Case law in countries other than Canada or the United States of America regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

AUSTRALIA

• Johnson v. Johnson, 4806-11508A. FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA, July 7, 1997.
  • Johnson v.Johnson,  Appeal No. SA1 of 1997 No.AD6182 of 1993, 7 July 1997.

GERMANY

• Anonymous v. Anonymous, Case No. 2xv178, Rinteln (Circuit Court) Germany, Apr. 27, 1998.
   
• Sch. v. Sch., Kammergericht KG Berlin. vom 30 Mai 2000 - 17 UF 1413/99.
   
• Fundstelle: Fam RZ 2000, 1606 (Heft 24 / 2000 vom 15. Dezember 2000)
  " 1671, 1696 BGB: Bedeutung des Parental Alienation Syndroms im Abnderungsverfahren" - Hervorhebungen durch Fettschrift -
  Beschluss 17 UF 1413/99 - Volltext der Entscheidung
  (136 F11 514/98 AG Berlin (Tempelhof-Kreuzberg Germany)
   
• Anon v. Anon, OLG Ffm vom 13.07.2000 unter Az. 5 WF 112/00,(Germany).
   
• Anon v. Anon, OLG Ffm vom 26.10.2000 unter Az. 6 WF 168/00,(Germany).
   
• Anon v. Anon, OLG Dresden, No. 264 - UF229/02, Aug. 29, 2002 (published in FamRZ: 50(6) 2003: 397).
   
• Case of Elsholz v. Germany. Taken from Dr. Richard Gardner's website.

  Summary of the case:
  This case is important regarding the legal recognition of the Parental Alienation Syndrome, especially in Frye and/or Daubert hearings in the U.S. Mr. Elsholz claimed to the lower German court that his son's alienation from him was the result of a Parental Alienation Syndrome that was programmed by the boy's mother. The court failed to recognize the Parental Alienation Syndrome and did not order visitation. The appeals court also erred in not recognizing the Parental Alienation Syndrome and thereby supported the lower court`s decision. Mr. Elsholz considered these rulings to have violated his Human Right to have access to his son and so brought his appeal before The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. This court has jurisdiction over the courts of all member nations [one of which is Germany] and its decisions are binding. In this regard, it is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of particular relevance to the Parental Alienation Syndrome are sections 33 through 36 of the decision. In addition, The Human Rights court ruled that the German government would have to pay Mr. Elsholz 35,000 DM in nonpecuniary damages and 12,584 DM as reimbursement for costs and expenses.

GREAT BRITAIN

• Re: C (Children) (2002) CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Thorpe LJ, Kay LJ) 20/2/2002 COURT OF APPEAL REF: 2001/1642. (Great Britain)

ISRAEL

• Jane Doe v. John Doe. Supreme Court, Request for Civil Appeal, 3009/92.
• Jane Doe v. John Doe. Ashdod Family Court, Family Docket 2182/00. Jan. 26, 2003.

SWITZERLAND

• Entscheid der delegierten des Amtsgerichtsprsidenten II con Luzern-Stadt vom 8. Februar 2001 im Verfahren nach Art. 175 ZGB (02 00 210)