Ley Orgánica 8/2021 (LOPIVI), Artículo 11 — Derecho de las víctimas a ser escuchadas (inadmissió del "Síndrome de Alienación Parental")¶

📌 Update (2026-08-02): Spain is proposing to harden this prohibition. On 5 May 2026 the Consejo de Ministros approved in first reading a draft reform of LO 8/2021 that would extend the SAP-inadmission language to cover "SAP or any of its reformulations" and bar reports based on such approaches. See the companion file Spain LO 8/2021 hardening reform 2026 for the timeline and sourcing. The 2021 text below remains in force pending the reform.

Jurisdiction: Spain · Citation: Ley Orgánica 8/2021, de 4 de junio, de protección integral a la infancia y la adolescencia frente a la violencia (LOPIVI), art. 11 · Authoritative source: BOE-A-2021-9347

The world's only statutory inadmission of "Síndrome de Alienación Parental" (SAP). Article 11.3 of LOPIVI explicitly directs public authorities (including courts and family-court practitioners) not to admit theoretical approaches or criteria without scientific support that presume adult interference or manipulation — including the so-called síndrome de alienación parental. This is the strongest statutory rejection of the PA-syndrome construct anywhere in the world.

The complete statutory rejection is reinforced by Article 26.1.a) (within the parentalidad positiva framework), which expressly bars relating positive-parenting interventions to "situaciones sin aval científico como el síndrome de alienación parental".

Verbatim text — Artículo 11 (Derecho de las víctimas a ser escuchadas)¶

Artículo 11. Derecho de las víctimas a ser escuchadas.

1. Los poderes públicos garantizarán que las niñas, niños y adolescentes sean oídos y escuchados con todas las garantías y sin límite de edad, asegurando, en todo caso, que este proceso sea universalmente accesible en todos los procedimientos administrativos, judiciales o de otra índole relacionados con la acreditación de la violencia y la reparación de las víctimas. El derecho a ser oídos de los niños, niñas y adolescentes solo podrá restringirse, de manera motivada, cuando sea contrario a su interés superior.

2. Se asegurará la adecuada preparación y especialización de profesionales, metodologías y espacios para garantizar que la obtención del testimonio de las víctimas menores de edad sea realizada con rigor, tacto y respeto. Se prestará especial atención a la formación profesional, las metodologías y la adaptación del entorno para la escucha a las víctimas en edad temprana.

3. Los poderes públicos tomarán las medidas necesarias para impedir que planteamientos teóricos o criterios sin aval científico que presuman interferencia o manipulación adulta, como el llamado síndrome de alienación parental, puedan ser tomados en consideración.

Verbatim text — Artículo 26.1.a) (Parentalidad positiva — fragmento operativo)¶

Artículo 26. Atención a la parentalidad positiva.

[...] En ningún caso las actuaciones para promover la parentalidad positiva deben ser utilizadas con otros objetivos en caso de conflicto entre progenitores, separaciones o divorcios, ni para la imposición de la custodia compartida no acordada. Tampoco debe ser relacionada con situaciones sin aval científico como el síndrome de alienación parental.

Working English translation¶

Article 11. Right of victims to be heard.

1. Public authorities shall ensure that girls, boys and adolescents are heard and listened to with all guarantees and without age limit, ensuring, in any case, that this process is universally accessible in all administrative, judicial or other proceedings relating to the establishment of the violence and the reparation of the victims. The right of children and adolescents to be heard may only be restricted, with reasoned grounds, when contrary to their best interests.

2. Adequate preparation and specialisation of professionals, methodologies and spaces shall be ensured so that the obtaining of the testimony of underage victims is carried out with rigour, tact and respect. Special attention shall be given to professional training, methodologies and the adaptation of the environment for hearing victims of early age.

3. Public authorities shall take the necessary measures to prevent theoretical approaches or criteria without scientific backing that presume adult interference or manipulation — such as the so-called "parental alienation syndrome" — from being taken into consideration.

Article 26. [...] In no case shall actions to promote positive parenting be used for other purposes in cases of conflict between parents, separations or divorces, nor for the imposition of joint custody not agreed upon. Nor shall they be related to situations without scientific backing such as the "parental alienation syndrome".

Why this matters for PA¶

Unique global statutory rejection. No other jurisdiction has codified the inadmissibility of Síndrome de Alienación Parental as a diagnostic/forensic category in statute. The 2021 LOPIVI is the first and so far only statutory inadmission. Italy's Cassazione civil-section jurisprudence (Sez. I ord. n. 13217/2021 and ord. n. 9691/2022) reached a similar substantive position via judicial reasoning rather than statute; Germany's BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23 (2023) characterised PAS as "überkommen" (outdated) but not by statute. Spain stands alone.
Critical for litigation strategy in Spain. A Spanish family-court practitioner asking the Juzgado de Familia for a informe pericial framed around "SAP" is operating against statute. The perito judicial will be barred from applying the SAP diagnostic frame. The correct litigation framing is to plead the underlying conducta (interferencia en el régimen de visitas; incumplimiento sistemático del régimen de comunicación) under Código Civil art. 776 (modificación de medidas) or Código Penal art. 622 (decriminalised in 2015) / desobediencia (CP art. 556) for criminal-track obstruction.
Constitutional reinforcement. Art. 11.3 LOPIVI gives statutory force to what was previously academic and professional consensus. The Tribunal Supremo (Sala Primera) had earlier taken a middle position in STS 519/2017, de 22 de septiembre (ponente Arroyo Fiestas); LOPIVI Art. 11.3 (in force 25 June 2021) supersedes that as the operative legal standard for the SAP question.
Practical impact on perito work. Spanish peritos forenses (forensic psychologists) operate under collegiate ethics codes from the Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Psicólogos. The 2022 update to the Código Deontológico del Psicólogo/a explicitly incorporates LOPIVI Art. 11.3 as a binding professional norm. Forensic reports presenting SAP-framed conclusions can give rise to colegiate disciplinary proceedings.
Behaviour over syndrome — the correct approach. Spanish courts and peritos now assess manipulación parental as a behavioural fact under the existing best-interests framework (interés superior del menor) rather than as a syndrome diagnosis. LOPIVI Art. 11.3 forces this methodological discipline.

Cross-jurisdictional comparison¶

Italy — Cassazione ord. n. 13217/2021 + ord. n. 9691/2022 characterise PAS as "privo di base scientifica" — judicial rejection, not statutory.
Germany — BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23 (2023) characterises PAS as "überkommen und wissenschaftlich nicht haltbar bzw. widerlegt" — apex-court rejection at chamber level, not statutory.
Brazil — Lei 12.318/2010 codifies parental alienation as a juridical category (the opposite direction from LOPIVI).
United Kingdom — Re C [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) treats PA as a behavioural pattern requiring evidence, not a syndrome amenable to diagnostic testing — closer to the Spanish position substantively, but via case-law not statute.

Sources & authoritative references¶

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):