Welfare Of The Minor And Responsibilities Of A Welfare State

The worst possible thing that can happen in a child’s life, apart from losing a parent, is to become a rolling ball in a parents’ divorce and the ensuing custody battles. Whilst the spouses and their families hurl accusations and try to get the better of each other, the trauma being suffered by the child may sometimes be overshadowed by the volley of hurt and anger of the parties.  The innocent child/ children are often being used as a tool to seek vengeance by vindictive litigants who feel no hesitation in inflicting severe emotional and psychological abuse on the child, thereby seriously affecting the child in his/ her development in the later part of life. Among many implications that a divorce has on the individual, family and society at large, the children of divorced couples are the ones who bear the brunt of the entire process. It is a common practice among couples to use kids as pawns in this game of emotional chess and it amounts to absolutely irresponsible parenting to scar children emotionally post separation. In due course the parents move on with their lives and onto other partners but the children carry the trauma of being manipulated and torn apart emotionally, throughout their lives. In my legal experience I have seen a large number of these kids suffering from personality disorders, substance abuse, criminal conduct and anti social traits etc.

Scores of execution petitions for payment of maintenance are pending adjudication in almost every guardian court in Lahore and hundreds of such petitions are pending adjudication in guardian courts throughout the province of Punjab since more than 5-7 years. The core reason in majority of such petitions is only one, and that is the respondents/ defendants in such petitions have defaulted to pay maintenance to the minors, on one ground or the other. In almost all such petitions, multiple warrants of arrest have also been issued to the respondents but to no avail.

This article relates to the sorry state of affairs, wherein minor children , who were left in lurch by both their father and paternal relatives, have been involved in fights against their fathers for the past 5-7 years, claiming arrears of maintenance due towards to them, in pursuance of the order passed in their favour in the maintenance proceedings in Guardianship and Family jurisdiction, in the files of multiple Guardian Courts in Lahore District, without getting anything from them, to date. It is an issue which has not yet been addressed by any of the courts of appropriate jurisdiction except for mere notices, summons and warrants of arrest issued one after the other. It is to be noted that the failure of the Guardian Courts in Lahore to ensure compliance of their Orders has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice for not only the destitute mothers but also for the minor children who are left alone to bear the brunt of the lax laws as well as the failure on the part of Guardian Courts to ensure compliance of their orders thereof.

Our family courts are expected to act in quasi parental jurisdiction as a loco parentis, and deal with delicate matters concerning the rights of the people, particularly of the destitute women and the needy minors, instead of dealing with their such rights in a mechanical manner. There is a need to adopt a new line of action to start with the creation of a society, which is dreamed of as a social welfare state. By mere issuance of notices and warrants of arrest and their failure to affect the same, serves no useful purpose to the destitute mothers in litigation nor the needy minors, rather their miseries are enhanced. This sorry state of affairs needs to be addressed by the society at large.

The defaulting by the fathers to pay maintenance allow in as much as the incapacity of the Guardian/ Family Courts to effect their orders passed in execution proceedings, directly adding misery to the lives of the innocent children who are the direct sufferers of the said default. In the event of such default the minors are left with no option but either to beg or to get employment in order to meet their day to day expenses.

In these peculiar circumstances, responsibility lies on the State; multiple government institutions have been created to rescue the destitute women and the needy children. We have a social contract under the name of the Constitution which was enacted and given to the people of Pakistan through their chosen representatives in the National Assembly. Needless to mention here that a child born in Pakistan is a subject matter of the Constitution of Pakistan and the State is responsible to provide all what has been guaranteed under it.

Under the provisions of Art.35 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it was ordained that the State would protect the marriage, the family, the mother and the child. The intention and object of the framers of the Constitution, while inserting Art.35 was to protect the child from all types of hostile forces, so that it could be ensured that the child was brought up in a conducive and favourable social environment and become a viable citizen with honour and grace.

Judiciary being the essential constitutional organ of the state, it was required to place meaningful interpretation on the said provision of the Constitution, so that the liberty and dignity of the child was preserved and was fully guaranteed.

It is observed that in Pakistan we have no enacted law providing any mechanism for the deprived minors to get maintenance if their father or grandfather, as the case may be, opts not to provide their maintenance.

The liability of a father or a grandfather to maintain his children or grandchildren in the absence or in case of inability of their real father to maintain them, has been dealt with at different times. In the case of Haji Nizam Khan vs Additional District Judge, Layallpur & Others (PLD 1976 Lahore 930), this concept has been dealt with in detail along with the liability of the state with regard to the Principles of Policy enunciated in the Constitution, that this Court in the reported citation, was of the view that though the judiciary cannot direct organs, authorities and persons included in definition of state under Article 7 to act according to the Principles of Policy, yet the superior judiciary is not barred either to set down a rule for itself to follow Principles of Policy or to declare the same rule for the subordinate judiciary to act in accordance with the said Principles. It was also settled in the said citation that there is no bar on the Superior Judiciary to declare a law in accordance with the said Principles of Policy. It is a mandate contained in Article 31(1) of the Constitution to take steps to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam. Hence, any organ of the state can be directed by an order of the court to observe the Principles of Policy in their respective spheres of working.

The state by recognizing its responsibility both at the Federal and Provincial Level, has constituted institutions for social welfare, including the Bait-ul-Maal, while Punjab has taken the lead through Punjab Bait-ul-Maal Act VII of 1991, which was promulgated on 30^th March 1991. The basic principle of the said legislation was to provide for the establishment of charitable funds and by virtue of Section 5 of the said Act, the utilization of the Bait-ul-Maal has been provided for, which includes relief and rehabilitation of the poor and the needy, particularly poor widows and orphans, educational assistance to the poor and deserving students and for other purposes. There are District Bait-ul-Maal Committees in view of section 7(3) of the said Act working at all district levels.

In addition to the above legislation there is also a Zakat & Ushr Ordinance (XVIII) , 1980 , which provides the manner of collection of such funds and their utilization, including assistance to the needy particularly the orphans and the widows by virtue of Section 8 thereof, which is reproduced herein below:

“ 8. Utilization of Zakat Funds

The money in Zakat Fund shall be utilized for the following purposes, namely,

(a)  assistance to the needy , the indigent and the poor particularly orphans and widows, the handicapped and the disabled, eligible to receive Zakat under Shariah for their subsistence or rehabilitation, either directly or indirectly through Deeni Madaris, or educational, vocational or social institutions and other institutions providing health care.

In the case of Abdul Majeed vs. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad & 4 others (PLD 2012 Lahore 445) , it was observed that the system of Zakat can be linked up with the family courts to the extent that if the Family Court is of the view that the persons liable to pay maintenance are poor and those who should have received maintenance also fall under the clause of eligible persons entitled to receive Zakat funds, then suitable directions to Zakat & Ushr Council should also be issued.

The Honourable Lahore High Court, in the citation narrated above said that the Family Courts in the Province, if reached the conclusion that the father or the grandfather, as the case may be, are themselves not in the position within their circumstances to to easily afford to maintain their dependents, after an inquiry as provided in the CPC for pauperism, then direct the plaintiffs before the said courts to implead the state as a respondent in the pending lis and then to direct the relevant organs or authority of the state, including Bait-ul-Maal and the local governments to regularly pay the determined maintenance of the minors. Needless to mention here that when the right of the minors or ladies seeking maintenance has been determined by a court of law, there will be no further need to verify their claims by the authorities, which would be directed to pay the maintenance to such needy people.

The point of law has been decided in essence and the benefits of the said Judgment of this Honourable Court are required to be extended in favour of all those cases of maintenance wherein the fathers or the grandfathers have deserted to pay the maintenance to their minor children, thereby badly affecting the welfare of those minor children.

It is therefore suggested that a special fund be made/ allocated by the Government of the Punjab or Pakistan Bait-ul-Maal for the payment of maintenance allowance to the minor children from where a maintenance allowance could be regularly paid to the needy minors, in case of boys up till the age of majority and for the girls till they are married, as the case may be, if directed by the concerned family court in this respect.

It is further recommended that the Government of the Punjab, or alternatively Punjab Bait-ul-Maal, should register the names of the affected minors as regular beneficiaries from the District Bait-ul-Maal.

It is further recommended that family/ guardian courts must undertake an inquiry as envisaged by the Code of Civil Procedure for pauperism and implicate the state as a respondent in all cases where the fathers or grandfathers of the minors, as the case may be, are not in a position to easily afford within their circumstances to maintain their dependents and have deserted them and their whereabouts are untraceable since the pendency of such execution/ maintenance suits/ petitions, before them.

