Indicators of Parental Alienation in Children Referred for Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation After Allegations of Sexual Abuse: A Retrospective Case Series

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to identify indicators of parental alienation in children referred for forensic psychiatric evaluation after sexual abuse allegations against the father. Methods: This retrospective case series included ten children referred for forensic psychiatric evaluation of alleged sexual abuse at an authorized forensic institution in Turkey between 2021 and 2025. Sociodemographic, psychiatric, and legal data were extracted from official files; directed qualitative content analysis identified indicators of parental alienation from children’s statements and forensic reports. Results: Mean age was 6.70 years (range: 4.50–9.00) at the time of the alleged incident and 8.89 years (range: 6.29–10.32) at forensic evaluation. All children were living with their mothers following parental separation or divorce, and recurrent allegations concerning the father were documented in all cases. Indicators of parental alienation were identified by the forensic institution alone in six cases, by tertiary medical institutions alone in two, and by both sources in two cases. The most frequent indicators were Avoidance–Negative Affect and Polarized Relationship (each n=9), followed by Suggestion–Adult Discourse and Rejection of Family and Close Circle (each n=7). Domestic violence or threats were referenced in five cases. Conclusion: In this small, retrospective case series, the children’s narratives reflected overlapping patterns of trauma responses, external influence, and polarized family dynamics. Trauma-informed, developmentally sensitive, and multidisciplinary forensic psychiatric assessment may help differentiate abuse-related symptoms from suggestibility and potential parental alienation. Given the small sample, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and warrant replication in larger studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Child abuse, sexual
• Child Custody
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Psychological Trauma
• Mental health
• Psychopathology

Destekleyen Kurum

This study did not receive any financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit organizations.

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Scientific Research Committee of the Council of Forensic Medicine (Approval No: 21589509/2025/1445; 11 November 2025). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Cinsel İstismar İddiaları Sonrasında Adli Psikiyatrik Değerlendirmeye Sevk Edilen Çocuklarda Ebeveyn Yabancılaştırma Göstergeleri: Retrospektif Olgu Serisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, babaya yönelik cinsel istismar iddiaları sonrasında adli psikiyatrik değerlendirmeye sevk edilen çocuklarda ebeveyn yabancılaştırma göstergelerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Bu retrospektif olgu serisine, 2021–2025 yılları arasında Türkiye’de yetkilendirilmiş bir adli kurumda cinsel istismar iddiası nedeniyle adli psikiyatrik değerlendirmeye sevk edilen on çocuk dahil edilmiştir. Sosyodemografik, psikiyatrik ve hukuki veriler resmi dosyalardan elde edilmiş; çocuk ifadeleri ve adli raporlar üzerinden ebeveyn yabancılaştırma göstergeleri yönlendirilmiş nitel içerik analizi ile belirlenmiştir. Bulgular: Ortalama yaş, iddia edilen olay tarihinde 6,70 yıl (aralık: 4,50–9,00), adli değerlendirme tarihinde ise 8,89 yıl (aralık: 6,29–10,32) olarak saptanmıştır. Tüm çocuklar ebeveyn ayrılığı veya boşanma sonrasında anneleriyle yaşamakta olup, babaya yönelik yinelenen iddialar tüm olgularda belgelenmiştir. Ebeveyn yabancılaştırma göstergeleri altı olguda yalnızca adli kurum tarafından, iki olguda yalnızca üçüncü basamak sağlık kuruluşları tarafından ve iki olguda her iki kaynak tarafından bildirilmiştir. En sık saptanan göstergeler Kaçınma–Olumsuz Duygulanım ve Kutuplaşmış İlişki (her biri n=9) olup, bunları Telkin–Yetişkin Söylemi ile Aile ve Yakın Çevreyi Reddetme (her biri n=7) izlemiştir. Beş olguda aile içi şiddet veya tehdide ilişkin ifadelere yer verilmiştir. Sonuç: Bu küçük ölçekli retrospektif olgu serisinde çocukların anlatıları; travmaya bağlı tepkiler, dış etki ve kutuplaşmış aile dinamiklerinin iç içe geçtiği örüntüler göstermiştir. Travma odaklı, gelişimsel açıdan duyarlı ve multidisipliner adli psikiyatrik değerlendirme, istismarla ilişkili belirtilerin telkine açıklıktan ve olası ebeveyn yabancılaştırmadan ayırt edilmesine katkı sağlayabilir. Örneklem küçük olduğundan bulgular temkinli yorumlanmalı ve daha geniş serilerle doğrulanmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çocuk istismarı, cinsel
• Adli psikiyatri
• Travma, psikolojik
• Ruh sağlığı
• Velayet, çocuk
• Psikopatoloji

