PALAIS DES NATIONS • 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND

Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and
consequences; the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Working Group on discrimination
against women and girls

Ref.: AL BRA 10/2022

(Please use this reference in your reply)

27 October 2022

Excellency,

We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on

violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences; Special Rapporteur on
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical
and mental health and Working Group on discrimination against women and girls,
pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 50/7, 51/21 and 50/18.

In this connection, we would like to bring to the attention of your Excellency’s

Government information we have received concerning the continued legal use of the
concept of parental alienation and similar variations through Law No. 12,318
and its regular application to cases of domestic violence and abuse in a way that
penalizes the mother of the child. The instrumentalization of parental alienation and
related or similar concepts increasingly interferes with judicial decisions about
guardianship while infringing mothers’ and children’s right to safety and protection.

On 26 August 2010, Brazil adopted Law No. 12,318, which defines and
punishes parental alienation as a form of child abuse. According to article 2 of the
afore-mentioned law, parental alienation is defined as “the interference in the
psychological development of the child or adolescent promoted or induced by one of
the parents, by the grandparents or by those who have the child or adolescent under
their authority, custody or supervision in order to refute a parent or harm the
establishment or maintenance of links with the parent.”

The concept of parental alienation, while lacking a universal clinical or

scientific definition, generally refers to the presumption that a child’s fear or rejection
of one parent, typically the noncustodial parent, stems from the malevolent influence
of the preferred, typically custodial parent. Parental alienation and related or similar
concepts have no scientific validity and go against international standards. On
15 February 2020, the World Health Organization removed the concept of “parental
alienation” from its classification index ICD 11, because there were no evidence-
based healthcare interventions specifically for parental alienation, and because of
persisting concerns about the misuse of the term to undermine the credibility of one
parent, alleging abuse as a reason for contact refusal and to criminalize their behavior.
Data from around the world has demonstrated that, where used, this concept has been
mainly and predominantly used against the mothers, who have been the ones to be
mostly accused of alienating their children from their fathers.
According to the information received from 30 mothers in Brazil:

Instrumentalization of the concept of parental alienation in cases of domestic

violence and abuse

Since the adoption of Law No. 12,318, the concept of parental alienation is
increasingly being referred to and used by fathers in Brazil, who allegedly
perpetrate domestic violence and abuse, to the detriment of mothers who need
to benefit from protection measures. Article 6 of the law states that once an act
of parental alienation is established, a judge may declare that it has occurred,
hence granting the judge the authority to subsequently warn the alienator,
expand the regime of family life in favor of the “alienated” parent, fine the
“alienator”, order counseling, change the custody to and from joint custody
and determine the setting of an interim residence for the child.

The legal acceptance and frequent reference to the concept of parental

alienation as a crime has reportedly enabled fathers to levy false allegations
against the mothers with whom they are in custody battles or disputes, as a
tool to continue to perpetrate domestic violence and abuse against them.

In cases where the concept of parental alienation has been used, it appears that
the concerned courts do not sufficiently take into consideration previous
history of domestic abuse by the father or stepfather against the mother, either
in assessing the credibility of the threats against the child, or in making further
decisions regarding visitation or custody rights. Even where there are
indications of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse of the child by the
father or stepfather, including through medical records and testimonies
collected from the allegedly abused children, Brazilian courts would refuse to
issue timely protection orders for the children or their mothers, such as
denying the father visitation rights and/or custody.

Biased legal process for the amendment of Law 12,318

On 18 May 2022, the President of Brazil amended Law No. 12,318 of 26

August 2010 on parental alienation and Law No. 8,069 of 13 July 1990 on the
protection of the child and the adolescent through Law No. 14,340. The law
No. 12,318 was reportedly drafted and adopted based on unproven and
questionable data that were presented in the public hearing that the senate held
on 1 October 2010. During that hearing, the then judge of the tribunal of
Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, Ms. Maria Berenice Dias, reportedly made
reference to the claims of abuse of children by their fathers brought forward by
their mothers, alleging that: “In 30% of the cases, it is detected that, in fact
there was no abuse, in 30% eventually there was even abuse, in 40% it is not
known whether there was or not.” No proof or sources of these allegations
were provided by the speaker. These claims, despite their apparent lack of
foundation, were repeated and recalled by the Senate ever since 2010.