References:

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Guardian & Wards Act, 1890

Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1964

Family Courts Ordinance 1964,

Zakat & Ushar Ordinance 1980

Punjab Bait ul Maal Act, 1991

PLD 2012 Lahore 445,

PLD 2010 Peshwar 10

PLD 1976 Lahore 930

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization with which he might be associated.

Shared Parenting and Visitation Rights During Child Custody Litigation

The Need For Implementation Of Shared Parenting and Home Visitation Of Minors With Their Non Custodial Parents Instead Of Just 2 Hours Once Or Twice A Month Within The Court Premises During The Adjudication Of  Child Custody Litigation In Guardian & Family Courts In Pakistan

Family is a fundamental unit of any society or nation and is particularly important to ensure the well being and all round development of its children.  A family consists of not just the mother and father (along with their respective parents & siblings in some cases) but also of their value systems, their beliefs , their aspirations and their struggles, and as a link to a child’s past and a bridge to their future. However, another reality in Pakistan today is that just as joint families have given way to nuclear families, marriages are no longer a bond of a lifetime, rather they are a meeting of two souls (& sometimes families) to “explore” the possibility of being a partner in each other’s journey. The recent trend in our society is seeing a paradigm change in matrimonial relationships, with an increasing number of divorce cases, particularly since the last two decades, while more and more middle and lower-middle class couples have been approaching family courts for divorce, resulting in the rise of bitter child custody battles. The innocent child/ children are often being used as a tool to seek vengeance by vindictive litigants who feel no hesitation in inflicting severe emotional and psychological abuse on the child, thereby seriously affecting the child in his/ her development in the later part of life. Among many implications that a divorce has on the individual, family and society at large, the children of divorced couples are the ones who bear the brunt of the entire process. It is a common practice among couples to use kids as pawns in this game of emotional chess and it amounts to absolutely irresponsible parenting to scar children emotionally post separation. In due course the parents move on with their lives and onto other partners but the children carry the trauma of being manipulated and torn apart emotionally, throughout their lives. In my legal experience I have seen a large number of these kids suffering from personality disorders, substance abuse, criminal conduct and anti social traits etc.

It is pertinent to note that the flawed guardian court system in Pakistan is being manipulated to take revenge from the non-custodial parent (which is usually the father) by not letting him meet his children. It is extremely easy to delay proceedings simply by filing frivolous applications/appeals and assailing the orders to higher courts. Using similar delaying tactics, thousands of children are kept from meeting their non-custodial parent for months and in some cases, years. The guardian courts are unwilling to acknowledge the simple fact that the nature of a child custody case is entirely different from routine civil cases. Child custody litigation is a true representative of judicial litigation where “justice delayed is justice denied”. The mind of a child is like a perishable commodity. With the passage of time it is easy to change the innocent mind. Within months, due to a lack of interaction with the non-custodial parent and constant brain-washing by the custodial parent and his/her family, the children start losing memory of, and in many cases, start disliking, the non-custodial parent who was once extremely dear and loved. This phenomenon has been named by psychiatrists as the Parental Alienation Syndrome or “PAS”.

Despite the fact that the Holy Quran ordains, that “No mother should be harmed through her child, and no father through his child”. On the contrary, regretfully stated that 99% of non-custodial fathers and mothers feel chastened when they cannot meet their own child sufficiently, while they are unjustifiably made  to “earn” every minute’s meeting with the child by spending money, energy and time, in shape of heavy legal expenses, various applications and surety bonds. That God Almighty in all His Wisdom has not only directed us through Surah Al Baqra’s verse 233 “No person is charged with more than his capacity” not to overburden anyone but also directed on several occasions to discuss and then decide by consensus (Ijtihaad) what may be considered a “just” division of time, responsibilities and powers between two contesting sides. Any judicial order assigning more than 99% responsibility to any one parent means setting aside directions by Allah, especially when the other is begging the judge to let him/her be an equal parent, is “granted” but not “ensured” a mere 1% contact with the child. No parent can be practically expected to perform all duties of both sexes for a child.

Save in accordance with the provisions of Art.4 & Art.10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to be read with Section 19 of the Guardian & Wards Act 1890 “right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, etc”, the point (b) “no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law”, & as per Art. 10-A, “Right of Fair Trial, for the determination of his civil rights and obligations a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process” clearly indicates that non custodial parents according to our Constitution cannot be barred from freely meeting their children until and unless there is legal evidence to prove them unfit for contact.

Our guardian / family judges are apparently oblivious  of the fact that there is no specific duration or frequency defined in the Guardian & Wards Act 1890 for granting a visitation schedule for the minors. The provisions dealing with interim custody of the minor is regulated under Section 12 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, which is absolutely silent regarding the quantum of visitation or venue of visitation. The basic paramount consideration to decide a reasonable schedule is the “WELFARE OF THE MINOR”. However, even after waiting for months for the first face-to-face meeting with his/her own children, the non-custodial parent gets an extremely limited visitation schedule to meet the children. This visitation schedule is often as little as ONCE IN A MONTH FOR TWO HOURS WITHIN COURT PREMISES. Surprisingly, this visitation schedule is being followed widely in the guardian courts of Pakistan for over decades and has now established precedence, despite the fact that NO PROVISION of Guardian & Wards Act 1890 or of West Pakistan Muslim Family Courts Act of 1965 supports such a limited visitation time to non custodial parents, majority of who are fathers. In large majority of cases, the respondents often get confused with the exercise of jurisdiction. It is pertinent to be noted here that Order for temporary custody is usually passed at the time when evidence is not produced before the Court. Such Order must be passed keeping in view of the welfare of the minor under Section 12 of the Guardian & Wards Act 1890 and should not become the Order passed under section 25 of the Act, determining the rights of the parties with regard to the custody of the minor – the difference between the two provisions must be kept in view. Reliance is placed upon 2014 CLC 330 Islamabad.

Even the aforementioned visitation schedule of TWO HOURS can be conveniently avoided by a custodial parent simply by presenting a fake medical certificate showing they are unable to make it. In such cases the non-custodial parent is left with no choice but to wait for the next scheduled meeting. The guardian courts are generally very casual towards such excuses furnished by custodial parents.

On an average, a family/ custody case under the Guardian & Wards Act lasts approximately three to five years in the guardian courts. During these years, owing to a lack of interaction between the minors and the non-custodial parents, the parent-child bond keeps on depleting and often completely breaks after a while. In a majority of cases it has been observed that the custodial parent keeps on brain-washing the minors against the non-custodial parent. On top of that, the guardian courts strengthen the revengeful motives of the custodial parent by not granting a reasonable visitation schedule between children and the non-custodial parent. It has been seen that the non-custodial parent initially struggles and contests the litigation in the hopes of getting justice, but then finally gives up after being disappointed. He/she re-marries, starts a new life and bears new children. As a result the minors normally end up losing one of the parents forever.

In cases where the minors are in the custody of the custodial parents and are being used as a tool for seeking revenge by not letting them meet the non-custodial parents, the non-custodial parents often respond by discontinuing the money they were providing the family for maintenance. Many fathers in the Guardian Courts ask why they should pay maintenance when they are unable to even see their children. Meeting for two hours in a month is rather torturous.

It has been observed that keeping the minors away from the non-custodial parents further aggravates the already adverse relationship between custodial and non-custodial parents. Most separated/ divorced couples after many years of litigation forget the actual reasons for separation and just fight over the visitation rights of children. Had the court not supported the element of revenge through children, matters could have cooled down between the parties with the passage of time.

It is pertinent to state here with respect that the Guardian Courts are required to act as a bridge between the estranged parents and the grieved children, but in reality the lax procedure acts as a barrier in the reunion or in mutual cooperation between the estranged spouses. For the betterment of a broken family, a child must be allowed to spend reasonable time with both the separated parents throughout the year. It is further submitted here with respect that by restricting access of a non-custodial parent to merely 2 hours once or twice in a month is an attempt to deny access between the minor and his parent, hence the same does not serve the very purpose of the welfare of the minor. A father could not be considered an alien enemy qua children. A child would need love, affection, care and attention of the mother as well as the love, affection, company and the guiding hand of a father. Depriving a father of his right to meet his children for a reasonable time would lead to emotional deprivation on both sides. Any amount of acrimony between ex-spouses should not be allowed to stand in the way of the welfare of the minor. The father and minor should also have access to each other and spend time in each other’s company during the minor’s vacation period. Reliance is placed upon 2013 MLD 1631 Lahore.

