court system. The analysis

included such cases in the family court data. Lower court decisions mostly came from family

courts with a total of 16 from rabbinical courts – 13 were included in the target group and 3 were

included in the control group.

An ANOVA analysis showed a statistical significance with the rabbinical court's ability

to identify parental alienation. The target group included 73 decisions from family courts and 13
31
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

decisions from rabbinical courts. The control group included 83 decisions from family courts

and 3 from rabbinical courts. The rabbinical court identified parental alienation 3 times more

frequently than the family court and 3 times more frequently than the national average.

However, there was no statistical significance to the length of time or level of severity of

parental alienation in rabbinical courts versus the national average.

Figure 3: Number of decisions by location

32
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Findings showed that Tel Aviv had the largest number of decisions in both the target

group (32) and the control group (27). Jerusalem had the second largest number of decisions

with 17 in the target group and 14 in the control group. While these are the two most populated

cities in Israel, population size was not the main correlation with the number of decisions. For

example, Jerusalem has a larger population than Tel Aviv and Haifa has a larger population than

either Beer Sheva or Nazareth. Furthermore, Beer Sheva ranked third in the control group with

11 decisions while only having 2 decisions in the target group. The correlation seemed to be

stronger by geographical region rather than by population sizes of individual cities. The regional

distributions were the Galilee (Haifa, Nazareth, Tiberia, CS, Kriyot, Tzfat), North-Central

33
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

(Netanya, Rishon LeZion, Petach Tikva, Hadera), the South (Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Kiryat Gat,

Kfar Saba, Eilat), Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. This will be discussed further in chapter 5.

Rabbinical Courts

There was statistical significance in cases from rabbinical courts that identified parental

alienation. However, there was no statistical significance to the amount of time or level of

severity in cases from rabbinical courts. As mentioned above, all dayanim were male. However,

there did not seem to be a link to the gender of the dayanim and statistical significance (or lack

thereof). The degree to which there was a link to the identification of parental alienation in

rabbinical courts may have correlated to the religious methodology that the rabbinical court

system employed to diagnose parental alienation. However, the same religious methodology did

not result in a statistically significant difference in the amount of time to treat parental alienation

nor the level of severity at the close of files.

Length of Time

The analysis measured the length of time cases were open. The length of time was

measured by deducting the year opened from the decision year. The last two digits of all file

numbers indicated the year in which the file was opened. For example, file number 99999-18

indicated that the file was opened in 2018. All decisions were dated. Therefore, this analysis

would have considered file number 99999-18 with a decision date of 31.12.2018 (within the

same year) to be open for 0 years. If the decision of file number 99999-18 was dated the next

day on 01.01.2019 then the analysis considered the file to be open 1 year. All decisions had

exact dates of the decisions. However, the analysis measured the amount of time strictly based

on the number of years because the years files were opened could always be measured whereas

the exact dates within those years when files were opened were sometimes unavailable.

34
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Figure 4: Length of time cases were open

Figure 4 shows that the length of time in the control group ranged from 0 years to 10+

years. The longest case in the control group was 17 years. Whereas the target group ranged

from 0 years to 6 years. The longest time of cases in the target group (6 years) was 35.29% of

the longest amount of time taken in the longest cases of the control group. The mean of the

control group was 3.1395 years and the median was 2 years. The target group had a mean of

1.8488 years and a median of 1 year. The target group reduced the mean by 59% and the median

by 50%. There was a strong correlation in the reduction of time the target group needed to

manage cases compared to the control group (r= -0.41, p>0.01).

35
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Figure 5: Comparison of severity of parental alienation

Severity of Alienation

The severity of parental alienation was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Level 1

indicated a renewal of contact between the child and the targeted parent. Level 2 indicated

ongoing treatment as of the date of the decision. Level 3 indicated that the case was closed with

contact failure between the child and the targeted parent. Level 4 was for cases that resulted in

open adoption of the child to a third party. Level 5 was for cases that resulted in closed adoption

of the child to a third party. The difference between open adoption and closed adoption in Israel

is that open adoptions allow the former custodial parent to remain in contact with the child

despite permanently losing guardianship and custody over the child. Whereas closed adoptions

include a complete and permanent severance between the former custodial parent and the child.

Levels 3-5 indicate a complete loss of contact between the non-custodial parent and the child.
36
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

While non-custodial parents may retain guardianship at Level 3, guardianship transfers away

from both parents to a third party at Levels 4-5.

The control group ranged from level 1 through level 5 with a median of level 3 and a

mean of 2.558. The 18 cases in the control group at level 1 included 7 international child

abduction cases where the court ordered the children returned to their usual place of residence.

The remaining 11 were cases where the custodial parents attempted to move the children far

away from the non-custodial parents. In such cases, the courts intervened and ordered the

custodial parents to return the children within a distance with access to the non-custodial parents.

None of the level 1 cases from the control group involved children who refused contact with the

non-custodial parents. The psychological harm to the children in the control group resulted in 6

adoption cases – 4 were open adoptions and 2 were closed adoptions.

The target group ranged from level 1 to level 3 with a median of level 2 and a mean of

1.79. The median of the target group was 33% lower than the control group and the mean was

23% lower than the control group. The 13 cases from the target group in level 3 included 10

older cases that were transferred from other courts that did not previously address parental

alienation to a court that did address parental alienation. The three remaining level 3 cases all

came from the same judge - Philip Marcus20. Marcus' strategy will be discussed in detail in

chapter 5. None of the cases from the target group escalated into adoption cases (level 4 or level

5 severity). The results showed a reduction in severity with the target group versus the control

group. The severity was exacerbated by the amount of time cases were open, r= -0.1427,

p<0.01.

20 Disclaimer: Philip Marcus was the judge in charge of the author's divorce case from 2009 to 2012. More details
are at the beginning of this dissertation
37
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Figure 6: Linear regression charts of severity over time

Control group Target group

Bivariate Analysis

The bivariate analysis measured the amount of time files were open and their level of

severity at the time of decisions using a linear regression model. Both groups showed a

correlation between the length of time cases were open and the severity of levels 1-3. This was

especially evident when cases were open for more than 5 years. However, levels 4-5 in the

control group were open for 1-3 years. There were 3 cases in the control group and 1 case in the

target group that lasted more than 5 years, yet had severity levels 1-2. Even though the analysis

did not treat these as outliers, the results still showed a slight correlation between the number of

years cases were open and the increased severity level (r= 0.05137, p>0.01). Several of the

potential outliers came from Philip Marcus and will be discussed further in chapter 5.

Multivariate Analysis

A multivariate analysis examined the localities, judges/dayanim, their genders, the length

of time files were open, and the severity level of parental alienation when decisions were issued.

Rabbinical courts commonly used panels of three dayanim who were all males. The analysis

measured final decisions and not various opinions within decisions. Therefore, each panel

38
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

counted as a single male per case to avoid distorting statistical data across the decisions. The

multivariate data spreadsheet is in Appendix B.

There were a total of 73 judges/dayan panels nationwide, of which 35 were male and 38

were female. Localities including Tel Aviv, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, Kriyot, and Ashdod had

more female judges while localities including Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Tiberia had more male

judges. As stated above, the rabbinical courts all had male dayanim. The national average

evened out with 3 more cases decided by a female judge. An ANOVA analysis found no

statistical significance between the genders of the judges and the length of time cases were open

or the level of severity.

Some judges gave decisions in more than one location. These were Esperenza Alon

(Haifa, Kriyot), Asaf Zaguri (Nazareth, Tiberia), and Varda Ben Shahar (Beer Sheva, Rishon

LeZion). There was no statistical significance when the same judge rendered decisions in

different locations. A female judge in Tiberia21 and in Tel Aviv22 did not identify herself in two

decisions. While the two locations are far apart from each other, there is no way to be certain

whether this was the same judge or two different judges. Both cases were open for 1 year. The

case from Tel Aviv closed with level 2 severity whereas the case from Tiberia closed with level

1 severity. The analysis classified these two decisions as “Unnamed” and identified the gender

as female.

Time by Locality

There was statistical significance with localities and length of time. The national median

was 2 years and the national mean was 2.599 years. Eilat (8years) and Kfar Saba (4 years) were

each substantially higher than the national median and mean, however the analysis only included

21 37732-08-17 ('‫אפ )טב‬

22 25146-03-17 (‫תלהמ )ת"א‬
39
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

one case from each location. Hadera (3 years) and Netanya (5.5 years) each had 2 cases in the

analysis. Ashdod, with 3 cases in the analysis, had a median of 6 years and a mean of 7.666

years. The analysis included 18 cases from Nazareth and 14 cases from Haifa. Nazareth's

median was 4 years, which was twice the national average. The mean was 3.153 years, which

was 20% higher than the national average. Haifa's median was 3 years (50% higher than the

national average) and the mean was 2.857 years, which was 15% higher than the national

average.

Conversely, Petach Tikvah, Tiberia, Kiryat Gat, and Safed were lower than the national

average. Petach Tikvah had 4 cases, all in the target group. The median was 1 year and the

mean was 1 year. The median was 50% lower than the national average and the mean was 61%

lower than the national average. The analysis included 3 cases each from Tiberia and Kiryat Gat.

The median in Tiberia was 1 year and the mean was 2 years. The median was 50% lower than

the national average and the mean was 23% lower than the national average. Kiryat Gat had a

median of 1.5 years, which was 25% lower than the national average. The mean in Kiryat Gat

was also 1.5 years, which was 43% lower than the national average.

Severity by Locality

There was statistical significance with the level of severity and localities. The national

median was level 2 and the national mean was 2.239. Jerusalem had a mean of 2.381 and a

median of 2.25, which was 11% higher than the national average. Beer Sheva had a mean of

2.535 and a median of level 3, which was 14% higher than the national median and 25% higher

than the national mean. There were 5 cases from Kriyot with a median of level 3 and a mean of

2.22. The median was 33% higher than the national average while the mean was 5% lower than

the national average. Tiberia and Ashdod each had 3 cases in the analysis. Their median and

mean were level 3, which was 33% higher than the national average. Safed had 2 cases with a
40
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

median of level 3 and a mean of 2.5, which was also 33% higher than the national average. Eilat

and Kfar Saba each had 1 case with a median and mean of level 3.

Petach Tikvah and Hadera were the only localities that had a lower median and mean

than the national average. All cases in both localities were in the target group. The median in

Petach Tikvah was level 1, which was half the national average. The mean was 1.333, which

was 41% lower than the national average. Rishon LeZion, CS, Kiryat Gat, and Netanya all had a

median of level 2, which was the same as the national average. CS had a mean of 1.8, which was

37% lower than the national average. Rishon LeZion, Kiryat Gat, and Netanya had a mean of

level 2, which was 25% lower than the national average.

National Frequency

An ANOVA analysis did not show a reduction in the number of cases opened in the

family court during most of the study period. Nationwide during most of the study period,

neither the target group not nor the control group correlated to a reduction in the frequency of

new family court files opened on an annual basis. However, there was a 15% reduction in the

number of new family court proceedings opened in Tel Aviv from 2018 to 2020 as will be

discussed below.

Tel Aviv

The Supreme Court (2020) issued an order called “‫”הוראות נוהל של נשיאת בית המשפט העליון‬

(Procedural Provisions of the President of the Supreme Court). This order required each

jurisdiction to appoint a ‫( שופט מוקד‬a specialized judge) within six months of October 18, 2020,

whose primary focus would be the renewal of contact with children who were alienated from one

of their parents. The Supreme Court issued this order less than 3 months from the end of the

period for this analysis; therefore it did not affect the analysis. However, the order was based on

41
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

a pilot project in Tel Aviv that began in 2019 whereby Erez Shani was appointed as a judge who

specialized in parental alienation cases.

The analysis conducted a multivariate analysis on Tel Aviv without Erez Shani compared

to Erez Shani alone. These results were compared to the national average to measure the effect

such a specialized judge had on results in Tel Aviv's jurisdiction. A spreadsheet showing the

results is in Appendix C. None of the 27 cases from the control group in Tel Aviv came from

Shani. Whereas Shani decided 18 cases in the target group compared with 13 cases from the rest

of Tel Aviv. Shani's cases were 58% of the target group in Tel Aviv and 21% of the national

target group.

