Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison Matrix — Parental Alienation in 18 Jurisdictions¶
The repo's 26 case studies, distilled into a single comparative matrix. Each cell links to the apex/landmark decision investigated in /case-studies/. Use this page when you need to know — in one screen — what direction a given jurisdiction is moving on parental alienation and what the citation is.
Editorial note. "Apex direction" describes what the highest court that has spoken is doing. Trial-court and intermediate-appellate practice may diverge from the apex. The "Statute" column flags whether the jurisdiction has an explicit PA statute as opposed to applying general family-law / coercive-control / contact-enforcement frameworks. CC BY 4.0. See CONTRIBUTING.md for editorial standards.
The matrix¶
| Jurisdiction | Apex / landmark case in repo | Explicit PA statute? | Apex-court direction of travel | Reunification programs ordered? | Key citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Re Y 2026 | No | Procedural tightening — fact-finding first, no unregulated experts | Yes (Family Bridges, court-instructed) | [2026] EWFC 38 |
| Canada (Ontario) | L.(A.G.) v D.(K.B.) 2009 | No | Built reunification-camp model in 2009; appellate caution since | Yes (Family Workshop / Rand) | 2009 CanLII 943 (ON SC) |
| US (Michigan) | Tsimhoni 2015 | No (state-by-state) | Trial-judge sanctioned by Michigan Supreme Court for misconduct | Yes (varied private programs) | Mich. Ct. App. 329406; 336868 |
| US (Colorado) | In re Marriage of Humphries 2024 | No (state-by-state) | Affirms PA expert testimony, reverses punitive remedies | Yes | 2024 COA 92 |
| US (federal/all states) | Open question — clean reversal gap | No | No clean appellate reversal of a substantive PA finding at this writing — see gap-doc page for structural reasons | n/a | n/a |
| ECHR (Council of Europe) | Improta v Italy 2017 · Strumia 2016 · Lombardo 2013 | n/a (Convention) | Article 8 (right to family life) requires effective contact procedures; €15k typical | Yes (member-state level) | App. 66396/14 + 53377/13 + 25704/11 |
| Australia | Green & Green 2024 | No (Family Law Act 1975, reformed 2024) | Post-reform: interim caution, equal-shared-PR presumption removed | Limited | [2024] FedCFamC1F 896 |
| Germany | BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23 2023 | No (BGB Umgangsrecht) | Constitutional rejection of PAS as "scientifically refuted" | Limited | 1 BvR 1076/23 |
| France | Cass.civ.1 12-14.392 2013 | No (Code Civil) | SAP terminology in retreat post-2018 ministerial circulaire + Loi du 30 juillet 2020 | Limited | n° 12-14.392 |
| Spain | STS 519/2017 | No (Civil Code 92) | Doing PA reasoning without the PA label, per post-Ley Rhodes policy | Limited | STS 519/2017 |
| Italy | Cass.civ.I 9691/2022 · Cass.civ.I 4595/2025 | No (Codice Civile) | Supreme Court direct rejection of PAS as pseudoscience; 4-year doctrinal line | Limited (and increasingly disfavoured) | ord. 9691/2022 → 4595/2025 |
| Netherlands | Hoge Raad 2005 | No (Sr 279) | Criminal-law enforcement of contact orders under art. 279 Wetboek van Strafrecht | Limited | ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AR8250 |
| Brazil | STJ REsp 1.859.228/SP 2024 · STJ REsp 2.108.750/GO 2024 | Yes — Lei 12.318/2010 (most explicit globally) | STJ "no-automaticity" doctrine; evidentiary caution intensifies in PA+abuse overlap | Yes (varies by court) | REsp 1.859.228/SP + 2.108.750/GO |
| Mexico | SCJN AI 11/2016 — Oaxaca | Some state codes (CDMX repealed 2017) | SCJN struck down vague "transform consciousness" definition + automatic loss of patria potestad; upheld duty to promote contact | Limited | AI 11/2016 (Tribunal Pleno, DOF 16 May 2018) |
| Argentina | CSJN P.B. v B.K.E. 2021 | Yes — Ley 24.270 (Impedimento de Contacto 1993) | CSJN considerando 17 explicitly recognised alienación parental | Limited | CSJ 1813/2018/RH1 + SCBA C. 121.539 |
| Poland | Sąd Najwyższy III CZP 20/25 2025 | No (k.p.c. art. 598¹⁶) | Counter-trend: re-opening statutory enforcement against alienating custodial parents | Yes | uchwała III CZP 20/25 |
| India | Vivek Singh v Romani Singh 2017 | No (Hindu Marriage Act / Guardians and Wards Act) | Supreme Court endorsed PAS framework, citing Gardner | Limited | (2017) 3 SCC 231 |
| Singapore | TEN v TEO 2020 | No (Women's Charter) | High Court doctrine on "alienating behaviour" + "excessive gatekeeping"; cited by [2024] SGCA 1 + [2025] SGHCF 12 | Limited | [2020] SGHCF 20 |
| Hong Kong | H v W 2021 | No (MPPO) | PA justiciable at appellate level via welfare-paramountcy / SIR / SJE framework | Limited | [2021] HKCA 733 |
| South Africa | T.L.D v B.G 2023 | No (Children's Act 2005) | Constitution s.28(2) anchored structured therapeutic remedy: suspension + reconstruction + graduated re-introduction | Yes | [2023] ZAGPJHC 801 |
What the matrix tells you¶
Eight clear groups¶
- Procedural-reformer common-law: UK (Re Y) and Australia (Green & Green) have tightened procedure — fact-finding before expert evidence, no unregulated experts, presumptions removed.