Though family matters were not to be decided strictly on the yardstick of procedural laws nor any other principle aimed at the observance of technicalities. Paramount consideration before the court must be the welfare of the minor and betterment of the minor. Courts in such a matter are required to act in a loco parentis position and many matters are required to be kept into consideration by the guardian court. Reliance is placed upon 2005 PLD 97 Lahore.

In another judgment Hina Jilani Vs Sohail Butt,1995 PLD 151 LHR, the Honourable Lahore High Court cited, “Such disputes could not be resolved on the basis of any technicality nor any principle of law completely divorced from the realities of situation”. In all matters relating to custody of minors, courts act in loco parentis. The court must perform its legal duty to regulate custody of minor in order to ensure his well being and welfare which should be the paramount and dominant consideration.

The guardian/ family judges are hesitant to exercise a therapeutic parental jurisdiction vested in them by virtue of their office despite the fact that there exists no specific provision of the Guardian & Wards Act 1890 which regulates the time and venue of interim visitation between the non-custodial parent and minor child and the matter is left with the exercise of the discretion of the Court, although certain guidelines have time and again been issued by the superior courts in this regard. It is therefore reiterated with humility that in the case of Umer Farooq Vs Khushbakht Mirza cited as 2008 PLD 527 Lahore, it has been held by the Honourable Lahore High Court, in the following terms that:

“In guardianship matters, courts should exercise quasi parental jurisdiction. The supreme consideration in such context would be the welfare of the minor, and to achieve such purpose courts have unfettered powers. Application under section 12 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 was required to be decided on such principles. Admittedly, contesting parents have an inherent right to seek visitation of the minor, especially the non-custodial parent, who is mostly the father, who is inherently a natural guardian of the minor. Father is not only required to participate in the upbringing of minors but to also develop love, bondage and affinity with the minors. In order to achieve this purpose, the guardian court should facilitate a congenial, homely and friendly environment and a reasonable visitation schedule to the non-custodial parent. Courtroom of a Guardian Judge or a separate room within the court premises for visitation or meeting purposes is neither conducive nor effective. It lacks basic and proper facilities and arrangements and is not comparable to a homely environment. Meeting for two hours once in a month cannot serve the purpose of meeting and it is not in the welfare of the minor to hold meetings there with the non-custodial parent. Meeting of minors with the non-custodial parent should preferably be held at the premises of the contesting parent to familiarize minors with the environment there, to strengthen a healthy relationship between the minor and the non-custodial parent and dispel fears of a future reunion. Only in extreme and exceptional cases, the courtroom of a Guardian Judge could be chosen as a venue for which detailed reasons should be cited, thus mechanical order in such context was not tenable.”

An appropriate and reasonable interim visitation schedule in common terms refers to when children are brought up with the love and guidance of both parents. It is basically an acknowledgment of nature’s principle for providing two parents of each child in order to ensure their healthy development and upbringing. It is pertinent to be noted here that although different countries use different definitions of reasonable and appropriate interim visitation schedule, the most commonly accepted definition is, “ A collaborative arrangement in child custody or divorce determinations in which both parents have the right and responsibility of being actively involved in the raising of the child (ren)”. It is also referred as “Joint Custody”, or “Co-Parenting” or “Equally Shared Parenting”.

A reasonable and appropriate interim visitation schedule or shared parenting is an extension of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child, 1989 (UNCRC) to which Pakistan is a signatory. Article 5 of the UNCRC states, “state parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents” acknowledging the primacy of both parents in the life of the children.

Keeping in view of the therapeutic nature of parental jurisprudence of the child custody litigation, it is peculiar to define the very term welfare of the minor in terms of the objectives to be achieved:

1. That the children feel that they have two properly involved parents who have broadly equal ‘moral authority’ in their eyes
2. That the children imbibe values and traditions from both families in substantial measure in order to carve their own sense of belonging and identity
3. That time is allocated between both parents in such manner that no one parent is excluded from any aspect of child’s life e.g. sleeping and waking rituals, school, homework, friends, leisure time, vacation, important religious and national festivals, important milestones and dates like birthdays, etc.
4. That the children do not develop stereotyped ideas from their parents about the roles of the sexes, like seeing the father’s role as chiefly financial and a ‘giver of treats’ and mothers to have responsibilities for everything else.

It is the need of the hour to develop and design a comprehensive visitation plan based on the undeniable logic that the ward/ minor is entitled to the continuation of all the healthy activities he/she enjoyed with the non-custodial parent before separation, and must be ensured every opportunity to spend regular unfettered time with the non-custodial parent and his/her side of the family in their home. This way, none of the three parties will feel cheated out of their fair share from each other and as a result, the tendency to develop custody litigation into a criminal proceeding will be checked for good, paving way for the true welfare of the minor.

As per my humble understanding, the only answer to this excruciating problem is introduction of a balanced, just, reasonable and appropriate interim visitation schedule in line with human nature and the teachings of the Quran.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization with which he might be associated.

Child Custody Law in Pakistan

The recent trend in our society is seeing a paradigm change in matrimonial relationships, with an increasing number of divorce cases, particularly since the last two decades, while more and more middle and lower-middle class couples have been approaching family courts for divorce, resulting in the rise of bitter child custody battles. The innocent child/ children are often being used as a tool to seek vengeance by vindictive litigants who feel no hesitation in inflicting severe emotional and psychological abuse on the child, thereby seriously affecting the child in his/ her development in the later part of life. Among many implications that a divorce has on the individual, family and society at large, the children of divorced couples are the ones who bear the brunt of the entire process. It is a common practice among couples to use kids as pawns in this game of emotional chess and it amounts to absolutely irresponsible parenting to scar children emotionally post separation. In due course the parents move on with their lives and onto other partners but the children carry the trauma of being manipulated and torn apart emotionally, throughout their lives. In my legal experience I have seen a large number of these kids suffering from personality disorders, substance abuse, criminal conduct and anti social traits etc.

GUARDIAN & WARDS ACT 1890

The law pertaining to guardianship and regulating the custody of children in Pakistan is known as the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The primary consideration in guardian courts, whilst granting custody of minors to either parent or sometimes to grandparents or other relatives, is the welfare of the minor. The said law is the main mode of attaining custody of children. In guardian/ custody proceedings pending adjudication in a family/ guardian court there are three parties to the said proceedings, the Custodial Parent, the Non Custodial Parent and the Minor.

QURAN ON THE RIGHTS OF NON CUSTODIAL PARENT:

As per the provisions of Verse No. 2, Ayat No. 233 of the Holy Quran, no parent will be subjected to torture for being the parent of a child. The said provision is reproduced here to below for the perusal:

“ وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ ۖ لِمَنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُتِمَّ الرَّضَاعَةَ ۚوَعَلَى الْمَوْلُودِ لَهُ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ۚ لَا تُكَلَّفُ نَفْسٌ إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚلَا تُضَارَّ وَالِدَةٌ بِوَلَدِهَا وَلَا مَوْلُودٌ لَّهُ بِوَلَدِهِ ۚ وَعَلَى الْوَارِثِ مِثْلُ ذَ‌ٰلِكَ ۗ فَإِنْ أَرَادَا فِصَالًا عَن تَرَاضٍ مِّنْهُمَا وَتَشَاوُرٍ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا ۗ وَإِنْ أَرَدتُّمْ أَن تَسْتَرْضِعُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا سَلَّمْتُم مَّا آتَيْتُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ ۗوَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ

Translation as per Mushin Ali

The mothers shall breastfeed their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling, but the father of the child shall bear the cost of the mother’s food and clothing on a reasonable basis. No person shall have a burden laid on him greater than he can bear. No mother shall be treated unfairly on account of her child, or father on account of his child. And on the (father’s) heir is incumbent the like of that (which was incumbent on the father). If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation, there is no sin on them. And if you decide on a foster-feeding-mother for your children, there is no sin on you, provided you pay (the mother) what you agreed (to give her) on reasonable basis. And fear Allah and know that Allah is the All-Seer of what you do. (سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #233)

PARENTAL CHILD ABUSE

The most common kind of child abuse is parental child abuse which often occurs when the parents separate or initiate divorce proceedings. A parent may, remove or retain the child from the other parent’s custody, seeking to gain an advantage in the expected or pending child custody proceedings, or because that parent fears losing the child in the lengthy, pending child custody proceedings. A parent may refuse to return a child at the end of an access visit or may even flee with the child to prevent an access visit. This very retention by the parent can itself create tangible effects on a child psychology which often goes unaddressed.