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma herhangi bir kamu, ticari veya kâr amacı gütmeyen kuruluştan maddi destek almamıştır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için Adli Tıp Kurumu Bilimsel Araştırmalar ve Eğitim Komisyonu’ndan etik kurul onayı alınmıştır (Onay No: 21589509/2025/1445; 11 Kasım 2025). Araştırma Helsinki Bildirgesi ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Kaynakça

1. Kelly JB. Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(8):963-73. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200008000-00007
2. Wallerstein JS, Lewis JM, Blakeslee S. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-Year Landmark Study. New York: Hyperion Books, 2000.
3. Ceci SJ, Bruck M. Suggestibility of the child witness: A histori- cal review and synthesis. Psychol Bull. 1993;113(3):403-39. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403
4. Johnston JR, Kelly JB. Rejoinder to Gardner’s “commentary on Kelly and Johnston’s ‘The alienated child: A reformulation of paren- tal alienation syndrome’”. Fam Court Rev. 2004;42(4):622-8. doi: 10.1111/j.174-1617.2004.tb01328.x
5. Fidler BJ, Bala N. Concepts, controversies and conundrums of “alienation:” Lessons learned in a decade and reflections on chal- lenges ahead. Fam Court Rev. 2020;58(2):576-603. doi: 10.1111/ fcre.12488
6. Bruch CS. Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong in child custody cases. Fam Law Q. 2001;35:527- 52. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.298110
7. Meier JS. U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show? J Soc Welf Fam Law. 2020;42(1):92-105. doi: 10.1080/09649069.2020.1701941
8. Bernet W, von Boch-Galhau W, Baker AJL, Morrison SL. Parental alienation, DSM-V, and ICD-11. Am J Fam Ther. 2010;38(2):76- 187. doi: 10.1080/01926180903586583

