{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015463917525773196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.502392344497608, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An autopoietic approach to 'Parental Alienation Syndrome'

This article uses the recent controversies over 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' as a springboard for a discussion of the relationship between mental health knowledge and expertise, and the legal system. Autopoietic theory is a sociological account of social communication systems and the relations between these systems. Law as a social communication system and child mental health as a sub-system of science are observed as distinct and selfreferential, each relating to its environment and to one another in very different ways, predetermined by their coding and programmes. Recent developments in the rules of admissibility for expert evidence raise questions over the precise status in law of knowledge from clinical child psychiatric and child psychological experts. Through the autopoietic observation of law and child mental health this article explains why the legal system needs to show that it is capable of distinguishing between 'reliable' and 'unreliable' mental health knowledge and court experts. As a result of these observations, some fundamental questions arise about the role of experts in advising courts and in offering therapeutic intervention for children and families. Finally, the article examines the existence within child mental health of law as an instrument for therapy.