The worst possible thing that can happen in a child’s life, apart from losing a parent, is to become a rolling ball in a parents’ divorce and the ensuing custody battles. Whilst the spouses and their families hurl accusations and try to get the better of each other, the trauma being suffered by the child may sometimes be overshadowed by the volley of hurt and anger of the parties.

Cases pertaining to custody/ visitation issues of the minors are not ordinary cases like the breach and enforcement of other civil rights/ obligations , such as property disputes etc. These cases have their own dimensions, repercussions and consequences, founded upon human emotions and the sentiments. The resolution and adjudication of this special kind of matters, therefore should be conceived, considered and settled in a different perspective and context, which obviously revolves around the welfare of the minor, but at the same time the natural feelings of the parents cannot be overlooked and ignored. If a parent means a lot to a child, the child may also mean the whole world to the parents.

THREE STAKE HOLDERS IN A CUSTODY LITIGATION

When there is a lis or dispute between the parents, there are three main characters in the scenario, a mother, a father and a child and in certain cases the brothers and sisters of the minor – they are all stakeholders and the emotions and feelings of every one of them should be kept in view while deciding the noted issue, in addition to the personal law applicable to the minor and the rules about his welfare as mentioned earlier which should be of pivotal consideration.

All of this put together contemplates that in the visitation schedule neither the mother should be deprived altogether of the complete custody of the minor nor should the father be deterred and prevented to meet and see his own child with whom under normal circumstances otherwise/ if the relation between the parents was normal, he shall have free access and interaction and be able to shower his love and affection. The same applies vice versa for the mother.

The third important character is the child himself, who, under the law of nature, should have the privilege of getting love and affection from both the parents, which is one of the greatest blessings of Allah Almighty, but if for certain reasons, the parents on account of their discord and disparity have fallen apart, the child shall not be deprived of having the maximum of what he/ she could achieve from either of the parents. And it does not behoove the adversary parties, who may even have hatred towards each other, to claim exclusive possessory rights over the child to the exclusion of others, like one could demand in the matter of property disputes etc.

DURATION OF A CUSTODY CASE

On an average, a family/ custody case under the Guardian & Wards Act lasts approximately three to five years in the guardian courts. During these years, owing to a lack of interaction between the minors and the non-custodial parents, the parent-child bond keeps on depleting and often completely breaks after a while. In a majority of cases it has been observed that the custodial parent keeps on brain-washing the minors against the non-custodial parent. On top of that, the guardian courts strengthen the revengeful motives of the custodial parent by not granting a reasonable visitation schedule between children and the non-custodial parent. It has been seen that the non-custodial parent initially struggles and contests the litigation in the hopes of getting justice, but then finally gives up after being disappointed. He/she re-marries, starts a new life and bears new children. As a result the minors normally end up losing one of the parents forever.

2 HOURS VISITATION ONCE IN A MONTH TO A NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT

Family matters were not to be decided strictly on the yardstick of procedural laws nor any other principle aimed at the observance of technicalities. Paramount consideration before the court must be the welfare of the minor and betterment of the minor. Courts in such a matter are required to act in a loco parentis position and many matters are required to be kept into consideration by the guardian court, which is not always the practice observed by the courts adjudicating guardian and custody matters pending adjudication in Pakistan. What has actually been done in a vast majority of cases pending in multiple guardian courts in Pakistan is that the non-custodial parents are subjected to abuse and victimization in the name of procedural technicalities especially during the pendency of divorce and custody-of-minor proceedings. Even after waiting for months for the first face-to-face meeting with his/her own children, the non-custodial parent gets an extremely limited visitation schedule to meet the children. This visitation schedule is often as little as ONCE IN A MONTH FOR TWO HOURS WITHIN COURT PREMISES. Surprisingly, this visitation schedule is being followed widely in the guardian courts of Pakistan for over decades and has now established precedence. In other words “once a month for 2 hours in court” has become a “template” of visitation orders being granted to non-custodial parents in guardian courts. In addition even the aforementioned visitation schedule of TWO HOURS can be conveniently avoided by a custodial parent simply by presenting a fake medical certificate showing they are unable to make it. In such cases the non-custodial parent is left with no choice but to wait for the next scheduled meeting. The guardian courts are generally very casual towards such excuses furnished by custodial parents.

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

Being a lawyer I have witnessed that in most cases the flawed court systems were being manipulated to take revenge from the non-custodial parent (which is usually the father) by not letting him meet his children. It is extremely easy to delay proceedings simply by filing frivolous applications/appeals and assailing the orders to higher courts. Using similar delaying tactics, thousands of children are kept from meeting their non-custodial parent for months and in some cases, years. The guardian courts are unwilling to acknowledge the simple fact that the nature of a child custody case is entirely different from routine civil cases. Child custody litigation is a true representative of judicial litigation where “justice delayed is justice denied”. The mind of a child is like a perishable commodity. With the passage of time it is easy to change the innocent mind. Within months, due to a lack of interaction with the non-custodial parent and constant brain-washing by the custodial parent and his/her family, the children start losing memory of, and in many cases, start disliking, the non-custodial parent who was once extremely dear and loved. This phenomenon has been named by psychiatrists as the Parental Alienation Syndrome or “PAS”.

WELFARE OF THE MINOR

It is amazing how there exists no specific duration or frequency defined in the Guardian & Wards Act 1890 for granting a visitation schedule for minors. The prime consideration to decide a reasonable schedule is the “WELFARE OF THE MINOR”. In fact the entire Guardian and Wards Act 1890 is ultimately based on the welfare of the minors. The Guardian Judge is required to act/think as a parent in order to pass a decision. The extremely limited visitation schedule was adopted by guardian courts to avoid complications and hassles that arise during administering more frequent visitation meetings. However this negates the entire fundamentals of the Guardian and Wards Act, because taking a child away from a parent cannot be in the interests and welfare of the minor and should not be the solution to avoid administrative problems.

NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS

The non-custodial parents can be divided into two categories – those who have harmed their children and do not deserve custody or visitation, and those who are good, loving, parents who are not able to live with their child/children due to a divorce or separation with their spouse. Statistics prove that in 99% cases, non-custodial parents fall into the second category and deserve reasonable and regular visitation rights with their children.

In a vast majority of the cases a non-custodial parent has to wait for months before his/her first official meeting (within the court) with his/her own children. This delay is caused by the flawed/ inefficient system of the service of the notices. Delaying appearances in court by claiming to not having received the notice/summons is common practice.

In Pakistan, for reasons not conformed under the law, the guardian courts often hesitate in handing over the minors to the non-custodial parent for out-of-court meetings. This is often justified by the threat of illegal snatching of minors by the non-custodial parent and taking them out of the court jurisdiction. However it has been observed that the entire idea of running away with minors has evolved overtime and is a result of the frustration of not being able to meet with the minors. It is a fact that running away with the minors from the jurisdiction of court is often not easy. The non-custodial parent has to leave his/her social setup, home, business and a lot more in order to disappear with the minor children. He/she has to live like a criminal with the constant fear of being caught. The act of running away is normally considered as a last resort after being disappointed by the delayed and flawed judicial system. Had the guardian court granted a reasonable visitation schedule to both parents, the non-custodial parent would never be tempted to take the law into his or her own hands. It has further been witnessed that keeping the minors away from the non-custodial parents further aggravates the already adverse relationship between custodial and non-custodial parents. Most separated/ divorced couples after many years of litigation forget the actual reasons for separation and just fight over the visitation rights of children. Had the court not supported the element of revenge through children, matters could have cooled down between the parties with the passage of time.

QUASI PARENTAL JURISDICTION

In guardianship matters, courts should exercise quasi parental jurisdiction. The supreme consideration in such context would be the welfare of the minor, and to achieve such purpose courts have unfettered powers. Application under section 12 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 was required to be decided on such principles. Admittedly, contesting parents have an inherent right to seek visitation of the minor, especially the non-custodial parent, who is mostly the father, who is inherently a natural guardian of the minor. Father is not only required to participate in the upbringing of minors but should develop love, bondage and affinity with the minors. In order to achieve this purpose, the guardian court should facilitate a congenial, homely and friendly environment and a reasonable visitation schedule to the non-custodial parent. Courtroom of a Guardian Judge or a separate room within the court premises for visitation or meeting purposes is neither conducive nor effective. It lacks basic and proper facilities and arrangements and is not comparable to a homely environment. Meeting for two hours once in a month cannot serve the purpose of meeting and it is not in the welfare of the minor to hold meetings there with the non-custodial parent.