Tel Aviv - Time

The shortest time Shani's cases were open was 0 years, which was the same as the rest of

Tel Aviv and national data. However, his longest case was 1 year in contrast to 11 years for the

rest of Tel Aviv and 17 years nationally. The national median was 2 years and the national mean

was 2.5999 years. Tel Aviv (without Shani) had a median of 1.5 years and a mean of 2.1254

years. Shani's results were 25% lower than the national average. Whereas Shani's median was 0

years and his mean was 0.4 years. This was 300% lower than the national average and 250%

lower than the rest of Tel Aviv. An ANOVA analysis showed there to be a statistical

significance indicating Shani's model caused a reduction in the length of time cases were open in

the target group and in Tel Aviv.

Tel Aviv - Severity

The national severity of parental alienation ranged from level 1 to level 5. Shani's range

was level 1 to level 3. The range for the rest of Tel Aviv was level 1 to level 4. The national

median was level 2, which was the same as Shani's median. The rest of Tel Aviv had a median

of 2.5, which was 20% higher than the national average. The national mean was 2.2393. Both
42
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Shani, with a mean of 1.66, and the rest of Tel Aviv, with a mean of 2.1873, were lower than the

national results. Shani's mean was 26% lower than the national mean and 25% lower than the

rest of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv (without Shani) was 5% lower than the national mean. An ANOVA

analysis showed there to be substantial statistical significance indicating Shani's model caused a

reduction in the level of severity of parental alienation with files in the specialized court in Tel

Aviv.

Tel Aviv - Frequency

An ANOVA analysis found showed a statistical significance in the number of cases

opened in the family court in Tel Aviv. There was a 15% reduction in the number of new family

court proceedings opened in Tel Aviv from 2018 to 2020. This was in contrast to the national

average as well as the frequency in Tel Aviv between 1996-2018 – both of which had a steady

increase in the number of new cases opened annually.

43
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Chapter 5: Discussion

Interpretation of the Findings

Case Law

Israeli case law currently provides more data on parental alienation than any other source

in Israel. In fact, the 430 published decisions between 1996-2020 contained approximately 43%

of the volume of international peer-reviewed academic literature during the same period.

Furthermore, family courts in Israel were the most relevant venues to address parental alienation

during the analysis period. Therefore, data from the case law analysis proved to be the most

relevant and comprehensive source to gather scientific data on parental alienation in Israel. This

dissertation employed evidence-based grounded theory to gather and analyze demographic

information as well as trends in methodology on parental alienation in the Israeli judiciary.

It is worth noting unique characteristics in the Israeli family court system during the

analysis period 1996-2020. Firstly, the religious track to adjudicate family matters has existed

before the founding of the modern state. The Israeli judiciary has recognized several religious

authorities on family matters. The most common are Rabbinical, Sharia, and Christian. The

Knesset passed the Family Court Law (1995)23 that added the family court as a secular track to

handle family matters. Since 1995 the family court has also served as a catch-all venue for

families that did not conform to one of the available religious tracks. The family court heard

cases like P.R. vs T.A.E. (2005)24, A.B.Z. vs K.M. (2018)25, and Ploni vs Plonit (2019)26

involving inter-faith couples who did not fit into the religious jurisdiction of Rabbinical,

Christian, Sharia, or other religious courts.

23 The law is available online in Hebrew at: https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law00/98460.htm

24 14830/05 (‫( תמש )ב"ש‬2005) ‫ע‬.‫א‬.‫ר נ' ת‬.‫פ‬
25 14482-12-17 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2017) ‫מ‬.‫ז נ' ק‬.‫ב‬.‫א‬
26 58854-07-14 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2014) ‫פלוני נ' פלונית‬
44
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

These two venues, religious and secular, existed throughout the relevant period of the

analysis. However, the analysis only had access to published rulings from the family court and

the rabbinical court systems during the period in question. This is because Nevo, the largest

database of published Israeli rulings, is in Hebrew. Rulings from Sharia and Christian courts

were in Arabic: other religious court decisions were not available to Nevo in Hebrew. Decisions

from the rabbinical and family court systems together constitute 92% of all decisions on family

matters in Israel.

The Tender Years Presumption

This was another unique characteristic of the Israeli judiciary during the analysis period,

especially before 2017. According to the tender years doctrine, young children automatically

went to the mother's custody. Israel defined “tender years” as being up to age six. Weisberg and

Appleton (2003) explain the origin of the tender years presumption was in the 18th century

British Empire with the first laws formally enacted in Great Britain and the United States in the

1830s. This legal doctrine presumed the role of the mother was in the home raising children and

the role of the father was outside the home pursuing higher education and a career. After a

divorce the woman was expected to remain in the home without higher education or a career to

continue raising children during their “tender years” (and to survive herself) mainly on the

alimony money she received from the man. Since she was expected to have no income of her

own during the children's tender years, her means of survival was alimony and child support.

When Israel came under the British Mandate in 1917, the Israeli legal system adopted the

tender years presumption from British law due to overlap with religious and cultural beliefs that

existed locally at the time. As women gained more rights and independence throughout the 20th

century and could pursue higher education and careers; most international family courts that had

previously adopted the tender years presumption from the British Empire dropped this legal
45
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

doctrine in favor of the “Best Interest of the Child” legal doctrine. Israel was the only

jurisdiction in the world that continued with the tender years presumption into the 21st century.

During most of the relevant period for this analysis, Israel attempted to adopt both the tender

years presumption and the best interest of the child doctrine at the same time. These two

doctrines were frequently at odds in parental alienation cases. Ploni vs Plonit (2017)27 was a case

in which the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the best interest of most children in divorce was

joint custody. This decision will be detailed later in the discussion. It is worth noting this

decision began the process of reducing the number of decisions in Israel based on the tender

years presumption and opened the door for a specialized court to address parental alienation

seriously.

The gender of custodial parents in both the target and control groups was 65% female.

This seemed to be due to the tender years presumption that influenced decisions in most cases up

to 2017. Before 2017 courts gave higher priority to the gender of parents over the best interest of

the child in cases involving custody of children under age six. Cases involving children over age

six were more likely to be decided based on the best interest of the child. The tender years

presumption caused 98% of the children under age six in both groups to be placed in the mother's

custody. By contrast, 33% of the children over age six were placed into the sole custody of the

mother. This caused the overall data to show 65% of custodial parents were female. However,

there was a greater correlation between the ages of the children and the likelihood of the courts

placing them into the custody of the mother. Furthermore, the ANOVA analysis failed to reject

H0 that gender played a role in a parent's ability to take custodial responsibility whenever the

courts applied the same standard to both genders.

27 919/15 ‫( בע"מ‬2015) ‫פלוני נ' פלומית‬

46
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Since Israel only began to shift away from the tender years presumption within the last

two years of the analysis, a future study will require several more years of data since 2018 as

Israel's practice shifts to shared custody to compare with data before 2017 when the tender years

presumption was in place. The results of such a study can measure whether or not other factors

besides the tender years presumption may have influenced the courts to focus on the gender of

custodial parents.

Child Support

Israeli courts had a unique method to handle child support that affected this analysis.

Before 2017, child support was the father's obligation regardless of his economic status. There

were limited nuances to this, but by and large, the burden of child support fell on the father's

shoulders with rare opportunities to reduce or cancel the debt even when it exceeded 100% of his

gross income and assets. The father's child support obligation could extend after the child

reached age 18 and even in cases where the child did not live with the mother. H.R. vs H.N.Sh.

(2008)28 was an example of this. The mother sued the father for child support of their son who

was 18 years old and no longer lived with her. This was because the child lived and studied in a

yeshiva (a religious Jewish school). The court awarded her child support even though the 18-

year-old child refused any contact with the father. There is an exception called “rebellious child”

to a father's child support obligation that the father attempted to invoke. This decision, like most

decisions where a parent invoked the “rebellious child” exception, rejected the claim.

The procedure to file requests for reduction or cancellation of child support in

circumstances where the children refused contact with non-custodial parents required those

parents to accuse the children of being “a rebellious child” and for the court to find that the child

was indeed rebellious. This procedure ignored the fact that the alienating parent was the abuser,

28 11390/01 ('‫( תמש )חי‬2001) ‫ה' ר' נ' ה' נ‬

47
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

that the targeted parent and his or her children were the victims, and that such a procedure

exacerbated severe parental alienation. The court wrestled with this dynamic in D.P. vs M.B.

(2020)29. The father in this case was alienated from his children for 10 years with all attempts at

rehabilitation failing. This decision observed the near impossibility of canceling child support

under any circumstance due to the system's fear of impoverishing the mother or children. (This

concern does not address the government's responsibility in a modern socialized welfare state to

provide social services from tax revenue to prevent such poverty.) The court offered an option to

evaluate whether the child legitimately refused contact with the father or whether the contact

refusal was in the context of parental alienation. In cases of parental alienation, the court

prescribed weighing the level of responsibility on each parent while not economically harming

the mother or children. The court ordered a gradual reduction in child support over six years if

the children continued refusing contact with the father. While this decision shifted the dialogue

on child support from the “rebellious child” claim to the more appropriate parental alienation

context, Baker (2020) makes clear that targeted parents should not be blamed (much less

financially penalized) in cases of severe parental alienation.

Unlike other western societies, Israel does not have a clear and uniform calculation that

caps child support based on the financial ability of the parent. Keidar (2021) detailed Israel's

unique (and ambiguous) method of calculating child support. There was a clear minimum

calculation, but judges had the discretion to set child support amounts that exceeded 100% of the

father's income. Furthermore, judges had the discretion to set child support at one level in a case

and then at a significantly different amount in another case under similar circumstances. Such

ambiguity was in contrast to most western systems that clearly defined child support calculations

based on the financial abilities of the parents. Berrick (2021) describes how courts make such

29 44950-12-18 ‫( תלה׳׳מ‬2018).‫ב‬.‫ נ' מ‬.‫פ‬.‫ד‬

48
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

calculations readily available to the public. She adds that the state has a responsibility to ensure

a reasonable standard of child welfare in cases where divorced parents lack economic resources

to meet financial demands from the court. Though Israel is a developed western country with

adequate resources to adopt Berrick's model, the system lacked clarity or economic safety net for

needy families in divorce during the analysis period.

Litigating Minors

Another unique characteristic in the Israeli family court is the ability of the custodial

parent to join the children with them as a side against the non-custodial parent. In fact, custodial

parents can do so pro se even if they do not have licenses to practice law. Israel's judiciary lacks

a general restriction against such a conflict of interest. This ability of the custodial parent to

legally turn the children against the non-custodial parent in court documents and legal

proceedings contributes to parental alienation. It communicates to the custodial parent and the

children that they can join together and attack the non-custodial parent whether or not such

behavior is in the child's best interest. It also communicates to the non-custodial parent that the

court accepts such a hostile tactic to turn the children against the targeted parent. The analysis

found a correlation in courts that addressed parental alienation and a reduction in child litigants

r= -0.25, p<0.01. In fact, Erez Shani had an effective policy to protect children from such

psychological manipulation as litigants. This policy will be discussed later.

Supervised Visitation

Israel's use of supervised visitation was another factor that affected results. The analysis

found the court system used supervised visitation in 28% of the cases. This was consistent with

data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (2020) showing the same overall percentage of

supervised visitation in Israeli family court cases. The analysis could not find any laws or

policies that delineated clear restrictions on circumstances where supervised visitation would be
49
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

appropriate. Neither did there seem to be limitations on the number of years visitations could

take place in supervised visitation centers nor were there any clear guidelines on how parents

under supervision could get out from under supervised visitations. It seems the system adopted

the gender-biased model by Lesser (2005). She proposed using supervised visitation centers for

the FCSS to provide guidance to targeted fathers in parental alienation cases to help them

improve the relationship with their children without putting undue pressure on the children.

Indeed, the analysis found a strong correlation with gender in cases where courts placed parents

under supervised visitation even though the courts determined these parents did not endanger

their children. However, in cases where the courts placed alienating parents under supervised

visitation because they psychologically abused their children, the results showed a 50/50

distribution between the genders and failed to reject H0. Such excessive use of supervised

visitation against fathers even when the courts determined these men were not dangerous to their

children correlated strongly to the severity of parental alienation.