9. Saini M, Johnston JR, Fidler BJ, Bala N. Empirical studies of alienation. In: Kuehnle K, Drozd L, eds. Parenting Plan Eval- uations: Applied Research for the Family Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012: 399-441. doi: 10.1093/med:- psych/9780199754021.003.0013
10. Harman JJ, Kruk E, Hines DA. Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychol Bull. 2018;144(12):1275-99. doi: 10.1037/bul0000175
11. Kruk E, Harman JJ. Countering arguments against parental alien- ation as a form of family violence and child abuse. Am J Fam Ther. 2025;53(2):117-46. doi: 10.1080/01926187.2024.2396279
12. Jaffe P, Bala N, Medhekar A, Scott K, Oliver C. Appropriate parent- ing arrangements in cases of intimate partner violence and coercive control: From research and legislative reform to changes in practice. Fam Court Rev. 2025;63(3):467-90. doi: 10.1111/fcre.70002
13. Gardner RA. Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Acad- emy Forum. 1985;29(2):3-7.
14. Bernet W, Greenhill LL. The Five-Factor Model for the diagno- sis of parental alienation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;61(5):591-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.11.026
15. Torun F. Ebeveyn yabancılaştırma sendromu. Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar. 2011;3(3):466-82. doi: 10.5455/cap.20110321
16. Güler G. Ebeveyn yabancılaştırma sendromu ve boşanma. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Child Psychiatry-Special Topics. 2017;3:225- 8.
17. Şentürk Pilan B, Akkaş Ö, Er G, Bayturan AF, Akdaş G, Bildik T. Parental alienation syndrome: A case alienated from the moth- er. Turkish J Clinical Psychiatry. 2022;25(3):332-7. doi: 10.5505/ kpd.2022.10846
18. Yurdakul Muncuk G, Karataş K. Ebeveyn yabancılaştırma sendro- munun sosyal hizmet uzmanları tarafından değerlendirilmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2025;27(3):1205- 23. doi: 10.32709/akusosbil.1317063
19. Erdoğan E. Duygusal istismar–ebeveyne yabancılaşma sendromu: Velayet suistimalleri. İslam Medeniyeti Dergisi. 2020;6(46):69-79.
20. Johnston JR, Sullivan MJ. Parental alienation: In search of com- mon ground for a more differentiated theory. Fam Court Rev. 2020;58(2):270-92. doi: 10.1111/fcre.12472
21. Warshak RA. Ten parental alienation fallacies that compromise de- cisions in court and in therapy. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2015;46(4):235- 49. doi: 10.1037/pro0000031
22. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-88. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
23. Bruck M, Ceci SJ. The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annu Rev Psychol. 1999;50(1):419-39. doi: 10.1146/annurev. psych.50.1.419
24. Johnston JR, Kelly JB. Commentary on Walker, Brantley, and Rigsbee’s (2004) “A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syn- drome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court”. J Child Custody. 2004;1(4):77-89. doi: 10.1300/J190v01n04_05
25. Goodman SH. Intergenerational transmission of depression. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2020;16(1):213-38. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinp- sy-071519-113915
26. Lester KJ, Field AP, Oliver S, Cartwright-Hatton S. Do anxious parents interpretive biases towards threat extend into their child’s environment? Behav Res Ther. 2009;47(2):170-4. doi: 10.1016/j. brat.2008.11.005
27. Collins H, Wittkowski A, Gregg L. The parenting practices of par- ents with psychosis: A systematic integrative review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2025;28(2):349-69. doi: 10.1007/s10567-025-00518-6
28. Bass C, Glaser D. Early recognition and management of fabricat- ed or induced illness in children. Lancet. 2014;383(9926):1412-21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62183-2
29. Yates G, Bass C. The perpetrators of medical child abuse (Munchau- sen Syndrome by Proxy) – A systematic review of 796 cases. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;72:45-53. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.008
30. Principe GF, London K. How parents can shape what children re- member: Implications for the testimony of young witnesses. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2022;11(3):289-302. doi: 10.1037/mac0000059
31. Garber BD, Simon RA. Looking beyond the sorting hat: decon- structing the “Five Factor Model” of alienation. Family Transitions. 2024;65(1):5-31. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2023.2262359
32. Birnbaum R, Bala N. “Parental alienation” cases: Experiences of Ontario legal and mental health professionals. Fam Court Rev. 2025;63(3):491-515. doi: 10.1111/fcre.70001
33. Lyon TD. Investigative interviewing of the child. In: Duquette DN, Haralambie AM, eds. Child Welfare Law and Practice. 2nd ed. Den- ver, CO: Bradford Publishing, 2010: 87-109.
34. Adams JA, Farst KJ, Kellogg ND. Interpretation of medical findings in suspected child sexual abuse: An update for 2018. J Pediatr Ado- lesc Gynecol. 2018;31(3):225-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2017.12.011
35. Kellogg ND, Farst KJ, Adams JA. Interpretation of medical findings in suspected child sexual abuse: An update for 2023. Child Abuse Negl. 2023;145:106283. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106283
36. Korkman J, Otgaar H, Geven LM, Bull R, Cyr M, Hershkowitz I, Mäkelä JM, Mattison M, Milne R, Santtila P, van Koppen P, Memon A, Danby M, Filipovic L, Garcia FJ, Gewehr E, Gomes Bell O, Järvilehto L, Kask K, Körner A, Lacey E, Lavoie J, Magnus- son M, Miller QC, Pakkanen T, Peixoto CE, Perez CO, Pompedda F, Su IA, Sumampouw NEJ, van Golde C, Waterhouse GF, Zap- palà A, Volbert R. White paper on forensic child interviewing: re- search-based recommendations by the European Association of Psy- chology and Law. Psychol Crime Law. 2025;31(8):987-1030. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2024.2324098
37. La Rooy D, Katz C, Malloy LC, Lamb ME. Do we need to re- think guidance on repeated interviews? Psychol Public Policy Law. 2010;16(4):373-92. doi: 10.1037/a0019909
38. Hine B, Harman J, Leder-Elder S, Bates EA. Examining the prev- alence and impact of parental alienating behaviors (PABs) in sepa- rated parents in the United Kingdom. J Fam Violence. 2025 Jun 9. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10896-025-00910-4
39. Torun F, Torun SD, Matthewson M. Parental alienation: Targeted parent experience in Turkey. Am J Fam Ther. 2022;50(2):195-204. doi: 10.1080/01926187.2021.1895903