Despite its far-reaching implications, Law No. 12,318 was adopted in haste,
after only one public hearing. Reportedly, only five participants were invited,
including four expressing themselves in favor of the law, and only one against
it. Following its adoption, psycho-judicial articles started proliferating; the
majority of which were of poor scientific quality and arguing for the existence

2
of parental alienation. These articles were regularly resorted to by academics,
judicial actors and institutions, including the Brazilian Family Law Institute
(Instituto Brasileiro de Direito de Família, IBDFAM), to support the course of
action in favor of the application of the concept of parental alienation.
According to the information received, the course of action consisted of
regularly dismissing allegations of sexual abuse of the children brought
forward by the mothers against their fathers or stepfathers, claiming that these
were false allegations of parental alienation that had no foundation, even
where there were medical records, supportive statements by social workers or
statements by the child. Furthermore, it is concerning that the National
Council of Justice of Brazil is said to run courses on the use of parental
alienation for members of the judiciary and others, that women and mothers
are also at times forced to attend through court orders, demonstrating a firm
belief in the concept and its application.

Flawed accreditation process by experts for parental alienation

According to information received, it would appear that a wide margin of

power and authority is granted to professionals that claim to be experts on the
matter of parental alienation, and which includes psychologists and social
workers – amongst others. These so-called experts on parental alienation are
regularly invited by family courts to determine whether parental alienation has
occurred or not. In ruling on custody cases, judges, ex officio and prosecutors
appear to frequently request the opinion of a professional or interdisciplinary
team that often consists of psychologists, social workers, or both. Their reports
would be given primacy over other professional psychologists’ reports that are
more familiar with the case and history of the mother or the child or the
statements by the mother and/or the child themselves. The professionalism of
these so-called experts as well as the seriousness of the training on parental
alienation and accreditation process for these experts is widely contested
among victims and feminist organisations.

Pseudo-forms of conflict resolution, including the use of ‘family

constellations,’ are reportedly also frequently used with the objective of
fostering forgiveness among victims and maintaining the unity of the family at
the cost of women’s and children’s safety. This allegedly occurred although
the Brazilian Family Law forbids the use of conflict resolution in cases of
domestic violence, mandating that they should be treated as criminal cases.

Furthermore, the guidelines governing the work of these alleged experts and
their reports varies widely. Article 5 of the Law 12,318 stipulates that these
reports must be based on a number of elements, including a demonstrated
aptitude to diagnose acts of parental alienation for the qualified professional or
multidisciplinary team responsible for carrying the expertise, based on
professional or academic history. However, according to the information
received, article 5 fails to spell out specifically the need to refer to and
consider the history of domestic or intimate partner violence against women.
These experts do not usually take them into consideration either.

3
 Children increasingly put at risk

The collective application of these measures has led to the large scale and
frequent criminalisation of women for reporting incidents of abuse and
violence against their children by their fathers or stepfathers and to women
being disbelieved and punished, including through the loss of custody rights to
their children. It has also led to the continued exposure of their children to
violence and to abuse, including sexual abuse. In one instance, a pregnant
woman was accused of carrying out parental alienation of her child in her
womb.

Anecdotal evidence obtained from research conducted on second instance

court orders, which were handed down by the Court of Justice of Rio Grande
do Sul, shows that in 2019, 75 out of the 82 sentences were handed down
against women. In 2020, 32 out of 36 decisions were delivered against women.
The information received reflects similar cases received by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) from Brazil. Its 2019 report states
that: “The Commission received information about cases of reversal of
custody of children and adolescents under Law No. 12,318, the Law of
Parental Alienation. According to the information received, there has allegedly
been a pattern in reported cases, where the mother, who reported cases of
violence, often sexual violence, loses the custody of her child or children to
the alleged assailant parent. This measure would be in line with subsection V
of article 6 of the afore-mentioned law, which allows the judge to reverse the
custody as a form of redressing the claimed acts of parental alienation. In this
regard, in 2018, the Commission received 11 requests for precautionary
measures on behalf of women who lost custody of their child or children under
operation of the law of parental alienation. In 2019, three additional requests
for precautionary measures were received, which represents half of all requests
for the protection of the rights of children and adolescents in Brazil.”

These threats were not limited to the family court room proceedings but also
outside the court. Several women highlighted an increased feeling of threat for
women due to the personal connections between their former partners and the
judiciary, politicians and other powerful representatives. Beyond the
continuation of the abuse, children who underwent abuse by their fathers were
also threatened by the latter that they would hurt their mothers if the child
were to come forward and report the abuse. As a result, children who suffered
abuse were more inclined to endure the abuse rather than put their mother at
risk. They therefore allegedly endured terrible psychological pain, physical
and emotional violence.