Gender

The analysis did not find a significant link between the genders of parents, children, or

judges and the rate or severity of parental alienation. There was a statistical link with gender-

biased laws and policies. These were the tender years presumption and use of supervised

visitation centers in cases lacking any evidence that non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) were a

danger to their children. When the preponderance of the evidence indicated such parents were

healthy figures for their children, the use of supervised visitation centers increased the risk of

parental alienation by 600%. When the Israeli judiciary uses supervised visitation centers in

cases where the preponderance of the evidence indicates a parent poses a danger to the child,

there was no statistical significance to gender. As the Israeli judiciary moves away from the

tender years presumption in favor of policies that focus exclusively on the best interest of the

50
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

child; statistical significance linked to gender goes down substantially. Eliminating gender-

biased policies would further seem to help mothers and daughters (as well as grandmothers,

aunts, sisters, female cousins, etc.) who are victims of parental alienation. Their suffering gets

swept under the carpet with gender-biased policies based on spurious data. The results of the

analysis corroborate with international studies that found parental alienation negatively affected

all family members regardless of gender. In fact, gender activists harm the advancement of

women for female victims of parental alienation when they obstruct authorities from allocating

resources to treat parental alienation seriously.

When Israeli gender activists apply political pressure on Israeli authorities to maintain

outdated gender-biased policies in the name of “advancing gender equality” without scientific

data to support their claims, they cause unnecessary harm to child welfare. Such political

activism incentives an unlicensed party to exploit children as litigants for their own monetary

gain. Results from the control group show this quickly degenerates into supervised visitation for

thousands of children based on the gender of a parent and not based on the safety of the child.

Lesser (2005) prescribed this model without scientific data to support it to be in the child's best

interest. When courts ignore the warning signs of parental alienation in such cases, they risk

degenerating further into cases where children file their own lawsuits against parents of both

genders. Results from the control group even indicate a risk of such cases degenerating into

open or even closed adoptions. Israeli authorities can avoid such unnecessary trauma to children

by implementing evidence-based policies and avoiding political pressure from special interest

groups who biased data and spurious results.

Lack of Accountability in the FCSS

Most decisions in both groups noted a lack of trust between parties and FCSS

professionals. This hostile environment affected results. While therapy for parental alienation
51
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

uniquely requires judicial intervention and enforcement to be effective; therapists still have an

obligation to create an environment based on trust (as much as possible). There did not seem to

be a safeguard in place that would prevent FCSS professionals from filing false or biased reports

that would break down trust and contribute to parental alienation. For example, the court

dismissed the FCSS therapist in Plonit vs Ploni (2020)30 when finding that she aided the mother

in alienating the children from the father. The court observed:

‫ אזי חובה על המטפל ליצור יחסי טיפול המבוססים על אמון עם שני‬,‫כאשר שני ההורים נוטלים חלק בטיפול‬
‫ לא יעלה על הדעת כי המטפלת תסבור כי יש לה יחסי אמון עם מטופל שעה שהיא עצמה לא מצאה‬.‫ההורים‬
‫ בין אם התובעת על דעת עצמה ציינה כי המטפלת ייעצה לה לפעול לצמצום‬.‫ולו דבר אחד חיובי לומר עליו‬

‫ הרי שאין ספק כי המטפלת לא מילאה אחר‬,‫הקשר בין הקטינים ובין אביהם ובין אם הדברים אכן התרחשו‬
‫המנדט שניתן לה ע"י ביהמ"ש מתוך ציפייה כי הקונפליקט יצומצם ולא יעמיק ומשכך‬

This translates to English as:

“When both parents take part in the treatment, then it is incumbent on the therapist to create a

trust-based care relationship with both parents. It is inconceivable that the therapist would think

that she has a relationship of trust with a client while she herself has not found even one positive

thing to say about him. The plaintiff herself stated the therapist advised her to act to reduce the

bond between the minors and their father and whether or not these things did in fact occur, there

is no doubt the therapist did not fulfill the mandate given to her by the court in the expectation

that the conflict would be reduced and would not deepen and continue31”.

As stated above, the analysis could not find any laws or policies that held FCSS

professionals accountable for their conduct. Quite the contrary, Johns (2006) discussed how

courts extend judicial immunity to FCSS professionals and the dangers of such a policy.

Paragraph 288 of ‫( תשל"ז‬1977) ‫( חוק העונשין‬the Penal Code,1977) has civil and criminal penalties

30 36137-10-19 ‫( תלה"מ‬2019) ‫ & פלונית נ' פלוני‬25128-08-19 ‫( תלה"מ‬2019) ‫פלונית נ' פלוני‬
31 Translated by the author.
52
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

for “insulting a public worker”32. A.G. vs A.G. (2012)33 described the underlying legal principle

that FCSS professionals are an extension of the court. However, there were mechanisms in place

to appeal or recuse judges in situations where judges were deemed to be negligent in their duties

whereas the analysis could not find any corresponding laws or policies for FCSS professionals.

The analysis could not find any mechanism to remove FCSS professionals from files if

they violated laws or basic rights of civilians. Theoretically, an FCSS professional could lie in

his or her court testimony against parents

without any consequences even if the

testimony was later proven to be false. There

would be no recourse for victims of such

abuse of power. If parents were to lash out

against such false testimony by insulting the

FCSS professional, these parents could face

both criminal and civil charges for insulting a

public worker. Such an unnecessarily hostile

environment breaks down trust and destroys

the therapeutic environment. It is therefore a

fundamental violation of the Israeli family court's mandate to provide therapeutic jurisprudence

in its cases. This raises an additional question of whether such a hostile environment contributed

to parental alienation. Several other peer-reviewed literature in Israel found hostile interactions

between FCSS professionals and the families they treated. Cases in these studies demonstrated

numerous different populations did not trust FCSS professionals. While the studies did not

32 The full text of the Penal Code (1977) is available online in Hebrew at:
https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/073_002.htm#Seif257
33 4745-07-12 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2012) ‫ ג‬.‫ ג נ' א‬.‫א‬
53
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

address parental alienation specifically, some of their findings apply to cases where the FCSS

contributed to parental alienation instead of treating it.

Attar-Schwartz et al. (2011) conducted the largest nationwide quantitative study on child

welfare in Israel to date. The study examined the relationship between child maltreatment,

children registered with social services, and minor offenders on probation – with factors

including geography, ethnicity, religion, and the ratio of social services professionals to the local

population. The team gathered the data from localities, the Central Bureau of Statistics, the

Ministry of Welfare, and the National Council for the Child. The net data they used represented

87% of Israeli children. A surprising result for the researchers was the rate of FCSS

professionals in localities correlated with increased child maltreatment and minor offenders.

Kulik & Kasa (2014) conducted an ethnographic study on divorced (or divorcing)

Ethiopian fathers. They compared a sample group of 63 Ethiopian immigrants with 48 Israeli-

born fathers. The study measured four coping resources – personal resources, interpersonal

resources, quality of relationship with ex-wives, the existence of new romantic relationships.

Alongside these factors, they also measured the relationships between the fathers and their

children. The article claimed that family courts in Israel did not award custody to fathers.

Therefore, all participants were non-custodial fathers. The study found that, “participants who

received more formal support showed lower self-acceptance of divorce,” (p. 201). This finding

clarified that FCSS services negatively affected non-custodial divorced fathers from both the

control group and the study group.

Lavee (2017) conducted a qualitative study on Israeli mothers under the poverty level

who received assistance from FCSS social workers. She interviewed 50 Israeli Jewish mothers

between the ages of 24 and 62 who had at least one child living in the home. 46 of the mothers

were single parents and 4 lived with partners. She screened the participants herself based on the

54
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

criteria that: a) they subjectively felt impoverished, b) they were sole breadwinners in their

families, and c) at least one child lived in their households. Her findings were that the mothers

who received services from FCSS professionals felt excluded, dis-empowered, and humiliated.

The FCSS services contributed to the women's experience of feeling poor. She describes

numerous hostile interactions between social workers and clients whenever the mothers would

seek assistance. Her conclusion was there seemed to be a lack of professional accountability and

lack of criteria in treating families.

Alfandari (2017) conducted a qualitative survey of a reform in Israeli child protection

practice whereby the social workers were supposed to involve the children as part of the case

management process. She sampled 21 cases from five local municipalities across Israel. Her

method was direct observation of committee meetings involving each case, semi-structured

interviews with the social workers, and six months later reviewing the case records. Her study

indicates a lack of implementation of the reform designed to increase child participation in the

process. She observes, “The first striking finding of this study is the negligible contact social

workers had with children for whom they were responsible”. The observation that the social

workers had negligible contact with the children may shed some light on other peer-reviewed

studies that found serious problems with the FCSS. Again, these findings may indicate that the

FCSS actually contributes to parental alienation.

Generally Speaking

The court missed signs of parental alienation in over 99% of the cases. The Nevo

database contained 6,514 cases with at least one sign of parental alienation as defined by peer-

reviewed academic literature. Of these, the court addressed parental alienation in 430 cases and

determined there to be parental alienation in 198 cases. The court missed signs of parental

alienation in the other 6,084 cases.

55
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Oftentimes cases in the control group gave up on efforts to renew contact between

children and the alienated parents without offering any kind of alternative relief. The Minors vs

Alamuni (2012)34 is an example of this. There had been a complete disconnect between the

children and the non-custodial father for the previous six years. The court mentioned a possible

legal justification to transfer custody to the father, but rejected that solution because the

disconnection had already gone on for too long. In essence, the alienation got rewarded with

more alienation. The court weighed the option of reducing or canceling child support. This

option was also rejected because the custodial mother “technically” cooperated in bringing the

children to visitations with the father. However, the court admitted, “for years the mother

torpedoed any relationship between the father and the minors and took no real step to bring

hearts closer”. The court further observed, “In this state of affairs, despite the dire consequence

of the minors' refusal to have contact with their father, there is no room to place the blame on the

minors themselves.” The decision did not discuss options for therapy. Quite the opposite, the

court did not want to “force” the relationship upon the children. The decision concluded, “All

that remains is to hope that in time the relationship will be renewed.” There was no intervention

or relief available in this case on any level for the target parent or his children.

Sh.T. et al. vs Sh.T. (2015)35 was a case involving two teenage children, a daughter and a

son, who had been alienated from the non-custodial father. In fact, the custodial mother even

admitted the alienation to the FCSS professional in paragraph 82 of the decision. This was while

undermining efforts to renew contact between the father and children. However, neither the

court nor the FCSS professional addressed parental alienation. Instead, there was a suggestion to

place the father in a supervised visitation center to rebuild trust. The father opposed this

suggestion because it would further strain trust rather than restore it. The court attempted to

34 5401-04 ('‫( תמש )חי‬2004) ‫הקטינים נ' אלמוני‬

35 25370-02-13 ('‫( תמש )נצ‬2013) ‫ט‬.‫ )קטינה( נ' ש‬.‫ט‬.‫ש‬
56
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

renew contact between the children and the father without recognizing parental alienation.

Custody and child support for a “rebellious child” were at issue. The decision left custody with

the mother and left child support as-is. The court warned the mother that it could sanction her

and even arrest her for interfering with the relationship between the father and his children. This

seemed to work for the son but not for the daughter.

The control group included 30 cases in which the mother was the non-custodial parent.

The court's failure to successfully reunite targeted mothers with their children in the control

group was not any better or worse than targeted fathers. Plonit vs Ploni (2009)36 exemplified

how little effort the court put into renewing contact between the non-custodial mother and her

child. The court did not address parental alienation in this case. Over 80% of the decision

focused on the dissolution of assets with only a brief mention of custody (and child support).

The FCSS professionals recommended custody with the father due to the child's refusal to be in

contact with the mother. The court rubber-stamped this recommendation without any mention of

therapy for renewal of contact between the mother and her child. The decision neither held the

FCSS professionals nor the custodial father accountable to ensure renewal of contact with the

mother by any deadline.

Oftentimes the only potential relief the court offered to targeted parents (without

addressing parental alienation) was reduction or cancellation of child support – albeit such relief

was itself a long shot. The (Female) Minors vs Ch.S. (2012)37 was a rare instance in which the

non-custodial father represented his daughters against the custodial mother. The court avoided

using the term “parental alienation” and instead used the term “contact refusal” to describe the

situation in this case. Normally, the literature reserves contact refusal for situations in which

children refuse contact with a parent for a justifiable reason such as abuse, neglect, or
36 9881/07 (‫( תמש )קריות‬2007) ‫פלונית נ' פלוני‬
37 35358-07-11 ('‫( תמש )חי‬2011) ‫ס‬.‫הקטינות נ' ח‬
57
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

abandonment. The “contact refusal” in this case resulted from the custodial mother's incitement

against the non-custodial father. Therapeutic efforts through the FCSS had failed to renew

contact between the father and at least one of his daughters. The very use of this term placed

blame on the targeted parent who was actually a victim of psychological abuse by the alienating

parent. The father proposed circumventing the mother by setting up a savings account for the

daughter who refused contact with him. The father would deposit monthly child support

payments into this savings account. The funds would be released directly to the daughter upon

renewing contact with her father. If she failed to renew contact before reaching adulthood, the

funds would be returned to the father. The court accepted this proposal.

