The suggestion that a special issue might be produced to present critical perspectives on parental alienation was first raised at the Law & Society Association Conference in Toronto in June 2018. In the session entitled ‘Comparative family court practices in cases involving domestic violence, child abuse, and parental alienation’, Joan Meier (George Washington University), Susan Boyd (University of British Columbia) and Elizabeth Sheehy, Simon Lapierre and Patrick Ladouceur (University of Ottawa) presented findings from quantitative and qualitative studies conducted in the US and Canada. These papers highlighted the need to interrogate parental alienation for its impact on claims of family and domestic violence, at both national and international levels. This special issue brings together scholars whose work presents a critical perspective on parental alienation, with a particular focus on women and children who have experienced domestic and family violence. The contributors represent diverse countries and disciplines, and use the terminologies of their jurisdictions. For example, in England andWales the term ‘residence’ is used; in the US ‘custody’ would indicate where the child lives; and in New Zealand the term ‘care arrangements’ refers to both child residence and parental access. The literature on parental alienation stems from Gardner’s work on what is termed the parental alienation syndrome (Gardner 1985, 1987, 1992). In essence, parental alienation refers to a situation where a child demonstrates a strong affinity for one parent and rejection of the other parent, in a context where ‘the negative behaviours the child attributes to the alienated parent are trivial, highly exaggerated, or totally untrue’ (Faller 1998, p. 100). This situation was attributed by Gardner to the behavior of the alienating parent, which he thought involved false allegations of child sexual abuse. However, the term parental alienation is now used much more broadly, to designate any situation where a parent is perceived as engaging in strategies to exclude the other parent, particularly in the context of high-conflict separation, regardless of whether the child actually rejects the other parent (Hayez and Kinoo 2005, Farkas 2011). Moreover, Bruch (2001) argues that this term ‘has been extended dramatically to include cases of all types in which a child refuses to visit the non-custodial parent, whether or not the child’s objections entail abuse allegations’ (p. 528). In this context, experts in the field of domestic and family violence have expressed serious concerns regarding the recourse to the concept of parental alienation by family court and child protection services (Lapierre and Côté 2016, Neilson et al. 2019). In the context of domestic and family violence, women may have well-grounded reasons to want to limit father-child contact due to their ex-partners’ violent behaviour and threats to their own and to their children’s safety. They may oppose father-child contact, express serious concerns for their children’s safety, or request safe and supervised contact arrangements (Johnson et al. 2005, Brownridge 2009). And children who have been JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 2020, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 1–4 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1702409

中文翻译：

---

特刊介绍

2018 年 6 月在多伦多举行的法律与社会协会会议上首次提出可以制作一个特刊来提出关于父母异化的批判性观点的建议。 在题为“涉及家庭暴力、虐待儿童的案件中的比较家庭法院实践”的会议中，和父母疏远”，Joan Meier（乔治华盛顿大学）、Susan Boyd（不列颠哥伦比亚大学）和 Elizabeth Sheehy、Simon Lapierre 和 Patrick Ladouceur（渥太华大学）介绍了在美国和加拿大进行的定量和定性研究的结果。这些论文强调了在国家和国际层面上询问父母异化对家庭和家庭暴力索赔的影响的必要性。本期特刊汇集了学者，他们的作品对父母异化提出了批判性观点，特别关注经历过家庭暴力的妇女和儿童。贡献者代表不同的国家和学科，并使用其管辖范围内的术语。例如，在英格兰和威尔士使用“居住”一词；在美国，“监护”会表明孩子住在哪里；在新西兰，“照顾安排”一词是指儿童住所和家长准入。关于父母异化的文献源于加德纳关于所谓的父母异化综合症的研究（Gardner 1985, 1987, 1992）。从本质上讲，父母疏远是指孩子表现出对父母一方的强烈亲和力而拒绝另一方父母的情况，在“孩子归因于疏远父母的消极行为微不足道、高度夸大或完全不真实”的情况下（Faller 1998, p. 100）。加德纳将这种情况归因于疏远父母的行为，他认为这涉及对儿童性虐待的虚假指控。然而，“父母疏远”一词现在的使用范围更广，指的是任何一种情况，即一方被视为采取了排斥另一方父母的策略，尤其是在高度冲突的分离背景下，无论孩子是否真的拒绝其他父母（Hayez 和 Kinoo 2005，Farkas 2011）。此外，布鲁赫（Bruch，2001）认为，这个术语“已被戏剧性地扩展到包括儿童拒绝探望非监护父母的所有类型的情况，儿童的反对意见是否涉及虐待指控”（第 528 页）。在此背景下，家庭暴力领域的专家对家庭法院和儿童保护服务机构诉诸父母疏离的概念表示严重关切（Lapierre 和 Côté 2016，Neilson 等，2019）。在家庭暴力的背景下，由于前伴侣的暴力行为以及对自己和孩子的安全的威胁，女性可能有充分的理由想要限制父子接触。他们可能会反对父子接触，表达对孩子安全的严重担忧，或要求安全和有监督的接触安排（Johnson 等人 2005，Brownridge 2009）。以及 2020 年社会福利和家庭法杂志，第 2 卷的儿童。42，没有。1, 1–4 https://doi.org/10。