Committee advances bill limiting use of 'parental alienation' testimony in family-court decisions

House Bill 22-56 (as amended) would prohibit courts from taking testimony or making a decision in legal decision-making or parenting-time proceedings based solely on allegations of parental alienation. The committee adopted an amendment that expands and clarifies terms linked to parental-alienation claims, including several behavioral labels used in practice (e.g., “resist/refuse dynamics,” “preferred parent,” “alienated parent”).

Sponsor Representative Kessel said allegations of parental alienation are often weaponized and can be used to discredit protective parents who report abuse. Several witnesses described long custody fights in which an allegation of parental alienation, they said, displaced objective evaluation of abuse allegations.

Supporters included survivor-advocates and attorneys who argued parental-alienation theories lack recognition from major professional associations and can be used as a litigation tactic rather than a scientific diagnosis. Witnesses urged barring the concept from being the sole basis for court findings.

Domestic-violence advocates and the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence requested careful, collaborative drafting because they fear a broad prohibition could inadvertently hamper legitimate evidence or limit courts’ ability to consider behaviors that may be relevant to a child’s welfare. Several committee members asked the sponsor to continue stakeholder discussions; Representative Marquez said he would vote no today but encouraged work with the Judicial Council and advocates. The committee adopted an amendment and issued a due-pass recommendation with explanations recorded on the floor.

Ending: The committee advanced HB 22-56 as amended and directed the sponsor to continue stakeholder outreach to refine language and ensure protection for abuse survivors while blocking misuse of discredited alienation theories.