While such an effort was creative in satisfying child support obligations without resorting

to a psychologically harmful “rebellious child” label, there were still substantial flaws in this

approach. First and foremost, it failed to treat parental alienation. The decision even avoided

using the term and instead glossed over the custodial parent's incitement against the non-

custodial parent with the term “contact refusal” and even placed blame on the targeted parent.

Secondly, it failed to sanction the custodial parent in any way beyond delaying receipt of child

support payments. This was a mere delay because, thirdly, the daughter only needed to agree to

meet with her father one time in the last month before becoming an adult and all the child

support would be released to her in a lump sum payment. Lastly, and related, it would have been

unwise to release a large sum of money directly to a minor – especially one suffering from

psychological trauma. In the case of severe parental alienation, the custodial parent can demand

and receive the money from the child even if such a demand violates a court order. Garber

(2011) detailed the extreme psychological control alienating parents exercise over the children.

One way or another, such a tactic would still financially reward the alienating parent while being

ineffective at treating parental alienation.

58
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

The Best Interest of the Child Doctrine

The judicial system lacked clear and consistent guidelines for family court judges to

render decisions in the child's best interest. Numerous decisions observed the vagueness of the

best interest of the child standard of the Family Court Law (1995). In Ploni vs Plonit (2009)38

the court pointed out the “best interest of the child” to be arbitrary. Therefore, the court reasoned

that reports from the FCSS professionals needed to play a central role in court decisions. This

effectively shifted judicial responsibility away from the judge in his or her rulings and placed

those responsibilities on the FCSS – without holding the FCSS accountable. This lacks a safety

net for the child's best interest in cases where the FCSS reports might harm the child, specifically

in the context of parental alienation, and the judge has absolved his or her responsibility to

ensure the child's best interest in every decision. As mentioned previously, the analysis found no

infrastructure whereby a party could seek to appeal or to recuse FCSS professionals in such

cases. This mindset whereby the judge would shift his or her judicial responsibilities onto the

FCSS professionals while noting the lack of concrete guidelines to ensure the best interest of the

child permeated many cases in the analysis. Meanwhile, the relationship between the parties and

FCSS was hostile in numerous cases. Shifting ambiguous responsibility from the judge to the

FCSS without any real safety net for the families not only violated the court's therapeutic

jurisprudence mandate, but it also fostered parental alienation.

Philip Marcus

Philip Marcus is a retired judge who offers himself as an expert on parental alienation

based on his track record as a family court judge in Jerusalem. He is an apologist for the above-

described approach in the Israeli family courts as an infrastructure for his proposed methodology.

Marcus (2017) argued the starting point in family court was to strip divorcing parents of their

38 9822/07 (‫( תמש )קריות‬2007) ‫פלוני נ' פלונית‬

59
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

rights and only impose responsibilities on them. Those parental rights would shift to the family

court judge as a “father of the fatherless” (page 101). However, Marcus' model absolves the

judge of responsibility associated with parental rights that were stripped from the parents. This

is especially problematic in the prevention, intervention, or treatment of parental alienation.

Marcus (2020) published a peer-reviewed article in English in which he asserted that prevention

of parental alienation depended on public awareness and training of professionals to take

preventative steps in the community. In his model, the court should intervene only after contact

failure has set in to supervise the progress of reconciliation and therapy, and impose sanctions for

“parental disobedience”.

His proposed model further watered down accountability for parties that cause parental

alienation. Marcus (2019) wrote an article in Hebrew in which he preferred to use the term

“contact refusal” over “parental alienation” because he claimed that “contact refusal” did not

place blame on anyone. However, the academic literature since Gardner (1985) reserves

“contact refusal” for situations where the child has a legitimate reason to refuse contact with a

parent – namely abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Therefore Marcus (2019) would blame

alienated parents in all situations by eliminating “parental alienation” in favor of exclusively

using the term “contact refusal”. His terminology merely blurs the lines between children who

legitimately refuse contact with an abusive or negligent parent and children who are being

psychologically abused by the alienating parent. He further claimed that the judge is powerless

to enforce rulings on contact refusal (parental alienation). His proposed solution was the most

effective treatment for “contact refusal” would be through the FCSS, though he did not offer any

studies to support this claim.

Marcus (2019) applauded the Israeli FCSS as being on the cutting edge of family courts

based largely on the study by Bayer-Topilsky et al. (2015). He suggested that various
60
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

professionals in the child's community monitor the parents and report abuse to FCSS

professionals. It would seem the judge's role as “father of the fatherless” who stripped the

biological parents of their rights – was to rubber-stamp FCSS reports without taking judicial

responsibility for his or her own decisions.

The above publications reflect Marcus' mindset in his rulings on parental alienation. Of

his 256 published decisions from 1995 to 2012, 5 related to parental alienation. Of these, 3 were

included in the target group because Marcus determined there to be parental alienation in those 3

cases. The analysis included these 3 cases. Marcus had a total of 3 decisions in the target group

and 4 decisions in the control group. The time it took for him to manage files in both groups

ranged from 1 year to 10 years with an overall median of 7 years and a mean of 6.025 years. The

level of severity at the close of his cases ranged from level 1 to level 5 with a median of 3 and a

mean of 3.4. Only 1 out of 7 from Marcus' decisions in the analysis resulted in a renewal of

contact between an alienated parent and the children. One of the other 6 cases 1 resulted in

closed adoption proceedings. Marcus failed to address parental alienation in 99 of the cases in

front of him with signs of parental alienation and failed to successfully reunite alienated families

in any cases in the target group where he addressed parental alienation. The scientific data

shows that Marcus' model would be woefully inadequate to improve Israel's track record on

parental alienation. Furthermore, the Israeli judiciary has started moving away from this model –

especially since 2017.

61
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Figure 7: Marcus' decisions on a linear regression chart

A Milestone in 2017

Ploni vs Plonit (2017)39 was a case where the Supreme Court had to address

recommendations from (2013) ‫( ועדת שניט‬Schnitt Committee, 2013)40. The Schnitt Committee

was a special legislative appointment of experts that advised the Knesset to amend Israeli law on

child support and child custody. Normally the Knesset passes three readings of such

recommendations to be formally codified into law. However, the Knesset has failed to put the

Schnitt Committee's recommendation to the floor since 2011. This negligence on the Knesset's

part forced the Supreme Court to discuss the Schnitt Committee's recommendation in a judicial

application. The Supreme Court adopted the Schnitt Committee's recommendation that most

children need both parents to take responsibility in raising them both economically and in

39 919/15 ‫( בע"מ‬2015) ‫פלוני נ' פלומית‬

40 The full report is available in Hebrew online at: https://www.gov.il/he/Departments/publications/reports/the-
public-committee
62
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

parenting time. While this decision did not remove the tender years presumption from the books,

it significantly shifted the family court's focus on the equal importance of both parents in the

lives of most children. Since 2017 this shift in the Israeli judiciary also revealed a need for a

model to address parental alienation seriously. This new trajectory moves away from the older

model endorsed by Philip Marcus into a new direction.

The Tel Aviv district was the first jurisdiction to develop a new model to seriously

address parental alienation. L.N. vs E.Ch. (2018)41 could serve as a blueprint for the underlying

mindset of the decision in Tel Aviv to appoint a judge who specializes in parental alienation.

The court emphasized:

‫" סירוב קטינים לקשר סביר עם אחד ההורים הינה מן הבעיות הקשות יותר אתה מתמודד ביהמ"ש לענייני‬

”.‫ אם לא הקשה שבהן‬,‫משפחה‬

This translates into English as:

“Refusal of minors to have a reasonable relationship with one of the parents is one of the more

difficult problems faced in family court, if not the most difficult.”42

The decision laid out a procedure for courts to evaluate whether parental alienation was present

in specific cases. It also adopted from peer-reviewed literature and court precedence that there

should be an evaluation whether the child's refusal to have contact with one parent had a

reasonable explanation. This was because, the court reasoned, the natural inclination of children

is to bond with both parents. Therefore, a child's refusal to bond with a parent needed a

reasonable explanation for the court to consider it to be the child's true intent (and best interest).

Absent a reasonable explanation for contact refusal, the court reasoned it to result from

psychological trauma caused by parental alienation.

41 46294-09-17 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2017) ‫ח‬.‫נ נ' ע‬.‫ל‬

42 Translation by the author
63
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

If there was no reasonable explanation for the child's contact refusal, then the court

considered the child's “preferred parent” to be at fault either explicitly or implicitly. Either the

“preferred parent” was explicitly brainwashing the child against the other parent, or the

“preferred parent” (alienating parent) neglected to correct the child's unjustified hostility against

the other parent and to encourage a positive bond with her or him. Either way, the burden of

proof would need to shift to the alienating parent to demonstrate that he or she actively

encouraged the child to bond with the other parent and was fully cooperative in therapy to renew

a healthy relationship between the child and the other parent.

The court emphasized that failure to act quickly would only contribute to the

psychological abuse that the alienating parent was exacting on the child. According to the

decision, the longer it took for a court to determine whether to intervene, the harder it would be

to undo the psychological harm the alienating parent was causing the child “until it is too late”.

The court observed that such cases result from inadequate tools being implemented in court.

Whereas, there are adequate tools for a court to effectively treat parental alienation and renew

contact between the child and alienated parent. While this decision did not explicitly discuss

appointing a judge who specializes in parental alienation, one sees the next logical step after this

decision in Tel Aviv was to appoint a specialized judge in Tel Aviv for parental alienation cases.

A.B.Z. vs K.M. (2018)43 could serve as a companion case whereby the Tel Aviv court

realized the flaws in relying on reports from court-appointed therapists who were not adequately

trained in the complexities of treating parental alienation. In this case, the father asked the court

to cancel a previous court order that allowed the mother to emigrate to New Zealand with the

children. The court-appointed expert recommended allowing the mother to emigrate with the

children to New Zealand out of concern over “budding parental alienation”. This was based on

43 14482-12-17 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2017) ‫מ‬.‫ז נ' ק‬.‫ב‬.‫א‬

64
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

interviews with the parents. The court criticized the report for neglecting to conduct any

psychological testing or address important psychological considerations like the children's ability

to integrate into a completely different society. In addition to the court's explicit criticism, the

elephant in the room would have been that allowing such emigration would have only

exacerbated parental alienation in the children. This decision was an important turning point

where the court realized it could not simply rubber-stamp every report from FCSS professionals

in parental alienation cases. While professional reports should carry weight, the court reasoned,

it was the judge who needed to take responsibility for every decision in the court. While this

decision did not explicitly discuss the need for a specialized judge to appoint FCSS professionals

with specialized training in parental alienation, one sees that the next logical step in Tel Aviv

was to ensure the specialized judge would also have specialized therapists at his or her disposal

as part of Tel Aviv's strategy to treat parental alienation.

Erez Shani

Erez Shani was appointed the specialized judge to manage parental alienation cases in the

Tel Aviv family court. D.C. vs. B.D. 201844 was a precursor to his appointment as a specialized

judge in 2019. In this case, the non-custodial mother alleged to Shani that the child refused all

contact with her due to parental alienation. Shani set a standard that, “parental alienation is not

only an act that is a civil tort, but also falls within the scope of a criminal offense”. He further

determined parental alienation to be a reasonable grounds for terminating guardianship of the

alienating parent. His reasoning was an alienating parent does not act in the best interest of the

child. Furthermore, he stated that referring such cases to the FCSS for treatment that could take

months was tantamount to inaction. Therefore, he appointed a guardian ad litem to begin

immediate intervention. Alongside this, he appointed a social worker who specialized in

44 11686-08-18 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2018) ‫ד‬.‫כ נ' ב‬.‫ד‬

65
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

parental alienation to begin treatment at the father's expense within 15 days and ordered one

overnight visit per week with the mother. Shani imposed a fine on the father for each incident

where the child refused to visit the mother.

