Washington state family courts operate with a structure that grants judges significant unilateral authority, often insulating them from rigorous oversight when standard due process or constitutional principles appear compromised. While criminal courts typically handle allegations of sexual abuse against minors, family law proceedings frequently assume the primary role in resolving these disputes.
In many instances, formal criminal investigations yield to assessments conducted by guardians ad litem and parenting evaluators. Critics argue that these appointed professionals often lack the specific expertise required to investigate domestic violence or sexual misconduct effectively.
Limited Testimony for Child Victims
In Washington, it is uncommon for children to provide direct testimony in family court, even when they accuse a parent of sexual abuse. Instead, the court relies on intermediaries to voice the child’s interests. Consequently, judicial decisions regarding a child’s future are frequently made without the victim’s direct input.
This dynamic is complicated by a potential conflict of interest, as the parent facing allegations often bears the cost of hiring these professional evaluators.
A History of Evaluations Despite Regulatory Issues
Stuart Greenberg, a clinical affiliate with the University of Washington and former president of the American Board of Forensic Psychology, also served as a consultant for the Seattle Archdiocese. In the 1990s, the state Board of Psychology charged Greenberg with misconduct related to several custody evaluations. He pleaded guilty and accepted a three-year suspension from performing such evaluations.
An administrative error in the official documentation of his suspension was later used by Greenberg as a legal strategy. He petitioned a King County court to prevent the state from disclosing records regarding his suspension. Judge R. Joseph Wesley denied this request.
Subsequently, Greenberg filed a similar motion in Thurston County. Judge Daniel Berschauer granted the request, ordering the state’s records to be withheld from public view. The judge also sealed the entire case file associated with the secrecy request.
With the Thurston County records inaccessible to the public, Greenberg returned to King County, where he continued to conduct hundreds of custody evaluations.
Death and Legacy
In 2007, the Seattle Police Department arrested Greenberg after discovering a video camera in his office restroom, which had recorded individuals in various states of undress. He died by suicide in a Renton hotel shortly after the arrest.
At the time of his death, King County prosecutors had not filed formal charges, although state regulators had revoked his license the previous week.
Before his death, Greenberg had established a reputation as a leading forensic psychologist in the nation, and King County courts frequently relied on his expert testimony. He was highly regarded by his local colleagues. Dr. Marsha Hedrick, a frequent witness in Washington courts and a name on multiple county registries for appointing guardians ad litem, described Greenberg as an exceptionally intelligent man and a significant contributor to forensic psychology.
His expert opinions often played a decisive role in determining the outcomes for children in custody disputes.
In a recent custody dispute, a Sequim-based child psychologist advocated for shared parenting arrangements for a couple whose relationship had been marked by significant domestic violence, despite the father’s history of physically assaulting the mother. The psychologist described the mother as emotionally volatile, highlighting her frequent expressions of distress over the abuse she endured.
This approach reflects a broader pattern in which the psychologist relies on Parental Alienation Syndrome—a theory that has drawn skepticism from mental health professionals for decades—as a key basis for custody determinations. Though the syndrome has faced criticism for lacking robust empirical support, it continues to hold sway in Washington’s family courts.
Evidence from a 2021 study led by Joan S. Meier, a law professor at George Washington University, shows that when fathers raise claims of parental alienation in response to abuse allegations, they are nearly three times more likely to gain primary custody than mothers who report abuse without such a counterclaim. Specifically, among cases involving allegations of child abuse, the likelihood of mothers losing custody rises from roughly one-third to more than half when fathers introduce alienation as a central issue.
Legal experts suggest courts remain receptive to alienation arguments due to historical precedent and lingering influence from earlier proponents of the theory.
During the 1980s through the early 2000s, New York courts frequently credited the work of a prominent child psychiatrist who regularly testified on behalf of fathers facing abuse allegations. Though often introduced as a tenured professor at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, the psychiatrist was, in fact, an unpaid volunteer without formal tenure or a full professorship.
His academic contributions also operated largely outside standard peer review processes. He released most of his research through his own publishing ventures, repackaging self-published materials over time to reinforce his theoretical framework.
He formally introduced Parental Alienation Syndrome in 1985, framing it as a tool to counterbalance accusations of abuse—particularly sexual abuse—often leveled by mothers. Some of his writings on the subject raised eyebrows, including observations such as “there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us” and suggestions that mothers of allegedly abused children might benefit from understanding how their child may have derived pleasure from intimate contact with the accused parent.
New York’s judiciary began reevaluating the theory after a high-profile 1990s case in Nassau County involving Michael Fortin, a man indicted on multiple charges including sodomy and attempted rape related to his conduct with a 13-year-old niece. Fortin sought to introduce expert testimony based on the psychiatrist’s alienation syndrome theory during his defense.
An evidentiary hearing was held to assess whether the syndrome met standards for scientific acceptability. The court ultimately concluded that the evidence fell short, noting in its ruling that the defense had not demonstrated “general acceptance” among professionals—a necessary threshold for admissibility.
Fortin’s case, cited as *People v. Fortin*, became a reference point for skepticism around the syndrome in subsequent rulings.
The psychiatrist died by suicide on May 25, 2003, at his home in New Jersey, but his conceptual framework has endured, especially in Washington, where it remains a frequently invoked element in custody disputes.
Parental Alienation Theory Persists in Washington Courts
Despite being discredited by major medical organizations, the theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) remains a common defense strategy used by fathers facing sexual abuse allegations in Washington State. Some professionals continue to endorse and testify regarding this concept. Dr. Marsha Hedrick, for example, has offered expert testimony regarding Gardner’s discredited concept.
A specific instance involving former Clallam County Court Commissioner Brian Parker highlights the controversy surrounding PAS in legal proceedings. Prior to his appointment in Clallam County, Parker served as a guardian ad litem within the Clark, Snohomish, and Skagit County court systems.
During a trial in May 2022 in Snohomish County Superior Court, Parker accused a mother involved in the case of parental alienation. Parker testified, “I saw certain behaviors that my readings indicate were consistent with, perhaps, a personality disorder.”
Yet Parker had no relevant training or ability to diagnose people. He testified, “I do want to stress, I have no training in psychology. I don’t diagnose people…”
But in July 2022, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Paul Thompson ruled that as a result of Parker’s testimony, the mother would lose custody of the kids.
Parker’s testimony in this case later led to his arrest by the Everett Police Department .
Not Generally Scientifically Accepted
Although still prevalent in Washington courts, Parental Alienation Syndrome has failed to gain acceptance from the world’s leading medical and psychological institutions.
Despite having been introduced over 50 years ago, there remains no credible scientific evidence supporting parental alienation syndrome. It is not listed as a diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Nor has the concept gained general acceptance in the scientific field. There remains no test, no data, or any experiment to support claims made concerning parental alienation.
It has also been dismissed by the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association as lacking supporting empirical or clinical evidence.
Dr. Paul J. Fink, a past president of the APA, has stated quite bluntly, ‘‘parental alienation syndrome as a scientific theory has been excoriated by legitimate researchers across the nation.”
Yet the divergence between scientific reality and Washington courtroom practice is stark. While the legitimate mental health community has largely discarded Richard Gardner’s theories as “junk science” founded on misogyny and pedophilia, Washington family courts continue to embrace them.
As long as judges and court-appointed professionals like Brian Parker are permitted to prioritize discredited theories over the safety of children, the Washington family court system will remain a venue where protective parents are punished, and children are handed over to the very people they fear most.