Given the consequences for mothers, many have chosen to remain silent
regarding the abuse of their children by their partner or former partner, out of
fear of being accused of parental alienation and loosing custody rights.

While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of these allegations, we

express serious concerns about the factors contributing to the growing
instrumentalization by the Brazilian court of the concept of parental alienation against
women who claim to be victims of domestic violence and abuse.

4
 We would like to remind the Brazilian State of its obligations to consider
previous antecedents of gender-based violence against women as important factors of
risks for children, as indicated by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women in the case Angela Gonzalez Carreño versus Spain in 2014. In such
cases, children are harmed not only because they witness the coercive control and
violence that their father directed at their mother, rather, the coercive control and
violence also harms children’s own lives. For the perpetrator, the objective to control
the target takes precedence over their children’s safety, well-being and health.
Furthermore, it is regrettable that while domestic and sexual violence lawsuits are
handled by the criminal justice branch in Brazil, parental alienation lawsuits are
handled by the civil justice branch; hence making it very difficult to connect the two
issues together.

We are gravely concerned by the underlying gendered stereotypes that

contribute to the legitimation of the concept of parental alienation and its resort
against women when the court decision regards the right to custody or guardianship.
The afore-mentioned legislation and practice by the courts demonstrate a structural
discriminatory approach by the judiciary and the wider State institutions as the
testimonies of women who claim their children are abused are being dismissed or
considered of inferior value and credibility. We are particularly concerned at this
discriminatory interpretation, which underpins not only the analyses of justice
operators but also of the accredited psychologists and is reflected in attributing a
lower value to the testimony or arguments of women as parties or witnesses, the lack
of credibility of mothers when reporting abuse against their children and the reference
to or establishment of gender stereotypes that lead to a misinterpretation or flawed
implementation of the law. Additionally, in cases where women and children are
directly subjected to violence, such violence occurs because the male perpetrator
views himself as the superior, masculine, head of the household. The recent
consolidation of a group of supporters of the concept within the IBDFAM, with the
aim of starting a working group to settle the rules for investigating parental alienation
cases, further increases the risk of legitimating the pseudo-concept of parental
alienation, which we find concerning as well.

We are alarmed by the promulgation of Law No. 13,058/14 modifying article

1,583 of the Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 to provide parents with the same rights on
the legal decisions about their child, irrespective of any other consideration. This
approach was confirmed by the decision of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice in
Special Appeal No. 1,251,00 (2011/0084897-5). It is clear from these legal
frameworks and from their application that the Brazilian State has prioritized family
unity over any other consideration, notably the duty to protect women and children
against violence and abuse, including sexual abuse. While the afore-mentioned Law
modifying article 1,584 the Brazilian Civil Code specifically states that sole custody
can be decreed by the judge “according to the child’s specific needs or due to the need
to balance the child’s continued contact with the father and the mother”. The
reference to the child’s specific needs does not explicitly include their right to live
free from abuse and violence, including sexual abuse, and therefore does not adopt the
child’s best interest perspective, which should prevail in family courts. Even if a
reading of this phrase can be inferred to include the child’s protection and wellbeing
needs, judges have given weight predominantly to the second need, which is to
maintain contact with the father and the mother. We express our concerns about the
routinely dismissal of women attempting to challenge the inclinations of family court
that post-separation contact must take place between children and perpetrators, with

5
whom they must then co-parent.

We are further concerned about the role played by the legal use of parent
alienation and similar concepts in the banalisation of violence against women and
girls in Brazil. We would like to emphasize that the high level of domestic violence
against children, in particular girls, takes place against the backdrop of a continued
high level of femicide in Brazil for the past decade. In 2016, estimates indicate that
over 12 women were killed per day in Brazil – an average female homicide rate of
4.43, which ranked 13th among global annual rates.

It is worth mentioning that fathers’ ability to win their case using the strategy
of accusing mothers of parental alienation is often effective, even when the court
believes that the father has been domestically violent, in other countries. We are
severely concerned that this fast-growing trend of using parental alienation, similar or
related concepts in legal affairs globally further intimidates and discourages women
from pressing charges against perpetrators when they are victims of domestic violence
and co-parent of a child, which in turns reinforces the sense of impunity among
violent and abusive fathers.