The Tel Aviv district introduced a pilot program in 2019 whereby they appointed Erez

Shani to serve as a specialized judge to manage parental alienation cases within the Tel Aviv

jurisdiction. Both the judge and the court-appointed professionals had specialized training in

parental alienation. The pilot program successfully reduced the time cases were open by 650%

and the level of severity in parental alienation cases by 135% compared to the national average.

Additionally, the specialized judge reduced the time by 625% and the severity of parental

alienation by 132% compared to other cases within Tel Aviv. The specialized judge successfully

renewed contact between alienated children and parents in 39% of the cases. Only 1 case

resulted in failed contact and none escalated to adoption. The rest of the cases from the

specialized court were in ongoing treatment on the date of the decisions. None of the cases in

ongoing treatment were older than a year.

Shani has been a family court judge in Tel Aviv since 2011. As stated above, he

established a court that specializes in parental alienation cases within the Tel Aviv family court

that has been operating since 2019. Of his 150 published decisions from 2011 to 2020, 65

related to parental alienation. This analysis included 18 of these in the target group as cases

where Shani determined there to be parental alienation. The following are decisions from Shani

during his tenure as a specialized judge presiding over parental alienation cases in the family

court of Tel Aviv in 2019-2020. The discussion includes them because they contributed to

Shani's methodology in parental alienation cases as a specialized judge in Tel Aviv from 2019

onward.

66
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

It was common for Erez Shani to appoint a guardian ad litem for children. While each

case had unique circumstances, this policy reduced manipulative tactics of alienating parents

who joined children in litigation against targeted parents. For example, L.P. vs N.B.P. (2019)45

was a case Shani referred for treatment of parental alienation after the daughter refused contact

with her mother. The father was passive-aggressive in resisting therapy for contact renewal

between the mother and daughter. Shani put sanctions on the table and threatened the possibility

of removing the daughter from the father's custody. Additionally, Shani appointed a guardian ad

litem at the end of this decision. Since the appointment was at the end of the decision, the

guardian ad litem did not appear in the case heading, where Shani normally listed the guardian

ad litem who was appointed for the children.

Shani's model emphasized the importance of the court acting quickly and decisively to

treat parental alienation. In L.Ch. vs K.G. (2019)46, the custodial mother petitioned Shani to

delay therapy for parental alienation to avoid causing trauma to the child. Shani rejected the

request stating that treatment should not get bogged down in litigation. He expressed confidence

in the expertise of the therapists he appointed to know how to treat the family without causing

psychological trauma in the process. He emphasized the court's duty to renew contact between

children and alienated parents without wasting time. He did not believe that minors, who have

not reached the age of majority, had enough psychological maturity to properly weigh the

consequences of refusing court-mandated therapy. His model did not allow room for the

children or the alienating parent to use the court to drag out parental alienation nor delay in its

treatment.

45 49688-02-19 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2019) ‫ פ‬.‫ ב‬.‫ פ נ' נ‬.‫ל‬

46 23911-02-10 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2010) ‫ג‬.‫ ח נ' ק‬.‫ל‬
67
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

N.A. vs Y.A. (2019)47 further demonstrated that Shani's model did not waste time in

intervention. The father requested arbitration within a month after signs of parental alienation

began to manifest. The mother objected on grounds that the father's demand for a relationship

with his daughter interfered with other priorities in her life such as school and social events.

Shani accepted the father's request and rejected the mother's response, stating:

‫ בסיסית והאם‬,‫ידי ביהמ"ש העליון כזכות טבעית הורית‬-‫" זכותו של הורה לפגוש ביוצא חלציו הוגדרה על‬
‫ מחייב הורה משמורן כחלק‬,‫אינה יכולה לבטל זכות זאת באמירה שמדובר בדמיון משפטי; הדין הישראלי‬
‫בלתי נפרד מחובותיו וכהורה עיקרי לוודא קיום קשר בין קטין לבין ההורה האחר שאם לא כן יאבד הוא את‬

”.‫ בחוטאו לאחד מחובותיו העיקריות‬,‫זכותו להיות משמורן‬

This translates to English:

“The right of a parent to meet his offspring was defined by the Supreme Court as a natural, basic

parental right and the mother cannot revoke this right by stating that it is a legal technicality.

Israeli law requires a custodial parent to fulfill his duties and primary parent - otherwise he will

lose his right to be a custodian, in his violation of one of his primary duties.”

This entire file was open less than a month before Shani referred the family to arbitration and

successfully prevented escalation in the severity of parental alienation.

A similar request for “fast track” arbitration was M.Y.P vs N.G.P. (2019)48. Like the

above case, the father requested arbitration to renew contact with his son. However, the son in

this case was diagnosed on the autistic spectrum. This condition seemed to be a contributing

factor to parental alienation. On the one hand, parental alienation refers to cases where there is

no reasonable justification for contact refusal. On the other hand, the court had to address

whether the child's autism would disqualify the parental alienation claim. Prior to Shani's fast

47 5046-10-19 (‫( יס )ת"א‬2019) ‫ א‬.‫ א נ' י‬.‫נ‬

48 40394-02-19 (‫( יס )ת"א‬2019) ‫פ‬-.‫ ג‬.‫ פ נ' נ‬.‫י‬-.‫מ‬
68
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

track model, the only possible relief available to the alienated parent would have been to claim

the son was a “rebellious child” under the exception to the child support law. However, there

would have been an argument that the son was not fully aware of the consequences to his

“rebellion” due to his autism. Prior to Shani's model, this family would have been trapped in a

catch-22 with neither therapy options nor legal remedies. Shani ordered arbitration and began a

therapeutic process to evaluate where the family was on the spectrum of parental alienation with

specialists who could factor the autistic spectrum into the evaluation and treatment plan. Shani

further ordered Legal Aid to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor. This “fast track” process

took Shani one month from the opening of the case to his decision to refer the case for

specialized arbitration and specialized therapy with an order to appoint a guardian ad litem for

the minor.

There were cases in which Shani transferred custody due to parental alienation. One

example was M.D. vs. S.S. (2019)49 in which the parents had joint custody. The mother

petitioned for a reduction in the father's custody due to her concern that he was depressed and

possibly suicidal. The court-appointed expert reported that the mother was causing parental

alienation. Shani ordered full custody with the father for 90 days at which time he would re-

evaluate the situation. He further ordered the mother to pay the father 20,000 shekels50 for the

father's legal expenses. Another example was N.T. vs. E.T. (2019)51 in which the mother had

full custody. Shani determined that she was causing parental alienation. He appointed a social

worker at the mother's expense to treat parental alienation. He ordered the FCSS to prepare to

transfer full custody to the father if treatment were to fail.

49 22078-03-18 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2018) ‫ס‬.‫ד נ' ס‬.‫מ‬

50 In 2019 the exchange rate was approximately 3.5 shekels to 1 US dollar.
51 1503-02-18 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2018) ‫ט‬.‫ט נ' ע‬.‫נ‬
69
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

In A.M. vs D.M. (2020)52 Shani proposed using 51782-01-20 (‫ עמ"ש )ת"א‬from the Tel

Aviv district court as a future guide for practitioners in the field of parental alienation. He

distinguished parental alienation in a legal context from its context in psychological studies. He

explained:

,‫ אנו מדברים לא סתם בניתוק קשר שאין בו הצדקה ממשית‬,‫" כאשר מדברים בניכור הורי בעולם המשפט‬
‫ ארגון הבריאות העולמי ושפע‬.‫אלא אנחנו מדברים במעשה במזיד שמטרתו לגרום להמשכו של ניתוק הקשר‬
‫ ניכור הורי פעיל יכול גם יכול והוא‬.‫מוסדות אקדמאיים נוספים ראו ניכור הורי כהתעללות והתעמרות בקטין‬

”.‫נכנס לתחומי העבירה הפלילית ויכול הנוקט בו גם למצוא עצמו עומד לדין בשל הפרת הוראה חוקית‬

This translates to English:

“When talking about parental alienation in the legal world, we are not just talking about severing

a connection that has no real justification, but we are talking about an intentional act that aims to

cause the continuation of the severance. The World Health Organization and many other

academic institutions saw parental alienation as abuse and mistreatment of a minor. Active

parental alienation can also enter the realm of a criminal offense and it could be that whoever

does so also finds himself prosecuted for violating a legal order.”

Here Shani challenges the legal system to take on an additional responsibility beyond the

academic literature to prosecute criminal aspects of parental alienation in addition to therapy for

parental alienation as psychological abuse. He further described the psychologically abusive

environment as an outcome of “pathological parenting”. This pathological environment can

even deteriorate beyond the intent of the alienating parent who created such an abusive

environment in the first place.

He clarified that parental alienation is different from contact refusal and the two issues

should not be confused. His explanation was consistent with peer-reviewed literature from
52 46095-10-19 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2019) ‫ מ‬.‫ מ נ' ד‬.‫א‬
70
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Gardner (1985) through Lorandos (2020c). Shani's model emphasized that contact refusal

happens in situations where children have a legitimate reason to refuse contact with at least one

parent. Parental alienation is unique to situations where children have no legitimate justification

for severing contact with targeted parents. Shani's model explained the real cause for a child's

severance of contact in the context of parental alienation would be the “pathological”

environment that the alienating parent created for the children. While psychologists need to treat

the “pathogen” in a therapeutic context, Shani's model added responsibility for the family court

to additionally provide legal intervention for the accompanying psychological abuse.

Halperin-Kaddari et al. (2020)

This was a letter written in November 2020 that obstructed the court system from

expanding the pilot program in Tel Aviv into a national infrastructure. The letter made two

unscientific and baseless implications about the pilot program in Tel Aviv. First, it failed to

accurately identify false claims of parent alienation that covered up domestic violence by the

targeted parents. Second, it frequently transferred custody into the hands of the abusive parent -

only to reverse its decisions after discovering the targeted parent abused the children after

receiving full custody.

Nearly two years of scientific data from the pilot program in this analysis completely

refute these allegations. Of the 65 published claims for parental alienation that Shani heard, he

rejected 47 of them and only accepted 18. He sided with women in approximately half his

published decisions. Shani's specialized court was the only model in Israel that accurately

weeded out 100% of false claims for parental alienation and accurately identified parental

alienation 100% of the time. Not a single one of the published decisions in which he transferred

custody was later reversed due to abuse by the targeted parents. Quite the opposite, scientific

data shows that Shani's model substantially reduced trauma to the children and prevented child
71
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

abuse to escalate from deteriorating into forced adoptions. The higher courts upheld Shani's

decisions in every appeal. The letter by Halperin-Kaddari et al. (2020) highlights the importance

of evidence-based policy. A policy decision based on scientific data instead of political activism

will enable the Israeli judiciary to proceed in expanding the pilot program nationwide with

confidence that such a policy is scientifically proven to be in the children's best interest.

Implications

Nearly two years of quantitative data from the pilot program in Tel Aviv demonstrated a

substantial reduction in both time and severity of parental alienation cases. The specialized court

had a clear and substantial impact on parental alienation both compared to the national average

and compared to courts within the same jurisdiction in Tel Aviv. This even correlated to a 15%

reduction in the overall number of files opened in Tel Aviv. There were no other models that

had such a substantial effect on parental alienation cases.

In October 2020, the Supreme Court (2020) issued an order called “ ‫הוראות נוהל של נשיאת‬

‫( ”בית המשפט העליון‬Procedural Provisions of the President of the Supreme Court) that sought to

establish uniform working procedures for all family courts throughout the country to protect

children and ensure contact between parents and their children. The purpose of the procedure

was to set a time frame for proceedings to be a prompt and effective response to requests for

relief in urgent cases. Fast track procedures from the specialized court in Tel Aviv served as a

template for this order. The order explained its rationale as:

‫" זכות הילד לקשר עם שני הוריו היא זכות יסוד המעוגנת באמנה לזכויות הילד‬

‫ הזכות הוכרה זה מכבר בפסיקת בתי המשפט כמקימה הגנה‬.‫אשר מתיישבת עם עיקרון העל של טובת הילד‬
‫ מנגד ובמקרים של חשש לפגיעה בילד על ידי מי מההורים או אלימות ביניהם שהוא עד לה‬.‫וסעד משפטי‬
‫ בכל מקרה של פגיעה בקשר בין הורים לילדיהם ובשל‬.‫ זכות הילד היא גם למוגנות בקשר‬,‫ומכוח אותו עיקרון‬
‫ לממד הזמן חשיבות והשפעה מכרעת על התמודדות והתערבות‬,‫החשש להתפתחותו הרגשית התקינה של הילד‬
”.‫יעילים בבעיות בקשר שבין הורים לילדיהם הקטינים‬
72
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

This translates to English as:

“The child's right to contact with both parents is a fundamental right enshrined in the Convention

on the Rights of the Child which is consistent with the overriding principle of the best interests

of the child. The right has long been recognized in court rulings as establishing legal protection

and relief. On the other hand and in cases of fear of harm to the child by any of the parents or

violence between them that he witnesses and by virtue of the same principle, the child's right is

also protected in the relationship. In cases of harm to the relationship between parents and their

children and due to the concern for the normal emotional development of the child, time is of

crucial importance and influence on effective treatment and intervention in problems with

relationships between parents and their minor children.”53 (para 1).