It is therefore highly recommended that the guardian courts of Pakistan adjudicating guardian/custody cases should acknowledge the simple fact that the meeting of minors with the non-custodial parent should preferably be held at the premises of the contesting parent to familiarize minors with the environment there, to strengthen a healthy relationship between the minor and the non-custodial parent and dispel fears of a future reunion. Only in extreme and exceptional cases, the courtroom of a Guardian Judge could be chosen as a venue for which detailed reasons should be cited.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization with which he might be associated.

PAKISTAN is facing a quiet but rather devastating child welfare crisis, one that unfolds daily in family and guardian courts, but remains largely invisible in public discourse. Across the country, an estimated one million children, including several hundred thousand in the province of Punjab alone, are caught in prolonged custody and visitation disputes.

For most of them, meaningful relation-ship with one parent is reduced to token encounters: one or two hours, once or twice a month, often within court premises. This is not parenting. It is institutionalised emotional distancing.

Such arrangements, in fact, are neither child-centric nor aligned with modern understanding of child psychology. Decades of research has consistently demonstrated that children tend to fare significantly better socially, emotionally, and psychologically when both parents remain meaningfully involved in their lives, barring situations of proven harm or abuse. Our child custody framework continues to operate on dated and flawed assumptions that inadvertently reward conflict, prolong litigation and always normalise parental alienation.

Institutional data exposes the scale of the problem. In Lahore alone, there are 37 family courts, five guardian courts and an evening court, each carrying an average pendency of 2,200 to 2,500 cases. This translates into nearly 100,000 pending family and guardianship matters at any given time. Punjab has 37 judicial districts, and each district has about three tehsils hosting four to five family courts each.

Even conservative estimates suggest that the total number of pending family cases ranges between 660,000 and 1.11 million. Judicial experience suggests that at least one-third of these cases relate to custody, visitation or parental access disputes. Even if one assumes just one child per custody case, a deliberately conser-vative assumption, there are between 200,000 and 330,000 children in Punjab alone who are currently growing up amid active custody litigation. These figures exclude execution proceedings for denied visitation, informal separations outside the court system, and cases abandoned due to litigation fatigue. The true scale is almost certainly higher.

Behind all these numbers are children living through years of uncertainty, emotional manipulation and fractured identity. Many are exposed to parental alienation, a recognised form of emotional abuse where one parent systematically erodes the child’s bond with the other. Courts, lacking adequate psychological support, often misinterpret alienation-driven resistance as ‘child preference’, thereby reinforcing the very harm they are meant to prevent.

Pakistan’s family justice system is over-burdened, under-resourced and insuffi-ciently equipped to address the emotional and developmental needs of such children. Following the 18th Amendment, family law falls squarely within provincial legislative competence. A measured and targeted amendment to the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, introducing a statutory presumption in favour of shared parenting and meaningful interim access can yield immediate and tangible results.

Legislative reform alone, however, is not enough. It must be complemented by administrative and policy measures: structured judicial training in child psychology, integration of psychologists and mediators in family courts, standard-ised child-friendly visitation protocols, digitisation of case management, and pilot reform programmes with measurable outcomes.

At its core, this is not a debate about fathers’ rights or mothers’ rights. It is about children’s rights, the right to love and be loved by both parents, the right to emotional stability, and the right to grow up without being weaponised in adult conflict. We have to show our will and act before another generation pays the price.

Fahad Ahmad Siddiqi
Lahore

Published in Dawn, February 12th, 2026

After more than two decades in family litigation, I believe it is time to rethink custody, visitation and parenthood. Every custody dispute involves three persons the mother, the father and, most importantly, the child. Yet the child’s interests can become secondary to the conflict between the adults.

Custody is not parenthood. One parent may provide the child’s primary residence and daily care without the other becoming a visitor in the child’s life.

The marital status of parents should not determine a child’s right to maintain a meaningful relationship with either parent.

Children deserve relationships, not appointments. Meaningful parenting means being present in ordinary life at school, during holidays, at birthdays, during illness, and in the countless everyday moments through which a parent-child bond is built.

Shared parenting does not necessarily mean 50/50 custody. The child’s welfare must remain paramount, and genuine concerns such as abuse, violence, neglect or parental incapacity may require restrictions. But absent such circumstances, parental separation should not become parental disappearance.

Our jurisprudence has already recognised that custody with one parent does not necessarily require marginalising the other. In Mst. Madiha Younus v. Imran Ahmed (2018 SCMR 1991), the Supreme Court approved substantial periods of interim custody with the father, including weekends, vacations and family occasions. In Shahida Adnan v. Additional District Judge (2021 YLR 1915), the Lahore High Court also recognised the continuing importance of a child’s relationship with both parents.

And while parents litigate, children grow. Time lost during prolonged custody disputes cannot be restored by a judgment delivered years later.

The objective, therefore, should not be a battle for “equal custody” but recognition of equal parenthood giving equally situated parents an equal opportunity to remain meaningfully involved in their child’s life.

Not because parents have a right to possess children, but because children have a right to meaningful relationships with both parents.

Marriage may end. Parenthood should not.

At the end of every custody dispute, the true winner should never be the mother or the father.

It should be the child.

Fahad Ahmad Siddiqi
Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

For decades, custody disputes have often been approached as a contest between two parents:
Who should get custody?
Perhaps we need to ask a different question:
What arrangement best serves the child?
A child is not property to be divided between parents after a marriage breaks down.
And a father does not become a stranger to his child merely because he is no longer living with the mother. Equally, a mother should not lose her importance in a child’s life merely because she is not the custodial parent.
Our custody jurisprudence has increasingly recognized that the welfare of a minor involves more than physical care. A child may need the love, affection, guidance and meaningful presence of both parents.
This does not mean that every child should automatically have 50/50 custody.
Shared parenting is not a mathematical formula.
There may be circumstances abuse, violence, neglect, parental incapacity, serious conflict or other genuine risks where restrictions are necessary.
But where such circumstances do not exist, we should be cautious about turning parental separation into parental disappearance.
The real question in family justice should therefore not be:
“Which parent wins?”
It should be:
“How can we ensure that this child loses as little as possible from the breakdown of the parents’ relationship?”
That, in my view, is where the conversation about shared parenting in Pakistan must begin.

Fahad Ahmad Siddiqi
Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

In custody disputes, we often describe one parent as the “custodial parent” and the other as the “non-custodial parent.” The terminology can quietly shape the way we think. One parent becomes the parent who has the child. The other becomes the parent who is given access.

But custody determines residence and day-to-day care. It does not determine who remains a parent. A child may live primarily with one parent while continuing to be meaningfully parented by both.

This is not merely a philosophical proposition. Pakistani custody jurisprudence has increasingly recognised that the welfare of a minor encompasses the love, affection, care and guidance of both parents. In Mst. Madiha Younus v. Imran Ahmed (2018 SCMR 1991), the Supreme Court approved a comprehensive arrangement under which custody remained with the mother while the father had substantial periods of interim custody, including weekends, vacations and family occasions.

The jurisprudence therefore points to an important distinction: custody with one parent does not necessarily mean marginalisation of the other. In Shahida Adnan v. Additional District Judge (2021 YLR 1915), the Lahore High Court reiterated that a parent does not lose the right of association merely because custody has been entrusted to the other parent, emphasising the child’s need for the love and affection of both parents.

Meaningful parenting is not necessarily measured in hours spent in a courtroom, a visitation room or under supervision. It can mean ordinary life: taking a child to school, helping with homework, attending a doctor’s appointment, sharing a weekend, celebrating a birthday, or simply being available when the child needs a parent.

This is why visitation should not become a legal substitute for parenthood.

The question, therefore, should not always be: “How much access should the non-custodial parent receive?” A more child-centred question may be: “How can both parents continue to parent this child safely and meaningfully after separation?”

Of course, the answer must always depend upon the welfare of the child. Where genuine risks exist, restrictions may be necessary. But where they do not, parental separation should not automatically result in the transformation of one parent into a visitor.

Our constitutional and family-law jurisprudence also recognises that custody and visitation disputes are ultimately governed by the welfare of the minor. The judicial task is therefore not simply to allocate parental possession, but to protect the child’s continuing relationship with both parents where that relationship is consistent with the child’s welfare. A child may have one primary residence without having only one parent.

That distinction should matter to family justice.