Amendments further made to Law No. 12,318 since its adoption have
progressively granted more privileges to the noncustodial parent at the expense of
women’s and children’s protection. Law No. 14,340 aims to ensure to the child or
adolescent and to the parent a minimum guarantee of assisted visitation in a specified
and agreed-on location, except in cases in which a professional appointed by the judge
to monitor the visits certifies that there is an imminent risk of harm to the physical or
psychological integrity of the child or the adolescent. Before the amendment, the
location for the visitation was not specified. Law No. 14,340 also added paragraphs 3
and 4 to article 157 of the Child and Adolescent Statute. Article 157 states that for a
serious reason, the judicial authority may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor’s
Office, decree the suspension of the parental family power, preliminarily or
incidentally, until the final judgment of the case, with the child or adolescent being
entrusted to a suitable person by means of a statement of responsibility.

We note with grave concern that the Brazilian State has not yet implemented
the recommendations of the National Council on Health (Conselho Nacional de
Saúde) and the National Council on Human Rights (Conselho Nacional dos Direitos
Humanos) to “reject Law Bill No. 7,352/2017, which amended Law No. 12,318/2010
and Law No. 13,105/2015, to determine priority in the processing of proceedings
relating to acts of parental alienation.” We also regret that your Excellency
Government, after acknowledging to the CEDAW Committee that “concrete unfair
situations were observed” regarding Law No. 12,318/2010 and committing to revise
this regulation “by assessing the protection of the minor involved as the greatest good
to be protected,” did not take any action.

We are also deeply concerned about the impact on children when calling one
parent alienated and granting custody to the other violent parent. Children who voice
their fears about maintaining contact with the perpetrator of domestic violence, child
abuse or neglect, may be told by family courts that their mother is manipulating them
to make false accusations. When children do not feel listened or believed when
making accusations against the violent parent, they are not trusted as messengers of
their own experience and follows a risk that claims of abuse can be chalked up as a
product of “alienating” behaviour. We deem it central to analyse the psychological

6
pain, physical and emotional violence experienced by children and to protect them
from any acts of violence against them by State or non-State actors, including family
members in line with international human rights treaties and obligations, most notably
the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

While we acknowledge that the Child and Adolescent Statute from 1990
aimed to improve the protection of children, we are alarmed by the preventive and
protective clauses of the Statute, which are now submerged under the objective of
identifying and preventing parental alienation. The general practice by the courts is to
consider that it is always in the best interest of the child to be in full and equal contact
with both parents irrespective of any other considerations. Therefore any allegations
made against any parent by another, even if credible, are considered to go against the
Such practice is in contravention to articles 3.2 of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child that requires States to ensure that the child receives protection and care that are
necessary for the child’s well-being and 9 of the afore-mentioned Convention, which
foresees the possibility of separating the child from his parent(s) or to break contact if
that is in the best interest of that child. Accordingly, we would like to emphasize that
Brazil has the obligation to respect children’s right not to be separated from their
parents against their will if they are not being abused or mistreated.

In connection with the above alleged facts and concerns, please refer to the
Annex on Reference to international human rights law attached to this letter which
cites international human rights instruments and standards relevant to these
allegations.

As it is our responsibility, under the mandates provided to us by the Human

Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention, we would be
grateful for your observations on the following matters:

1. Please provide any additional information and/or comment(s) you may

have on the above-mentioned allegations.

2. Please explain the measures that the Government of Brazil will

undertake to stop the abuse of the abuse of the pseudo concept of acts
of parental alienation and prevent its continued use to inflict or allow
violence against women and children, including measures taken to
ensure the highest attainable level of physical and mental health of the
children and women affected by such type of abuses.

3. Please indicate what specific measures have been taken by the State to
ensure that justice operators, including judges and lawyers, implement
legislation in a non-discriminatory manner and without resorting to
gender biases and stereotypes that in practice prevent women from
accessing and obtaining justice.

4. Please explain what actions the Government of Brazil has taken to

ensure that judicial processes involving children are child- and gender-
sensitive and that they uphold the principle of the best interest of the
child.

5. Please provide information on the measures taken by the Government

of Brazil to ensure that experts providing opinion to judges, as certified

7
 professionals, receive appropriate training on gender-based violence
and have the appropriate credentials and expertise on child protection,
gender equality and prevention and elimination of violence against
women.

This communication and any response received from your Excellency’s

Government will be made public via the communications reporting website within
60 days. They will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be
presented to the Human Rights Council.

While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken
to halt the alleged violations and prevent their re-occurrence and in the event that the
investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the
accountability of any person(s) responsible for the alleged violations.

We may publicly express our concerns in the near future as, in our view, the
information upon which the press release will be based is sufficiently reliable to
indicate a matter warranting immediate attention. We also believe that the wider
public should be alerted to the potential implications of the above-mentioned
allegations. The press release will indicate that we have been in contact with your
Excellency’s Government’s to clarify the issue/s in question.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.