This Supreme Court order intended to expand Tel Aviv's pilot program to every jurisdiction in

Israel. Once implemented, each jurisdiction could offer a fast-track court to address parental

alienation. The first hearing would be set within 14 days after the opening of each case and a

treatment plan would be in place within 30 days.

The Supreme Court issued this order in October 2020 and the analysis period ended in

December 2020. Therefore, implementation of the Supreme Court order did not occur before the

end of the analysis period. As stated in chapter 4, there was not an even distribution of parental

alienation cases in every municipality, however, there was sufficient distribution of parental

alienation cases among regions to justify a specialized court in each geographic region. This

would allow citizens in every geographic region of Israel similar access to a specialized judge as

the citizens in the Tel Aviv jurisdiction currently have.

There has not yet been a peer-reviewed needs assessment on how Israeli leadership

should manage parental alienation cases in accordance with the above-mentioned order. Once

53 Translated from Hebrew to English by the author.

73
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

the court system builds a national infrastructure to comply with the Supreme Court (2020) order,

there can be a study on how the specialized court will have scaled from Tel Aviv to a national

infrastructure. Meanwhile, the data currently available for a specialized fast-track court is from

the pilot program in Tel Aviv.

Future Research

Psychologists are most commonly responsible for diagnosing and treating parental

alienation. However, psychiatrists also diagnose and treat complex cases of parental alienation.

Social workers provide follow-up therapy prescribed by psychologists and psychiatrists. There

should be inter-disciplinary studies that follow up on the recommendations by Toren et al.

(2013). Follow-up quantitative and qualitative studies help teams of psychologists, psychiatrists,

and social workers formulate inter-disciplinary treatment plans for parental alienation. Such

treatment plans would be useful for healthcare institutions under the Ministry of Health as well

as FCSS professionals who collaborate with disciplines under the Ministry of Justice, the

Ministry of Welfare, and the Ministry of Health.

Qualitative studies should follow up on the findings from this analysis. These studies

will provide insight into the various types of experiences with parental alienation from the

perspective of the families. Such insight will enable management to offer treatment plans for the

most frequent types of cases while also being adaptable to unique cases. It will also allow

management to formulate community-based educational programs and intervention plans.

Lastly, it will provide essential data for judicial, welfare, and health authorities to adapt to the

needs of families suffering from parental alienation.

Mixed method studies can expand upon qualitative studies. There can be semi-structured

interviews with a target group and a control group who also answer surveys with 5-point

questions based on the Likert scale. The purpose is similar to the qualitative studies, with the
74
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

additional component of comparing results with a control group. This allows management to

monitor ongoing progress and adapt policies as the needs of stakeholders change. The findings

can be shared and implemented across the collaboration network.

Conclusions

Data from the pilot program in Tel Aviv shows this to be the most effective model to

improve the management of parental alienation cases in the Israeli judiciary. While the analysis

found statistical significance in other factors such as geography, models, and court types, none

was enough to overcome the overall 99% failure rate to intervene or effectively treat parental

alienation. This applied to both the target group and the control group.

By contrast, the fast-track pilot program in Tel Aviv successfully identified parental

alienation in 100% of the cases where there were signs of parental alienation and even

successfully weeded out 100% of the claims filed as parental alienation that were not actually

parental alienation. The pilot program in Tel Aviv successfully reduced the time needed for

decisions to less than 1 year - with a rate of failure to renew contact that was less than 5%. This

would seem to indicate a substantial reduction in the social, emotional, and economic burden on

families in the system. The data warrants scaling the Tel Aviv program to a national

infrastructure in compliance with the Supreme Court order (2020). While a specialized fast-track

court may not be feasible in every municipality, there can be a specialized fast-track court in

each geographic region allowing every citizen nationwide to have the same access to a

specialized court.

Legislation has failed thus far and none of the healthcare providers have treatment plans

for parental alienation. Despite Monnickendam-Givon (2019) recommending educational

programs to prevent parental alienation, no Israeli authority has invested in such programs on a

national scale. Quite the opposite, Israeli academic signatories joined Neilson et al. (2019) to
75
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

oppose the inclusion of the parental alienation diagnosis in the ICD-11 publication - much less

spend money on educational programs that highlight parental alienation as a psychological

disorder that needs intervention or treatment.

Results of the analysis corroborated both international studies and the prior Israeli study

by Toren et al. (2013) that found a correlation between quick intervention and a substantial

reduction in the severity of parental alienation. In fact, the pilot fast-track program in Tel Aviv's

family court caused a 650% reduction in time cases were open and a 132% reduction in the

severity of parental alienation cases. This resulted in a 95.55% success rate for the treatment of

parental alienation in the specialized court in Tel Aviv. There was also a 15% drop in new cases

in Tel Aviv after the pilot program opened to residents in their jurisdiction. The analysis

recommends scaling this pilot program into the court system nationwide. Chapter 6 details

recommendations for Israeli authorities to successfully scale the pilot program into a nationwide

infrastructure.

76
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Chapter 6: Recommendations

There are 4 national authorities in Israel with the power to affect nationwide policies on

the prevention, diagnosis, intervention, and treatment of parental alienation. These are the

Knesset (Israeli parliament), the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health, and the judiciary.

During the analysis period, the judiciary did the most to intervene and treat parental alienation.

Moving forward, all 4 authorities could contribute substantially to the prevention, intervention,

and treatment of parental alienation within the trajectory currently being spearheaded by the

judiciary. All 4 authorities would do well to publish resources, policies, and procedures for

treating parental alienation within their jurisdictions. Such publications should be easy for the

average citizen to access and understand. All authorities should adopt evidence-based policies to

maximize the accuracy of data they use to implement policies while minimizing spurious or

biased data. This evidence-based policy can easily fit into a nationwide collaborative network.

Below are additional recommendations for each of the 4 above-mentioned authorities.

The Judiciary

Israel's court system has made substantial progress within the

Tel Aviv jurisdiction to intervene in parental alienation cases since

2019. The Israeli judiciary should expand this fast-track program in

Tel Aviv to a national scale. While there does not need to be a

specialized court in every municipality, there should at least be regional specialized courts

available to every citizen in every jurisdiction. In so doing, the court system should adopt

current policies from the specialized court in Tel Aviv that proved to be successful. These are as

follows.

• The first hearing should be within 14 days of filing a parental alienation claim.

• Specialized diagnostic treatment should begin within 30 days after the hearing.
77
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

• There should be a court hearing at least every six months.

• Diagnosed cases of parental alienation should not require more than a year for treatment.

• The court should automatically appoint a guardian ad litem for the children at the opening

of every parental alienation file.

• The judge should employ every sanction, penalty, and punishment against the offending

party as in any case that alleges domestic violence.

The judiciary can adopt Erez Shani's recommendation in A.M. vs D.M. (2020)54 to use ‫עמ"ש‬

51782-01-20 (‫ )ת"א‬as a guideline for uniform implementation of the above policies in all

specialized courts.

The court system should avoid blaming targeted parents for parental alienation in severe

cases. It is never appropriate to blame victims of severe domestic abuse – including victims of

severe parental alienation. Since parental alienation is a type of domestic abuse, courts should

treat victims of parental alienation the same as any other victims of domestic abuse.

Numerous decisions in the analysis complained how the “best interest of the child” policy

in the Family Court Law (1995) lacked clarity. Such ambiguity has led to arbitrary and

contradictory decisions that exacerbated parental alienation. A specific example from the

analysis was the use of supervised visitation centers that lacked any limitation on time or

circumstances. It seems this resulted from Lesser (2005) who prescribed such misuse of

supervised visitation. However, parents who never endangered their children could find

themselves locked in supervised visitation centers for years to see their children without any

clarification on how to get out from under such supervision. The court system should set clear

parameters for judges to carry out the best interest of the child in every kind of situation that

54 46095-10-19 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2019) ‫ מ‬.‫ מ נ' ד‬.‫א‬

78
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

comes up in family court – including parental alienation. These parameters should all come from

evidence-based research and should be updated regularly as the needs of the system change.

Attorneys and judges alike should be able to clearly understand the definitions, expectations, and

limitations on every policy in the family court system.

Lastly, the court system should place the full child support burden upon alienating parents

in diagnosed cases of parental alienation – especially in severe cases. This child support burden

should be retroactive from the time signs of parental alienation first manifest until healthy

contact gets fully restored between the alienated parent and the child. This policy would lift the

economic and psychological burden off the victims and place them on the abusers. The analysis

found too many cases in which the child support burden exacerbated parental alienation because

the only theoretical relief available to the targeted parent was to blame the child as a “rebellious

child”. In essence, this forces one victim of parental alienation to attack another victim in

litigation. The trauma for both victims gets further exacerbated when the courts denied such

requests – which happened in most cases. This recommendation to shift the child support burden

to alienating parents would not only serve to mitigate the psychological abuse – it would also act

as an economic deterrent against the abuser from causing further psychological trauma to the

children.

The Ministry of Welfare

Israel's Ministry of Welfare is responsible for all

licensed social workers in Israel, including all FCSS

professionals. The FCSS professionals have a mandate to carry

out the court's therapeutic jurisprudence. In other words, the

FCSS professionals must create a therapeutic environment

within the family court. Every therapist understands a therapeutic environment can only exist
79
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

where clients trust the therapists. While this is a difficult task to accomplish in divorce cases,

Israel already has resources in the existing system to carry out a therapeutic jurisprudence

mandate successfully.

The FCSS management can appoint one of their social workers as a caseworker to

manage each case on behalf of the court. In addition, each party (stakeholder) should have a

right to bring in a licensed therapist of his or her choice to help the court-appointed caseworker

manage the file. This licensed therapist can be another FCSS professional, or from a public

clinic, or from the health insurance provider, or somebody whom the party hires privately. The

court-appointed caseworker chairs the committee of licensed therapists to provide therapy for

each family in family court. In parental alienation cases, all members of the committee need to

have qualifications from the Ministry of Welfare or Ministry of Health to treat parental

alienation. The committee should meet every 3 months and submit quarterly reports to the court

that are signed by the court-appointed caseworker as chair along with the other members of the

committee. The FCSS already submits committee reports to the court. Currently, managers

from the FCSS appoint all members to such committees from within the FCSS. The difference

in this recommendation is the FCSS management would appoint the chairperson of the

committee and the parties (stakeholders) would have a say in the licensed therapists to include as

members of the committee that provides court-mandated therapy to the families.

Such a policy could even reduce the economic hardship on divorcing families. Every

citizen already has free access to licensed therapists either through public clinics or through their

health insurance providers. By allowing parties to integrate free licensed therapists into the

procedures through their existing channels, the system can reduce the number of instances

where the court orders parental fitness evaluations through private institutions that frequently

cost over 30,000 shekels (over $10,000). These costly evaluations are beyond the financial
80
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

means of most Israelis. Whereas the proposed solution would provide financial relief for most

citizens in addition to creating a therapeutic environment based on trust between clients and

professionals.

The Ministry of Welfare can also improve public trust in the FCSS by creating a policy

that holds FCSS professionals accountable for their conduct. There should be a procedure for the

public to file complaints against FCSS professionals without fear of backlash. These procedures

and complaint forms should be published in a manner that the average citizen can easily find and

understand. The accountability standard can be similar to other licensed professionals such as

teachers licensed through the Ministry of Education or doctors licensed through the Ministry of

Health. The complaint process should be free of undue influence from the subject of the

complaint. An essential part of building therapeutic trust is for vulnerable clients to feel that the

system is ready, willing, and able to protect them from any abuse of power.