Fahad Ahmad Siddiqi
Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan

The question of when a child is ‘old enough’ to be heard in custody proceedings is deceptively simple. In Pakistan, Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 permits courts to consider the preference of a minor ‘old enough to form an intelligent preference,’ yet provides no objective criterion for determining when such capacity exists. This ambiguity has contributed to inconsistent and discretionary approaches to child participation, while risking the treatment of a child’s preference as an isolated evidentiary fact rather than a product of developmental maturity, lived relationships, and family circumstances. This paper argues that ‘old enough’ should not be determined by chronological age alone, but through the doctrine of evolving capacity, informed by Pakistani statutory law, constitutional values, Islamic legal tradition, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and contemporary developmental psychology and neuroscience. Article 12 of the UNCRC recognizes the right of a child capable of forming views to express them freely in matters affecting the child and requires those views to receive due weight according to age and maturity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s emerging rights-based approach to custody and guardianship provides an important doctrinal foundation for interpreting Section 17(3) consistently with these principles. Drawing upon Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg, together with neuroscientific insights concerning cognition, executive functioning, risk assessment, and emotional development, the paper proposes that courts assess “intelligent preference” through functional maturity rather than an arbitrary age threshold. Relevant indicators include the child’s ability to communicate a choice, understand relevant information, reason independently, and appreciate its consequences. The paper advances a further proposition: a child’s right to be heard cannot be meaningfully separated from the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. A preference formed after prolonged custodial isolation, restricted visitation, parental alienation, or unequal relational exposure may reflect circumstance rather than an autonomous and adequately informed choice. Hearing the child without addressing these conditions risks recording the effects of an imbalanced custodial environment rather than authentically assessing the child’s wishes. Accordingly, the paper proposes a rights-based procedural framework in which shared parenting or substantially balanced parental contact operates as a safeguard for genuine child participation. It recommends a rebuttable presumption of meaningful parental contact during custody litigation, structured opportunities to maintain relationships with both parents, multidisciplinary maturity assessments, child-sensitive judicial procedures, neutral psychological or parenting evaluations, and specialized training for judges and guardians ad litem. The paper ultimately reframes ‘intelligent preference’ not as a threshold-based privilege that arises only with age, but as an exercise of child agency that requires appropriate developmental and relational conditions. The legal process should protect the child’s opportunity to experience and maintain meaningful relationships with both parents before placing decisive weight on the child’s preference. Shared parenting, therefore, is not merely a question of parental equality; it may constitute a procedural safeguard for authentic child agency and a more reliable determination of the child’s best interests.

Dear Esteemed Seniors and Learned Colleagues,

The ongoing evolution of family law jurisprudence increasingly challenges our traditional approach to domestic litigation. While Section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 read with its Schedule vests exclusive jurisdiction over child custody, our foundational substantive law remains the colonial-era Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Despite Section 17 of the 1890 Act enshrining the “welfare of the minor” as the paramount consideration, our structural approach often defaults to an all-or-nothing binary: awarding physical custody to one parent while reducing the non-custodial parent to basic, restrictive visitation schedules under Section 12 interlocutory orders.

I would highly value the intellectual insights of this distinguished forum on the following statutory and procedural questions regarding Shared Parenting:

Statutory Harmonization
: Given that Section 25 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 deems the Family Court to be a District Court for the purposes of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, does our existing statutory framework allow enough judicial discretion to mandate joint physical residency, or is a legislative amendment specifically defining “Shared Parenting” required?

Rethinking Visitation Realities:
Can the standard two hours once or twice a month and that too within the court premises, restrictive visitation setups routinely ordered by Guardian Courts truly satisfy the comprehensive definition of “welfare” as interpreted by modern apex court rulings? Or does it run counter to the child’s psychological development?

Pre-Trial Reconciliatory Frameworks:
How can we better utilize the pre-trial and reconciliation provisions under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 to transition high-conflict custody disputes away from adversarial litigation and toward structured, court-monitored Shared-Parenting agreements?

With the profound legal acumen concentrated in this group, your learned perspectives on modernizing our application of these centuries-old statutes would be highly illuminating.

Regards,
Fahad Ahmad Siddiqi
ASC

Introduction

Parental alienation constitutes a multifaceted psychological phenomenon that most commonly arises in the context of high-conflict custody disputes. Initially conceptualized by R. A. Gardner as Parental Alienation Syndrome, the construct describes situations in which a child persistently rejects one parent as a result of intense interparental conflict, combined with systematic indoctrination by the favored parent and the child’s own active participation in denigrating the targeted parent (Iacobescu, 2021). Central to this process is the child’s adoption of a “campaign of denigration,” characterized by persistent negative beliefs and hostile assertions toward the alienated parent that lack independent justification and closely mirror the language and attitudes of the alienating parent, who is frequently the primary custodial caregiver (Chung, 2018). Importantly, the identification of parental alienation is grounded in observable behavioral patterns rather than subjective parental claims, emphasizing the child’s internalization of externally imposed narratives.

Furthermore, parental alienation generates profound psychological strain for the child, who is placed in an environment of chronic relational conflict. To manage this distress, children may engage in a maladaptive cognitive process that resolves emotional ambivalence by rigidly aligning with one parent while rejecting the other (Moon et al., 2020). This polarized pattern of attachment reflects a form of cognitive dissonance reduction, wherein the child simplifies complex emotional experiences into an absolute dichotomy of loyalty and rejection. Such psychological splitting is particularly evident during or following divorce proceedings marked by intense hostility, where the child’s need for emotional security may override the capacity for nuanced or integrated perceptions of both parents (Moon et al., 2020). Consequently, the child’s rejection of one parent may function less as an autonomous judgment and more as a coping mechanism in response to overwhelming interparental conflict.

Empirical research increasingly identifies parental programming and indoctrination as the central mechanisms driving the alienation process, framing these behaviors as psychologically abusive rather than merely adversarial parenting practices (Petruschevici et al., 2024). This form of emotional manipulation has gained recognition as a variant of child maltreatment, given its potential to disrupt identity formation, undermine self-esteem, and impair long-term psychological development (Chung, 2018). Despite growing acknowledgment of its harmful effects, gaps remain in the standardization of diagnostic criteria and intervention strategies, highlighting the need for further empirical investigation into effective prevention and treatment approaches. Addressing these gaps is essential for improving clinical, legal, and child-protective responses to parental alienation in high-conflict family systems.

While the psychological literature on parental alienation has developed largely within Western jurisdictions, similar welfare-based concerns increasingly surface within the legal framework governing child custody and visitation in Pakistan. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the overriding consideration in all guardianship and custody determinations is the welfare of the minor, a concept that Pakistani superior courts have repeatedly interpreted to include the child’s emotional security, psychological stability, and sustained relationship with both parents. Although the statute does not expressly employ the terminology of parental alienation, judicial interpretation has recognized that obstruction of visitation and deliberate erosion of a child’s bond with a parent may amount to conduct detrimental to welfare, thereby engaging the court’s corrective jurisdiction. This convergence between psychological harm and legal welfare standards provides an important contextual bridge between empirical research and family law adjudication in Pakistan[1].

Psychological Consequences of Parental Alienation in Children

Parental alienation exerts profound psychological effects on children, influencing multiple domains of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral functioning. Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that children exposed to alienating behaviors are at heightened risk of developing internalizing symptoms, including depression, anxiety, diminished self-esteem, and pervasive feelings of guilt and abandonment (Gani et al., 2020). These symptoms often emerge early and may persist over time, indicating both immediate distress and enduring developmental vulnerability. Furthermore, alienated children frequently exhibit separation anxiety, impaired social competence, and notable behavioral difficulties, which can further compromise their psychosocial adjustment (Sirbu et al., 2020).

Beyond emotional distress, parental alienation significantly disrupts children’s identity formation and self-perception. Continuous exposure to conflicting narratives and emotional manipulation may lead children to distrust their own thoughts, emotions, and lived experiences. Consequently, they often develop an unstable sense of self, characterized by low self-worth, chronic insecurity, and impaired autonomy (Verhaar et al., 2022). Notably, when children internalize the hostility expressed by the alienating parent toward the targeted parent, this process may extend inward, resulting in self-directed negativity, reduced subjective well-being, and feelings of helplessness and rejection (Roma et al., 2021). Such patterns suggest that parental alienation may interfere with the normative development of individuality and emotional resilience (Kruk, 2018).

In addition to internalizing difficulties, externalizing behaviors represent a critical area of concern (Fares et al., 2023). Research indicates that alienated children are more likely to display attention deficits, aggression, impulsivity, substance misuse, and oppositional behaviors toward authority figures (Miralles et al., 2021). These children may also adopt manipulative interpersonal strategies and develop distorted understandings of familial roles and relationships, reflecting maladaptive coping mechanisms within a conflicted family environment (Isaila et al., 2022). Academic functioning is frequently compromised, with declines in school performance often accompanied by sleep disturbances and disordered eating patterns, further illustrating the pervasive impact of alienation on daily functioning (Koukoulis et al., 2022).