Reem Alsalem
Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences

Tlaleng Mofokeng
Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health

Dorothy Estrada-Tanck
Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls

8
 Annex

Reference to international human rights law

In connection with above alleged facts and concerns, we would like to remind
the Government of Brazil of the international standards and norms it has committed to
uphold and respect, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) ratified by Brazil in 1984, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Brazil in 1992, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified
by Brazil on24 January 1992 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by
Brazil in [Link] State has the duty to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate
and punish acts of violence that are perpetrated by the agents of the State or by private
individuals. These obligations enshrined in articles 1, 2c), d) f) g) 3, 5 a) and 15 of the
CEDAW, article 4 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women,
article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Brazil
in 2009, articles 3(1), 9(3), 12(2), and 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child. We would like to draw the attention of the Government of Brazil to its specific
obligation to eliminate discrimination against women, especially gender-based
discrimination, and to ensure that all its organs and officials, including State officials,
to abstain from incurring or contributing to discriminatory practices on the ground of
gender, race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. Such obligation includes
the duty to ensure that women have equal protection in front of the law as well as
guaranteeing women access to justice, restitution and non-repetition.

Under article 2 (a) of CEDAW, States parties have the obligation to ensure by
law or other appropriate means the realization and practice of the principle of equality
of men and women, and that pursuant to articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), States parties have the
obligation to adopt appropriate measures to amend or abolish not only existing laws
and regulations but also customs and practices that constitute discrimination against
women. Article 2 c) in particular protects women from discrimination by the justice
system and article 2 d) guarantees the right of women to be treated equally and not to
be discriminated against by authorities and institutions. States parties also have the
obligation, in accordance with article 16 (1), to adopt all appropriate measures to
eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family
relationships.

We would like to refer to article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the

Child, which recognizes the right of the child to be heard and that its opinion be taken
into consideration; the right to protection and care (article 3), the right to development
(article 6) and the right to be arbitrarily separated from its mother (article 9) as well as
the right to be protected against all forms of abuse, including sexual and domestic
violence (article 19).

We also take the opportunity to remind the Government of Brazil of the

CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation 35 of 2017, which updates its
General Recommendation No. 19 of 1992 on the right to a life free from violence.
General Recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women refers to
the obligation of State institutions, agents and organs and their duty to refrain from
incurring discriminatory practice, whether direct or indirect, against women, and
ensure that all its authorities, institutions and public officials act in conformity with

9
these obligations. The latter have a duty also to ensure that judicial processes
concerning allegations of violence against women must be impartial, just and that they
are not affected by gender stereotypes. In accordance with CEDAW General
Recommendation. No. 35, the State is responsible for acts or omissions of its officials
where they constitute violence against women. The responsibility of the State also
includes a duty to “provide mandatory, recurrent and effective capacity-building,
education and training for its judiciary, lawyers, and law enforcement officers…to
equip them to adequately prevent and address gender-based violence against women.”
The same recommendation emphasises that States parties to CEDAW should have
effective legal mechanisms and judicial processes to address all forms of gender-
based violence against women. Victims and survivors of violence must be protected
and must have effective access to justice and reparations. Moreover, States must
ensure the access of women to assisted, low cost, or free quality legal aid. Women
victims and survivors of violence must also have access to affordable housing,
property, childcare, training opportunities and work for them and their families.
Protection orders and other forms of assistance and support also need to be accessible
for all women.

Lastly, the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 33 of 2015

on women’s access to justice recognizes that stereotypes and gender prejudices in the
judicial system impede the access to justice and may particularly affect women and
victims and survivors of violence. The Committee considers that judges frequently
have rigid norms regarding the appropriate behavior of women and penalize those
women that do not conform to these stereotypes. The Committee further recognizes
that such stereotyping can cause judges to misrepresent or misapply the law and can
result in perpetrators of violence not being held legally accountable for violations of
women’s rights, thereby upholding a culture of impunity. Lastly, the Committee
determined that the rights of presumed or actual perpetrators of violence during or
after judicial processes be determined considering the right of the affected women and
children to life, their physical, sexual and psychological integrity and respect the best
interest of the child, including on the issue of custody of the children. In addition, the
Working Group on discrimination against women and girls stated that gender
stereotyping also plays a role in stripping women of legal capacity, which may result
in decisions leading to their confinement they may face deprivation of liberty when
they do not conform to stereotyped notions of what constitutes good motherhood
(A/HRC/41/33).