Lastly, the Ministry of Welfare should adopt the recommendations of Bar-On and Mazeh

(2019) that are specific to parental alienation. Their recommendations were inter-disciplinary

psychological and legal and intended to help the Ministry of Welfare develop a policy on

parental alienation – especially in severe cases. Their main finding was long-term effects of

parental alienation negatively affected children of all genders even into adulthood. Data from

the current analysis confirms their findings and suggests their recommendations would improve

the Ministry of Welfare's ability to treat parental alienation.

The Ministry of Health

The Ministry of Health oversees all licensed

psychologists, psychiatrists, medical institutions, and

health insurance providers in Israel. Currently, none of

the health insurance providers offer therapy for parental

81
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

alienation. The current infrastructure allows all citizens free access to psychologists,

psychiatrists, and social workers through their health insurance or through public clinics.

Citizens even have free access to specialized therapists in a variety of disciplines that affect

families in high-conflict divorce. However, none of these psychologists, psychiatrists, or social

workers specialize in parental alienation nor even offer therapy for parental alienation. The

Ministry of Health should offer training for professionals to offer therapy for parental alienation.

Goldin and Salani (2020) provide an infrastructure that helps healthcare professionals identify,

diagnose, and treat parental alienation. The Ministry of Health can adapt their report to serve as

a training manual for Israeli healthcare professionals.

The Knesset

Israel's parliament is called The Knesset and is

responsible for delegating national budgets and enacting

legislation that comports with Jewish democratic principles in

Israel's Declaration of Independence and Basic Laws. Both

documents forbid laws or policies that discriminate against

any gender. Both documents highlight the democratic value

of protecting each citizen's right to raise his or her children without interference. The Knesset

should abolish gender-based laws that fuel parental alienation and exacerbate psychological

traumas to victims of both genders who suffer all kinds of domestic abuse – including parental

alienation.

Currently, there are no laws against parental alienation. The Knesset should legislate

criminal and civil laws against parental alienation. Existing Israeli laws against domestic

violence and defamation could serve as templates for laws against parental alienation. All

82
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

citizens regardless of gender should have equal protection against parental alienation under such

laws.

The Knesset should legislate a statute that holds relevant Israeli authorities accountable to

preserve the most natural and least restrictive environment when treating children at risk –

including in cases of parental alienation. Israel can use the Children & Family Services Act

(1980)55 as a template for such a policy in Israel. The Children & Family Services Act is in

section 20, paragraph 505 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. The act holds authorities

accountable to treat at-risk children in the most natural and least restrictive environment possible

for each child's unique case. This includes required case reviews every 3 months and court

reviews every 6 months that hold authorities accountable to justify the current treatment plan for

each child and timelines to move children to less restrictive treatment plans in a timely manner.

While such a law primarily safeguards children from being locked in institutions

whenever less restrictive alternatives are more appropriate in specific cases – it also protects

children from actions by authorities that would cause or exacerbate parental alienation. For

example, such a law would prevent authorities from imposing supervised visitation centers on

children without demonstrating such an imposition is the most natural and least restrictive

treatment option for that child. This law would further hold authorities accountable to move

such children to more natural and less restrictive environments to see their parents as soon as

there is sufficient evidence that such an alternative is available and in the child's best interest.

Lastly, this type of law holds the judge responsible with the final say in every case. While

reports FCSS professionals play an important role in providing a clear picture to the judge, the

FCSS cannot usurp judicial authority from the judge in the process.

55 The full text of this law is available online in English at: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?
ActID=242&ChapterID=5
83
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

The Knesset should adopt recommendations by Monnickendam-Givon (2019), who wrote

a policy handbook for treatment of parental alienation for the Knesset. The handbook pointed out

the lack of current legislation related to parental alienation; which makes intervention and

treatment difficult. The handbook suggested policies in hopes that legislation against parental

alienation would pass in the future. This would include legislation that sets parameters for

diagnosis and treatment.

The Knesset should also adopt recommendations by the Schnitt Committee (2013). They

can use the model by Berrick (2021) to implement these recommendations. She suggests the

state has a responsibility to ensure a reasonable standard of child welfare in cases where divorced

parents lack economic resources to meet financial demands from the courts. Israel is a

developed western democracy with adequate resources to use Berrick's model. This model

provides an economic safety net for disadvantaged families who cannot keep up with financial

burdens beyond their means that come out of family court. It would prevent situations where the

court sets up families for failure with child support obligations above 100% of the non-custodial

parent's gross income. During the analysis period, the courts set such high child support out of

fear that the child would otherwise “starve”56. This was despite there already being a program

during the entire analysis period to subsidize child support through ‫( ביטוח לאומי‬National

Insurance). However, that program caps payments at 80% of the minimum standard for up to 3

children, does not cover expenses for specialized needs or housing; and treats payments as a

loan. Under the model by Berrick (2021), the Knesset would enact legislation and a sufficient

budget to require the courts to set child support obligations based on the parents' ability to pay

expenses for their children. This legislation would bring Israel in line with other developed

western democracies. The existing child support program through ‫ ביטוח לאומי‬could be modified

56 Numerous cases in the analysis expressed concern over “starving” the children as the underlying rationale for
their decisions.
84
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

to cover the child's needs that are above and beyond child support set by the court. This

modification to the existing program would factor both parents' financial abilities without

requiring either parent to repay a debt to ‫ ביטוח לאומי‬in cases where there is economic poverty.

Lastly, the Knesset should allocate funding to educational and therapeutic programs that

address parental alienation. This includes programs that raise public awareness about the

psychological harm parental alienation causes to children. This could even be part of existing

funding to combat domestic violence. Additionally, the Knesset should allocate educational

funding for professionals to receive training that allows them to offer specialized therapy for

parental alienation. There should be sufficient funding for the Ministry of Welfare and the

Ministry of Health to offer easy access to therapy and support groups for parental alienation.

Summary

Israeli authorities strive to be on the cutting edge of therapeutic jurisprudence and have

the resources to do so – especially when it comes to prevention, intervention, and treatment of

parental alienation. National authorities can accomplish this by creating a nationwide evidence-

based collaboration both with each other and with local authorities to address parental alienation.

There should be an open environment for all stakeholders to collaborate. Community-based

authorities should contribute resources to programs that address parental alienation. Such local

authorities include municipalities, schools, community centers, and places of worship. These

programs raise awareness in the community about the harm of parental alienation and

community-based methods to prevent it within the community. Communities should also host

parental alienation support groups and educational programs. Local programs should offer a

context for extracurricular activities that allow victims of parental alienation to renew contact

with their loved ones. If the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Welfare, Ministry of Health, and the

Knesset invest in a national infrastructure for such collaboration; local and national authorities,
85
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

as well as the private sector, could join the network to address parental alienation. Leadership

needs to foster an environment of trust as much as possible in a collaborative network that

effectively addresses parental alienation.

86
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

References

Alfandari, R. (2017). Evaluation of a national reform in the Israeli child protection practice
designed to improve children’s participation in decision-making. Child & Family Social
Work, 22, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12261

Aloia, L. S., & Strutzenberg, C. (2019). Parent-child communication apprehension: The role of
parental alienation and self-esteem. Communication Reports, 32(1), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2018.1514641

Attar-Schwartz, S.,et al (2011). The Geography of Children’s Welfare in Israel: The Role of
Nationality, Religion, Socio-Economic Factors and Social Worker Availability. British
Journal of Social Work; 41, 1122-1139. London, UK. Retrieved from EBSCO.

Baker, A. J. L, (2005). The long-term effects of parental alienation on adult children: A

qualitative research study. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 33. 289-302.

Baker, A. J. L, (2008). Parental alienation syndrome – the parent/child disconnect. Social Work
Today, 8(6), p. 26.

Baker, A. J. L, (2020). Reliability and validity of the four-factor model of parental

alienation. Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
6427.12253

Baker, A. J. L, Murray, C., & Adkins, K. (2020). Parameters of reunification therapy and
predictors of treatment success in high conflict divorce cases: A survey of mental health
professionals. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 61(8), 593–614.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2020.1824206

Bayer-Topilsky, T. ,et al (2015). Family court social services – national evaluation study. Myers-
JDC-Brookdale Institute. Jerusalem, Israel.
https://brookdale.jdc.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/702-15_Summary-eng.pdf

Bentley, C., & Matthewson, M. (2020). The not-forgotten child: Alienated adult children’s
experience of parental alienation. American Journal of Family Therapy, 48(5), 509–529.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1775531

Bernet, W. (2020). Response to “Ideology and rhetoric replace science and reason in some
parental alienation literature and advocacy: A Critique,” by Milchman, Geffner, and
Meier. Family Court Review, 58(2), 362–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12489

Berrick, J.D. (2021). Imagining a new future: elimination of child support obligations for child
welfare-involved families, Journal of Public Child
Welfare, DOI: 10.1080/15548732.2021.1999362

Bone, J. M. & Walsh, M.R. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: How to Detect It and What to
Do About It: Florida B.J., 44.

87
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Children & Family Services Act (1980). 20 ILCS 505

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=242&ChapterID=5

Finzi-Dottan, R., Goldblatt, H., & Cohen-Masica, O. (2012). The experience of motherhood for
alienated mothers. Child and Family Social Work, 17, 316–325.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00782.x

Garber, B.D. (2011). Parental alienation and the dynamics of the emeshed parent-child dyad:
Adultification, parentification, and infatilization. Family Courts Review 322, 49 (2)

Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29(2),
3-7. http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gardnr85.pdf

Gardner, R. A. (1998). The Parental Alienation Syndrome. Cresskill, 2nd ed.

Goldin, D. S., & Salani, D. (2020). Parental alienation syndrome: What health care providers
need to know. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 16(5), 344-348.

Greenberg, L. R., Doi Fick, L., & Schnider, H. R. A. (2016). Catching them before too much
damage is done: Early intervention with resistance-refusal dynamics. Family Court
Review, 54(4), 548–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12242

Harman, J. J., & Lorandos, D. (2021). Allegations of family violence in court: How parental
alienation c judicial outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(2), 184-208.
https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000301

Johns, M. Z. (2006). A Black Robe Is Not a Big Tent: The Improper Expansion of Absolute
Judicial Immunity to Non-Judges in Civil-Rights Cases. SMUL Rev., 59, 265.

Keidar, G. G. (2021). Practical Judicial-Therapeutic Model (JTM) For Resolving Disputes in

Divorce Proceedings Long Abstract (Doctoral dissertation, Alexandru Ioan Cuza
University of Iasi).

Kulik, Liat; Kasa, Yael‐Avero (2014). Journal of Community Psychology. Mar2014, Vol. 42
Issue 2, p191-208. 18p. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.21604. Retrieved from EBSCO.

Lavee, E. (2017). Low-income women's encounters with social services: Negotiation over power,
knowledge and respectability. British Journal of Social Work, 47(5): 554-571.

Lee-Maturana, S., Matthewson, M. L., & Dwan, C. (2020). Targeted parents surviving parental
alienation: Consequences of the alienation and coping strategies. Journal of Child &
Family Studies, 29(8), 2268–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01725-1

Lee-Maturana, S., Matthewson, M., & Dwan, C. (2021). Understanding Targeted Parents’
Experience of Parental Alienation: A Qualitative Description from Their Own
Perspective. American Journal of Family Therapy, 49(5), 499–516.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1837035

88
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Lorandos, D. (2020a). Parental alienation in U.S. courts, 1985 to 2018. Family Court
Review, 58(2), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12475

Lorandos, D. (2020b). Response to Milchman, Geffner, and Meier ideology and rhetoric replace
science and reason in some parental alienation literature and advocacy: A
Critique. Family Court Review, 58(2), 371–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12493

Lorandos, D. (2020c). Parental alienation, traditional therapy, and Family Bridges: What works,
what doesn’t, and why: Part II of II. American Journal of Family Law, 34(1), 9–17.

Lubit, R. (2019). Valid and invalid ways to assess the reason a child rejects a parent: The
continued malignant role of “parental alienation syndrome.” Journal of Child
Custody, 16(1), 42–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284

Mackenzie, D., Herbert, R., & Robertson, N. (2020). ’It’s Not OK’, but “It” never happened:
Parental alienation accusations undermine children’s safety in the New Zealand Family
Court. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 42(1), 106–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1701942

Marcus P. (2017) Parental Responsibilities: Reformulating the Paradigm for Parent–Child

Relationships Journal of Child Custody, October 2017

Marcus, P. (2019) The Israel Family Court – Therapeutic jurisprudence and jurisprudential
therapy from the start. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.