The psychological burden of parental alienation is particularly acute during forced visitation and custody exchanges. Such transitions have been shown to provoke intense anxiety and distress, with children often displaying extreme emotional dependency on the alienating parent and marked stress when separated from them (Nambiar et al., 2024). Over time, this chronic stress may manifest in psychosomatic complaints and behavioral dysregulation, positioning children as vulnerable bystanders in parental conflict with tangible consequences for both psychological and physical health (Nambiar et al., 2024).

This psychological vulnerability assumes particular legal significance in jurisdictions such as Pakistan, where superior courts have emphasized that visitation is a right of the child rather than a concession to the non-custodial parent. Pakistani jurisprudence[2] has cautioned that prolonged or unjustified denial of access may itself constitute evidence of conduct adverse to the child’s welfare, especially where such denial entrenches fear, emotional dependency, or hostility toward the absent parent. In this context, the psychological distress documented in alienated[3] children mirrors judicial concerns that custodial arrangements if left unchecked may transform into instruments of emotional harm, reinforcing the need for early and meaningful court intervention.

Given the severity and persistence of these outcomes, a growing body of literature conceptualizes parental alienation as a serious form of emotional child abuse (Harman et al., 2018). Importantly, longitudinal findings suggest that when alienation is not identified and addressed in a timely manner, affected children may develop chronic mental health conditions that extend into adulthood, adversely influencing emotional development, social relationships, and overall quality of life (Baka et al., 2025). Despite increasing recognition of these harms, gaps remain in early detection strategies and evidence-based interventions, underscoring the need for continued research and clinical attention in this area.

Psychological Impact on Targeted Parents

Targeted parents subjected to alienating behaviors frequently experience profound and enduring psychological harm as a result of systematic exclusion from their children’s lives. Empirical evidence consistently indicates that these parents exhibit markedly negative adaptation outcomes, including elevated levels of depression, chronic stress, frustration, fear, helplessness, and pervasive feelings of loss and despair (Poustie, 2018). Such outcomes reflect not only acute emotional distress but also longer-term maladaptive coping patterns. In particular, fathers identified as targets of parental alienation appear especially vulnerable, with studies documenting increased risks of chronic depressive states, social withdrawal, and heightened interpersonal conflict (Roma, 2021). In extreme circumstances, the cumulative psychological burden may escalate to suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, underscoring the severity of the trauma associated with prolonged alienation (Isaila, 2022).

Furthermore, a persistent sense of powerlessness emerges as a central mechanism underlying the psychological distress of targeted parents. As alienating behaviors restrict contact and undermine parental authority, targeted parents often experience a profound erosion of their parental role and identity (Tavares, 2021). This loss is exacerbated by the alienating parent’s control over communication, information, and access to the child, which creates significant relational and informational asymmetries (Marques, 2022). Consequently, the targeted parent’s capacity to influence the parent–child relationship is progressively diminished, reinforcing feelings of helplessness and marginalization. Over time, this sustained disempowerment may alter how targeted parents express affection and maintain emotional bonds with their children, potentially leading to emotional withdrawal as a defensive adaptation (Tavares, 2021).

In addition to psychological distress, targeted parents frequently report adverse physical health outcomes linked to chronic stress exposure. Research indicates that experiences of parental alienation are associated with somatic symptoms such as weight loss, persistent fatigue, and general physical deterioration, often occurring alongside intense feelings of guilt and perceived injustice (Tavares, 2021). These physical manifestations suggest that the stress associated with alienation extends beyond emotional suffering to affect overall physiological functioning. Moreover, the intersection of psychological trauma and social exclusion contributes to a multifaceted pattern of suffering that disrupts both personal well-being and broader social functioning (Kucukkaragoz, 2025).

Despite growing recognition of these consequences, notable gaps remain in the literature. Specifically, longitudinal research examining the long-term psychological and physical trajectories of targeted parents is limited, as is comparative research exploring gender differences and protective factors that may mitigate harm. Addressing these gaps is essential for developing evidence-based interventions and informing legal and clinical responses aimed at reducing the enduring impact of parental alienation on targeted parents.

Beyond statutory considerations, parental alienation and visitation denial also engage broader constitutional concerns within Pakistan’s legal framework. Judicial interpretations of the constitutional right to life and dignity increasingly encompass the right to family life and emotional integrity, particularly in matters involving children. Procedural delays[4], interim injunctions, and ineffective enforcement mechanisms common features of protracted family litigation may inadvertently facilitate de facto alienation, allowing psychological harm to intensify over time. This procedural dimension resonates with empirical evidence demonstrating that the duration of alienation is directly correlated with the severity of long-term psychological consequences, underscoring the need for timely and welfare-oriented legal responses.

Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Parental Alienation

A growing body of empirical research indicates that exposure to parental alienation during childhood is associated with profound and enduring psychological and social consequences that frequently persist into adulthood. Adults who report having experienced parental alienation as children consistently demonstrate elevated levels of depression and anxiety, alongside a heightened risk of broader psychopathology, diminished self-esteem, and reduced personal autonomy (Verhaar et al., 2022). These outcomes suggest that parental alienation may disrupt foundational processes of emotional development, thereby increasing vulnerability to long-term mental health difficulties.

Furthermore, evidence indicates a strong association between childhood parental alienation and maladaptive coping behaviors in adulthood. Multiple studies report significantly higher rates of substance misuse and addiction among individuals with histories of alienation, with findings suggesting a direct link between early relational trauma and later substance use disorders (Jaffe et al., 2017). This pattern may reflect attempts to manage unresolved emotional distress or deficits in emotional regulation stemming from chronic childhood stress.

The impact of parental alienation on adult interpersonal functioning and family formation is particularly pronounced. Adults exposed to alienation frequently exhibit insecure attachment styles, marked difficulties in establishing and maintaining close relationships, and substantially higher rates of marital instability and divorce when compared to non-alienated counterparts (Bentley et al., 2020). In addition, many individuals report enduring feelings of loss, abandonment, and guilt, which may undermine trust, emotional intimacy, and relational stability well into adulthood (Isaila et al., 2022). These findings highlight the pervasive influence of early relational disruption on later social functioning.

Of particular concern is the evidence supporting intergenerational transmission of alienation-related behaviors. Research suggests that adults who experienced parental alienation in childhood are at increased risk of encountering similar alienating dynamics involving their own children, whether enacted by intimate partners or extended family members, such as grandparents (Miralles et al., 2021). This cyclical pattern indicates that the psychological consequences of alienation may extend beyond the original affected individual, perpetuating relational harm across generations and reinforcing maladaptive family systems.

Importantly, the severity of childhood alienation appears to be directly associated with the magnitude of adverse adult outcomes. Studies demonstrate that more intense or prolonged exposure to alienating behaviors correlates with greater risks of depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, impaired impulse control, relational dysfunction, and reduced self-worth in adulthood (Jaffe et al., 2017). Supporting this association, recent research has identified a statistically significant negative relationship between childhood parental alienation and adult self-esteem (Petruschevici et al., 2024). This finding is particularly consequential given that self-esteem is closely linked to psychological resilience, academic and occupational success, effective stress management, and reduced behavioral difficulties.

Notably, the psychological harm associated with parental alienation may persist even when reunification with the targeted parent occurs later in life. Evidence suggests that reconciliation does not necessarily reverse the emotional and psychological damage incurred during childhood, underscoring the potential irreversibility of certain outcomes (Verhaar et al., 2022). Collectively, these findings reinforce the conceptualization of parental alienation as a severe form of emotional abuse with long-lasting and potentially lifelong implications for mental health and psychosocial well-being (Bentley et al., 2020). Moreover, they highlight critical gaps in intervention and prevention efforts, emphasizing the need for early identification and targeted support to mitigate long-term harm.

Impact on Family Dynamics and Legal Processes

Parental alienation represents a profound disruption to family systems and poses substantial challenges to legal frameworks intended to safeguard the best interests of children. Empirical research indicates that alienating behaviors frequently emerge in the context of divorce, custody disputes, and broader interpersonal relationship breakdowns, where they negatively affect parent–child relationships and exacerbate adversarial legal processes (Nalbant, 2023). Such behaviors place mothers, fathers, and children in prolonged states of conflict and uncertainty, often intensifying emotional strain throughout legal proceedings.

These alienating behaviors manifest through a range of mechanisms, including emotional manipulation of children, systematic denigration of the targeted parent, and deliberate interference with parenting time. Collectively, these actions foster maladaptive family dynamics that undermine children’s emotional security and psychological well-being (Mateo-Fernandez et al., 2024). Moreover, sustained exposure to these dynamics may disrupt children’s attachment patterns and contribute to long-term emotional distress, highlighting the need for early identification and intervention.