- Constitutional-rejectionist civil-law: Germany (BVerfG) and Italy (Cass.civ.I) have explicitly rejected PAS as scientific or constitutional basis for residence-transfer.
- Doing-it-without-the-label civil-law: Spain (STS) and France (Cass.civ.1, post-2013 retreat) apply functionally similar reasoning while disowning the PA terminology.
- Statutory-but-cautious: Brazil (Lei 12.318/2010) and Mexico (state codes) — explicit statutory framework, but apex courts have layered "no-automaticity" and definitional limits on top.
- Counter-trend re-enforcement: Poland (SN III CZP 20/25) is going the other way — re-opening enforcement tools against alienating custodial parents — within a politically contested post-2022 constitutional landscape.
- PAS-endorsing apex: India (Vivek Singh) is the cleanest example of a top court endorsing the Gardner framework directly. South Africa (T.L.D v B.G) operates a structured-remedy model without endorsing PAS as a syndrome but acting on the behavioural pattern.
- Common-law-Asia doctrinal: Singapore (TEN v TEO) and Hong Kong (H v W) have developed PA-adjacent reasoning under welfare-paramountcy without statutory backing.
- Article 8 enforcement layer: The ECHR's Italian cluster (Lombardo → Strumia → Improta) provides a supranational floor for European jurisdictions: failure to enforce contact orders is itself a Convention violation, regardless of how the contracting state labels the underlying conduct.
The US gap¶
The US has 50 distinct state-level family-law systems and no clear apex direction. Our two US case studies — Tsimhoni (Michigan, judicial-misconduct framing) and Humphries (Colorado, mixed appellate disposition) — are unrepresentative-by-design as Re Y / BVerfG / Cass. 9691 analogs. There is no clean US appellate reversal of a substantive PA finding in the public record at this writing. See the open-question gap page for the structural reasons (deferential standard of review, no statutory PA category, Daubert/Frye latitude, Rooker-Feldman/Ankenbrandt federal abstention, publication bias) and seven concrete paths a future contributor could take to close the gap.
Where the matrix is moving¶
Reading the matrix over time: - 2010-2017 — recognition era. India endorses PAS (2017); Brazil legislates explicitly (2010); France's Cass.civ.1 cites SAP (2013); Mexico CDMX codifies (2014); Italy had used PA reasoning at first-instance and intermediate-appellate level. - 2018-2022 — retreat begins. France retreats via ministerial circulaire + Loi du 30 juillet 2020; Mexico CDMX repeals (2017); Italian Cassazione signals rejection (Cass. 13217/2021); Brazilian STJ articulates "no-automaticity"; UK starts assembling the procedural framework that will become Re Y. - 2023-2025 — consolidation of the procedural-fact-first frame. BVerfG (Germany, 2023) calls PAS "scientifically refuted." T.L.D v B.G (South Africa, 2023) operationalises a structured-remedy approach. Italian Cassazione cements the 9691/2022 line. UK Re Y (2026) lands. Poland counter-trends.
The global direction of travel — not unidirectional, but with a clear centre of gravity — is toward fact-first, evidence-skeptical, jurisdiction-specific frameworks that distinguish documented behaviour from contested diagnosis. India and Poland's positions are real outliers but real ones; future case investigations should track whether they hold or join the consensus.
How to use this matrix¶
- Lawyer preparing a submission: identify your jurisdiction's apex direction and the closest neighbouring jurisdictions. If your court's direction conflicts with the apex direction, note that in your skeleton argument as a factor.
- Parent considering jurisdiction selection (cross-border cases): combine this matrix with the cross-border / Hague playbook and the Hague Convention status before any unilateral move.
- Journalist: pick a jurisdictional pair where the direction of travel diverges (e.g., Germany vs. India, or UK vs. Poland) to write a contrast piece. Cited holdings on this page give you the citation in one click.
- Clinician or evaluator: the "reunification programs ordered" column tells you whether intensive-program prescriptions are alive in your jurisdiction. The "apex direction" tells you what the methodological pressure is from the top.
- Researcher: the gap-page (
/case-studies/open-question-clean-us-appellate-reversal-of-pa-finding.md) is a contributor invitation. Closing it would change the matrix.
Maintenance¶
This matrix is regenerated whenever a new case study lands. If you spot a row that no longer reflects the most recent apex direction in a jurisdiction, open an issue with the citation. We update within 24 hours.
Last regenerated: 2026-05-25.
Catalogued by Alan Markson · AntiAlienate.com · CC BY 4.0