Marcus, P. (2020). Innovative programs in Israel for prevention & responding to parental
alienation: Education, early identification and timely, effective intervention. Family
Court Review, 58(2), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12486

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 & Family Law, 42(1), 92–
105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1701941

Mercer, J. (2019). Are intensive parental alienation treatments effective and safe for children
and adolescents? Journal of Child Custody, 16(4), 408.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1662224

Milchman, M. S., Geffner, R., & Meier, J. S. (2020). Ideology and rhetoric replace science and
reason in some parental alienation literature and advocacy: A Critique. Family Court
Review, 58(2), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12476

Milchman, M. S., Geffner, R., & Meier, J. S. (2020). Putting science and reasoning back into the
“parental alienation” discussion: Reply to Bernet, Robb, Lorandos, and Garber. Family
Court Review, 58(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12477

Miralles, P., Godoy, C., & Hidalgo, M. D. (2021). Long-term emotional consequences of
parental alienation exposure in children of divorced parents: A systematic

89
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

review. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse

Psychological Issues. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02537-2

Morag, T. (2015). Conference on Parental Alienation. Tel Aviv University.

https://shalem-ins.co.il/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%A8-
%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%93%D7%A8-%D7%9E
%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%9B%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99/

Morag, T. (2019). Children's rights and interests: International Society of Family Law Regional
Conference. Haruv Institute. Hod HaSharon, Israel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Uq_c691SA

Neilson, L. et al (2019). Collective memo of concern to: World Health Organization.

http://www.learningtoendabuse.ca/docs/WHO-September-24-2019.pdf

Rand, D. C. (1997). The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of

Forensic Psychology 15(3), 23-39.

Rao, A. G. (2021). Rejecting “Unjustified” Rejection: Why Family Courts Should Exclude
Parental Alienation Experts. Boston College Law Review, 62(5), 1759–1796.

Rowlands, G. A. (2019). Parental alienation: A measurement tool. Journal of Divorce &

Remarriage, 60(4), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1546031

Rowlands, G. A. (2020). Parental Alienation: A measurement tool confirmatory factor analysis

validation study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 61(2), 127–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2019.1627162

Scharp, K. M., Kubler, K. F., & Wang, T. R. (2020). Individual and community practices for
constructing communicative resilience: Exploring the communicative processes of coping
with parental alienation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(2), 207–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1734225

Shaw, M. (2019). Misperceptions and misapplications of research in family law cases: Myths of
“parental alienation syndrome” and implanted false memories. Journal of Child
Custody, 16(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1609384

Templer, K., Matthewson, M., Haines, J. and Cox, G. (2017), Recommendations for best practice
in response to parental alienation: findings from a systematic review. Journal of Family
Therapy, 39: 103-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12137

Toren, P., Bregman, B. L., Zohar-Reich, E., Ben-Amitay, G., Wolmer, L., & Laor, N. (2013).
Sixteen-session group treatment for children and adolescents with parental alienation and
their parents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 41(3), 187–197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2012.677651

Verrocchio, M. C., Marchetti, D., Carrozzino, D., Compare, A., & Fulcheri, M. (2019).
Depression and quality of life in adults perceiving exposure to parental alienation
90
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

behaviors. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17(1), 14.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1080-6

Warshak, R. A. (2019). Reclaiming parent–child relationships: Outcomes of Family Bridges with

alienated children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 60(8), 645–667.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1529505

Warshak, R. A. (2020). Risks and realities of working with alienated children. Family Court
Review, 58(2), 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12481

Weisberg, D. Kelly; Appleton, Susan Frelich (2003). Modern Family Law: Cases & Materials
(9780735524002). p727-845. 119p. , Database: Academic Search Complete

World Health Organization. (2019). International statistical classification of diseases and

related health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int

World Health Organization. (2020). International statistical classification of diseases and

related health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/

14482-12-17 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2017) ‫מ‬.‫ז נ' ק‬.‫ב‬.‫א‬

4745-07-12 (‫( תמש )ת"א‬2012) ‫ ג‬.‫ ג נ' א‬.‫א‬
46095-10-19 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2019) ‫ מ‬.‫ מ נ' ד‬.‫א‬
https://www.nevo.co.il ,‫ הוראות נוהל של נשיאת בית המשפט העליון‬.(2020) ‫בית המשפט העליוון‬
‫ משרד העבודה הרווחה והשירותים‬.‫ סקירת ספרות‬:‫ ניכור הורי‬.(2019) ‫ יואב‬,‫ מזאה‬,‫ ענבל‬,‫און‬-‫בר‬
https://mazeh.co.il/source/Articles/-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99- .‫החברתיים‬
%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA-
%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%93%D7%A8-
%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9F.pdf
: ‫ חטיפת ילד בידי הורה והתיסמונת של התנכרות להורה‬.(1995) ‫ ישראל‬,‫ אורון‬,‫ אליעזר‬,‫ ויצטום‬,‫ זאב‬,‫ברגמן‬
) 10 ;1995 ,115-130 :(2) 9 , ,‫עת ישראלי לפסיכותרפיה‬-‫ כתב‬:‫ שיחות‬.[‫]כולל תגובת ד"ר ישראל אורון ותשובה‬
.1996 ,170-171 :(2
2004 ,106-116 :31 ,‫ תסמונת הניכור ההורי רפואה ומשפט‬.(2004) ‫ דניאל‬,‫גוטליב‬
44950-12-18 ‫( תלה׳׳מ‬2018).‫ב‬.‫ ׳ מ‬ ‫פ‬.‫ד‬
11686-08-18 (‫( תלהמ )ת"א‬2018) ‫ד‬.‫כ נ' ב‬.‫ד‬
6561/19 ‫( בג''ץ‬2019) ‫הילה יחזקאל נ' שר המשפטים‬
‫ פניה דחופה והתייחסות לנוהל ''טיפול בתי המשפט לענייני משפחה‬.(2020) ‫ ואחרים‬,‫ רות‬.‫קדרי‬-‫הלפרין‬
‫בהליכים דחופים שעניינס חשש לפגיעה במוגנותס של ילדים והבטחת הקשר בין הורים לילדיהם )הוראת‬
.‫אילן‬-‫ אוניברסיטת בר‬,‫ מרכז רקמן‬.''(‫שעה‬
11390/01 ('‫( תמש )חי‬2001) ‫ה' ר' נ' ה' נ‬
35358-07-11 ('‫( תמש )חי‬2011) ‫ס‬.‫הקטינות נ' ח‬

91
‫‪QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS‬‬

‫הקטינים נ' אלמוני )‪ (2004‬תמש )חי'( ‪5401-04‬‬

‫ועדת שניט )‪ .(2013‬דווח הוועדה הציבורית לבחינת ההיבטים המשפטיים של האחריות ההורית בגירושין‪.‬‬
‫‪https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/the-public-committee/he/final-report.pdf‬‬
‫חוק בית המשפט לענייני משפחה )‪ (1995‬התשנ''ה‬
‫‪https://www.knesset.gov.il/review/data/heb/law/kns13_familycourt.pdf‬‬
‫חוק העונשין )‪ (1977‬תשל"ז ‪https://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/073_002.htm#Seif257‬‬
‫כהן‪ ,‬א‪ .‬ופינצי‪ ,‬ר‪ .( 2001) .‬נרקיסיום אבהי – קשיי האב שאינו משמורן לאחר גירושין‪ .‬שיחות‪ ,‬ט''ז‪64-73 ,‬‬
‫ל‪ .‬ח נ' ק‪.‬ג )‪ (2010‬תמש )ת"א( ‪23911-02-10‬‬
‫ל‪.‬נ נ' ע‪.‬ח )‪ (2017‬תלהמ )ת"א( ‪46294-09-17‬‬
‫לסר‪ ,‬יעל )‪ .( 2005‬מחשבה נוספת‪ :‬תסמונת הניכור ההורי מנקודת המבט של התפתחות הילד חברה ורווחה‪:‬‬
‫רבעון לעבודה סוציאלית‪.2005 ,341-356 :(3) 25 ,‬‬
‫ל‪ .‬פ נ' נ‪ .‬ב‪ .‬פ )‪ (2019‬תלהמ )ת"א( ‪49688-02-19‬‬
‫מ‪.‬ד נ' ס‪.‬ס )‪ (2018‬תמש )ת"א( ‪22078-03-18‬‬
‫מוניקנדם‪-‬גבעון‪ ,‬יסכה )‪ .(2019‬מדיניות לטיפול במצבי ניכור הורי‪ .‬מרכי המחקר והמידע הכנסת‪.‬‬
‫‪https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/362831bc-ad82-e911-80f1-00155d0a9536/2_362831bc-‬‬
‫‪ad82-e911-80f1-00155d0a9536_11_13679.pdf‬‬
‫מ‪-.‬י‪ .‬פ נ' נ‪ .‬ג‪-.‬פ )‪ (2019‬יס )ת"א( ‪40394-02-19‬‬
‫מרכוס‪ ,‬פיליפ )‪ .( 2019‬ניכור הורי וסרבנות קשר‪ :‬כיצד למנוע כישלון קשר בין ילד להורה רפואה ומשפט‪51 ,‬‬
‫)יולי ‪ ,(2019‬עמ' ‪.154-174‬‬
‫קסלר‪ ,‬עינת‪ & ,‬טטר‪ ,‬משה )‪ .(2007‬תפיסות תלמידים את המורים המשמעותיים עבורם‪ :‬השפעותיהן של‬
‫איכות הקשר עם ההורים ותחושת ניכור מבית הספר הייעוץ החינוכי‪.2007 ,76-104 :14 ,‬‬
‫נ‪ .‬א נ' י‪ .‬א )‪ (2019‬יס )ת"א( ‪5046-10-19‬‬
‫נ‪.‬ט נ' ע‪.‬ט )‪ (2018‬תלהמ )ת"א( ‪1503-02-18‬‬
‫עמ"ש )ת"א( ‪51782-01-20‬‬
‫פלוני נ' פלומית )‪ (2015‬בע"מ ‪919/15‬‬
‫פלוני נ' פלונית )‪ (1996‬עע"מ )תל אביב‪-‬יפו( ‪33-96‬‬
‫פלוני נ' פלונית )‪ (2007‬תמש )קריות( ‪9822/07‬‬
‫פלוני נ' פלונית )‪ (2014‬תמש )ת"א( ‪58854-07-14‬‬
‫פלונית נ' פלוני )‪ (2020‬בע''ם ‪6325/20‬‬
‫פלונית נ' פלוני )‪ (2002a‬דנ''א ‪6041/02‬‬
‫פלונית נ' פלוני )‪ (2002b‬רע"א ‪3009/02‬‬
‫פלונית נ' פלוני )‪ (2019a‬תלה"מ ‪25128-08-19‬‬

‫‪92‬‬
‫‪QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION‬‬

‫פלונית נ' פלוני )‪ (2019b‬תלה"מ ‪36137-10-19‬‬

‫פלונית נ' פלוני )‪ (2007‬תמש )קריות( ‪9881/07‬‬
‫פ‪.‬ר נ' ת‪.‬א‪.‬ע )‪ (2005‬תמש )ב"ש( ‪14830/05‬‬
‫רודניקי‪ ,‬יואב‪ ,‬גולדברג‪ ,‬ימימה‪ ,‬רז‪ ,‬שרה )‪ .(2003‬מודל לטיפול בתסמונת ההתנכרות להורה‪ :‬ניתוח מקרה‬
‫שיחות‪ :‬כתב‪-‬עת ישראלי לפסיכותרפיה‪.2003 ,158-165 :(2) 17 , ,‬‬
‫ש‪.‬ט‪) .‬קטינה( נ' ש‪.‬ט )‪ (2013‬תמש )נצ'( ‪25370-02-13‬‬

‫‪93‬‬
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Appendix A:

IRB APPROVAL LETTER

94
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

95
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Appendix B:

MULTIVARIATE DATA SPREADSHEET

96
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

97
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

98
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

99
QUANTITATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Appendix C:

NATIONAL RESULTS COMPARED TO TEL AVIV & EREZ SHANI

100
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

101