In this regard, we would like to refer to the Universal Periodic Review for
Brazil from 2017 and specifically its recommendation 136.194, which was to
“increase its focus on policy implementation to combat family violence, and in
particular violence against women and children (A/HRC/36/11/Add.1).

We would like to remind your Excellency’s Government article 12, coupled

with article 2.2 of ICESCR , which enshrines the right of everyone to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health and the role of the State in
guaranteeing that this right will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status. In this context, we would also like to draw the
attention of your Excellency's Government to General Comment No. 14 (2000) of the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which indicates that in
accordance with the right to health, States have an obligation to take measures to
protect all vulnerable or marginalised groups in society, in particular women,

10
children, adolescents and older persons, taking into account acts of violence from a
gender perspective (GC 14, para. 35). Likewise, the Committee in its General
Comment No. 22 (2016) has further clarified that the right to sexual and reproductive
health extends equally to the underlying determinants as well as effective protection
against all forms of violence.

The experts wish to refer to jurisprudence from other countries. They recall the
decision of CEDAW of 15 August 2014 in “Gonzalez Carreño versus Spain”
(Communication No. 47/2012), which resulted in finding Spain responsible for the
assassination of a girl by her father F.R.C., after the mother had filed multiple
complaints against the violence and threats of violence in front of the courts. In the
decision, “the Committee observes that during the time when the regime of judicially
determined visits was being applied, both the judicial authorities and the social
services and psychological experts had as their main purpose normalizing relations
between father and daughter, despite the reservations expressed by those two services
on the conduct of F.R.C”. The Committee also commented on the continuation of
unsupervised visitation rights by F.R.C. stating that: “All of these elements reflect a
pattern of action which responds to a stereotyped conception of visiting rights based
on formal equality which, in the present case, gave clear advantages to the father
despite his abusive conduct and minimized the situation of mother and daughter as
victims of violence, placing them in a vulnerable position.”

In CEDAW’s concluding observations on the periodic review report of

Republic of Italy of 26 July 2011, the committee referred to Act No. 54/2006
introduced shared (physicals) custody as the preferred default in cases of separation or
divorce. In its observation, CEDAW stated it “is concerned at the lack of studies of
the effect of this legal change, especially in light of comparative research that points
to negative effects on children (especially small children) of forced shared custody. It
is further concerned at reports of suspicion towards claim of child abuse in custody
cases, based on the dubious theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome” The Committee
called upon Italy “to evaluate the legal change in the area of child custody through
scientific studies, in order to assess its long-term effects on women and children,
bearing in mind the experience accumulated in other countries on this matter”
(CEDAW/C/ITA/CO/6).

Similarly, in its concluding observations on the 7th periodic report of Costa

Rica of 2017, CEDAW had recommended that the “State party a) Appropriately
address the consideration of the specific needs of women and children in determining
child custody in cases involving gender-based violence in the domestic sphere; b)
Take all measures necessary to discourage the use of “parental alienation syndrome”
by experts and by courts in custody cases” (CEDAW/C/CRI/7).

Lastly, in its concluding observations on the eight periodic report of New

Zealand of 2018, CEDAW noted that “d) Courts, lawyers for children and social
workers are routinely resorting to the Parental Alienation Syndrome theory despite it
being refuted internationally” and called on New Zealand to “review the reliance on
the Parental Alienation theory, with a view to limit its use in child custody disputes”
(CEDAW/C/NZL/8).

In 2019, the experts of the Platform of Independent Expert Mechanisms on

Discrimination and Violence against Women (known as EDVAW) highlighted the
abusive nature of “parental alienation” and similar concepts, whose purpose is to deny

11
 custody by abusive fathers to the mothers of the child, as well as to perpetuate
intimate partner violence against the mothers and in many cases continue to
physically and/or sexually abuse the children.

The Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence

against Women to the Belem do Paro Convention (MESECVI) stated in 2014 that
“conducting prompt and exhaustive investigations, bearing in mind the context of
coercion as a fundamental element for determining the existence of violence, by using
technical evidence and explicitly prohibiting evidence based on the victim’s behavior
to infer consent, such as lack of resistance, sexual history, retraction during trial or
discrediting testimony on the basis of alleged Parental Alienation Syndrome”
(MESECVI/CEVI/DEC.4/14). In August 2022, MESECVI and the UN Special
Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls expressed their concern about the
illegal utilization of parental alienation syndrome in many countries that are party to
the Belem do Paro Convention.

12