The challenge of parental alienation[5] is further complicated in legal systems that recognize custodial preference based on age and caregiving roles. In Pakistan, while maternal custody during tender years is traditionally favored, courts have consistently held that such preference is neither absolute nor immune from scrutiny. Judicial precedent reflects an emerging recognition that custody, when exercised in a manner that systematically alienates the child from the other parent, loses its moral and legal justification. This judicial stance aligns with psychological findings that sustained exposure to alienating behaviors undermines emotional development and relational security, reinforcing the principle that custodial authority is conditional upon its exercise in a manner that preserves, rather than fractures, the child’s relational world.

Furthermore, the alienation process fundamentally impedes the development of cooperative and functional co-parenting arrangements. As parental conflict escalates, children are increasingly exposed to chronic interparental hostility, which may intensify emotional and psychological harm over time (Jaffe et al., 2017). This cyclical pattern of conflict and harm presents significant difficulties for legal systems, which often rely on traditional custody models that may not fully capture the complexity or subtlety of alienation dynamics. Consequently, courts may struggle to respond effectively to behaviors that are psychologically manipulative rather than overtly abusive.

The severity and sophistication of alienation tactics further complicate legal and clinical responses. Alienating parents may employ strategies such as persistent denigration, distorted portrayals of the other parent, obstruction or boycott of visitation, deliberate misinformation, suggestive influence, and the use of contradictory or double-bind communication (Boch-Galhau, 2021). In more extreme cases, these tactics may escalate to direct psychological threats—such as withdrawal of affection or threats of self-harm—or even physical coercion, including confinement or physical aggression toward the child (Boch-Galhau, 2021). Such practices exacerbate children’s loyalty conflicts and may foster fear, emotional dependence, and submission, rendering children increasingly vulnerable to the alienating parent’s influence.

Given the documented psycho-traumatic and long-term consequences associated with pathological alienation and sustained contact loss, parental alienation cannot be conceptualized as a purely private family matter (Boch-Galhau, 2021). Instead, growing evidence suggests that severe parental alienation constitutes a form of psychological child abuse with enduring developmental and mental health implications. This recognition underscores a critical gap in conventional custody adjudication and highlights the necessity for specialized legal interventions and therapeutic approaches that extend beyond traditional dispute resolution models (Boch-Galhau, 2021). Addressing parental alienation effectively, therefore, requires interdisciplinary collaboration between legal, psychological, and child protection systems to mitigate harm and promote children’s long-term well-being.

Taken together, the psychological evidence surveyed in this article finds strong normative alignment with Pakistani family law when the welfare principle is interpreted holistically. Although parental alienation is not explicitly codified, existing legal doctrines under the Guardians and Wards Act, Islamic family law principles[6], and constitutional jurisprudence provide sufficient analytical tools to identify and restrain alienating conduct. Bridging psychological insight with legal practice does not require doctrinal innovation so much as purposive interpretation, judicial sensitivity, and early intervention. Recognizing parental alienation as a form of emotional harm within custody adjudication is therefore not an expansion of legal authority, but a reaffirmation of the child-centric mandate that underpins both psychological science and family law in Pakistan.

---

References

Iacobescu, M. (2021). Loyalty Conflict and Parental Alienation in Children with Divorced Parents. Anuarul Universitatii Petre Andrei Din Iasi Fascicula Asistenta Sociala Sociologie Psihologie, 27, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.18662/upasw/27/61

Chung, P. J. (2018). Parental Alienation Syndrome: A family therapy and collaborative systems approach to amelioration. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 39(7), 572. https://doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000000605

Moon, D. S., Lee, M. H., Chung, D. S., & Kwack, Y. S. (2020). Custody evaluation in high-conflict situations focused on domestic violence and parental alienation syndrome. Journal of Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(2), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.200004

Gani, R. K., & Kalalo, R. T. (2020). Parental Alienation Syndrome (Focus on management). Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya, 8(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.20473/jps.v8i2.18846

Sîrbu, A. G., Vintilă, M., Tisu, L., Ștefănuț, A. M., Tudorel, O. I., Măguran, B., & Toma, R. A. (2020). Parental Alienation-Development and validation of a behavioral anchor scale. Sustainability, 13(1), 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010316

Petrușchevici, I., Pintilie, A., Pânișoară, G., & Nijloveanu, D. (2024). Navigating the Maze: Parental Alienation, Self-Esteem and Parenting Styles. Educatia 21, 27, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.24193/ed21.2024.27.17

Miralles, P., Godoy, C., & Hidalgo, M. D. (2021). Long-term emotional consequences of parental alienation exposure in children of divorced parents: A systematic review. Current Psychology, 42(14), 12055–12069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02537-2

Verhaar, S., Matthewson, M. L., & Bentley, C. (2022). The impact of parental alienating behaviours on the mental health of adults alienated in childhood. Children, 9(4), 475. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9040475

Koukoulis, A., Tsellou, M., Rougkala, V., Bacopoulou, F., & Papadodima, S. (2022). Decisions of Greek courts securing the right of Parent–Child communication and their determinants. Healthcare, 10(12), 2522. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10122522

Roma, P., Marchetti, D., Mazza, C., Ricci, E., Fontanesi, L., & Verrocchio, M. C. (2021). A comparison of MMPI-2 profiles between parental alienation cases and custody cases. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(5), 1196–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02076-1

Kruk, E. (2018). Parental Alienation as a form of emotional child abuse: the current state of knowledge and future directions for research. Family Science Review, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.26536/evms9266

Fares, R., Najem, R., Hallit, S., Pelissolo, A., Haddad, G., & Naja, W. J. (2023). Parental alienation in Lebanon: a case report. Journal of Medical Case Reports, 17(1), 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-023-03911-3

Isailă, O., & Hostiuc, S. (2022). Medical–Legal and psychosocial considerations on parental alienation as a form of child abuse: A Brief review. Healthcare, 10(6), 1134. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061134

Nambiar, P. P., Jangam, K. V., & Seshadri, S. P. (2024). Psychosocial Perspectives on Child Mental Health in Custody Disputes: A Qualitative Study from India. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 47(4), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176241254515

Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000175

Baka, G., & Farmakopoulou, I. (2025). OA2071. Ways of ensuring the mental health of alienated children from the social phenomenon of parental alienation. European Journal of Public Health, 35(Supplement_5). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf165.083

Tavares, A., Crespo, C., & Ribeiro, M. T. (2021). What Does it Mean to be a Targeted Parent? Parents’ Experiences in the Context of Parental Alienation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(5), 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-01914-6

Poustie, C., Matthewson, M., & Balmer, S. (2018). The Forgotten Parent: The Targeted Parent Perspective of Parental Alienation. Journal of Family Issues, 39(12), 3298–3323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513×18777867

Marques, T. M., Narciso, I., & Ferreira, L. C. (2022). How Do Family Court Judges Theorize about Parental Alienation? A Qualitative Exploration of the Territory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(13), 7555. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137555

Kucukkaragoz, H., & Meylani, R. (2025). Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis of Contemporary Research Literature Aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 5(4), 06146. https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730x.sdgsreview.v5.n04.pe06146

Jaffe, A. M., Thakkar, M. J., & Piron, P. (2017). Denial of ambivalence as a hallmark of parental alienation. Cogent Psychology, 4(1), 1327144. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2017.1327144

Bentley, C., & Matthewson, M. (2020). The Not-Forgotten Child: Alienated Adult Children’s Experience of Parental Alienation. American Journal of Family Therapy, 48(5), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1775531

Nalbant, A. (2023). Examining parental alienation syndrome behaviors in divorce, custody and personal relationship cases. Research on Education and Psychology, 7(Special Issue 2), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1357379

Mateo-Fernández, P. V., & De La Osa-Subtil, I. (2024). Parental interference in custody variation proceedings: a forensic psychology perspective. Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry, 15(5), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2024.15.00789

Von Boch-Galhau, W. (2021). Parental Alienation: A Serious Form of Child Psychological Abuse and a Worldwide Health Problem, that Affects Children and Victim Parents all Over the World. International Journal of Psychiatry Research, 4(6). https://doi.org/10.33425/2641-4317.1116

---

[1] 2025 PLD 47 SUPREME-COURT

[2] 1989 CLC 1377 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

[3] 2025 PLD 201 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

[4] 2018 SCMR 427 SUPREME-COURT

Parental bond

[5] 2025 CLC 960 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

[6] 2025 PLD 247 SUPREME-COURT