that those initially critical of pas for being a caricature were not directly involved with families in custody disputes and that criticisms of this nature faded by the late 1980s because the disorder was widespread. however, no scientific study has yet demonstrated that the elements of pas are unique to alleged parental alienation such that they are useful for diagnosis. pas has been criticized by for being sexist, being used by fathers to marginalize legitimate fears and concerns about abuse, and women's groups and others oppose the legitimacy of pas as a danger to children. after his initial publications, gardner revised his theory to make fathers and mothers equally likely to alienate or be indoctrinators and disagreed that recognition of pas is sexist. gardner later indicated he believed men were equally likely to be pas indoctrinators. studies of children and adults labelled with pas have suggested that mothers were more likely than fathers to be the alienator. in courts canada early canadian court cases accepted expert opinions about pas, used the term "syndrome" and concurred with gardner's theory that only one parent was fully responsible for it. gardner testified in one case (fortin v. major, 1996) but the court did not accept his opinion, concluding that the child was not alienated based on the evaluation of a court-appointed expert who, unlike gardner, had met with the family members. more recent cases, while accepting the concept of alienation, have noted the lack of recognition in the dsm-iv, and have generally avoided "syndrome" terminology, emphasizing that changes in custody are stressful for the child and should only occur in the most severe cases. a 2006 research report by the canadian department of justice described pas as "empirically unsupported" and favored a different framework for dealing with issues of alienation that has more research support. decisions about possible parental alienation are considered a legal decision, to be determined by the judge based on the facts of the case, rather than a diagnosis made by a mental health professional. there is recognition that rejection of a parent is a complex issue, and that a distinction must be made between pathological alienation and reasonable estrangement. united kingdom in the united kingdom, the admissibility concerning the evaluation of pas was rejected both in an expert review, and by the court of appeal. united states on occasion, pas has been cited as part of the child custody determination process in the united states, and some courts have awarded sole custody to fathers based upon findings of pas. in some cases a custody court's acceptance of allegations of parental alienation have resulted in children being placed in the custody of an abusive parent. the admissibility of testimony alleging pas has been challenged under the frye test and daubert standard, to evaluate if it has sufficient scientific basis and acceptance within the scientific community. richard gardner's claims although gardner claimed that pas was generally accepted by the scholarly community and had passed the frye test in two states, a 2006 analysis of court cases involving pas and cited by gardner concluded that these decisions did not set legal precedent, that pas is viewed negatively in most legal scholarship, and that gardner's writings do not support the existence of pas. of sixty-four precedent-bearing cases reviewed at that time, only two decisions, both in new york state and both in criminal courts actually set precedents. both held that the theory of pas was inadmissible. one of the cases, subsequently upheld on appeal, found that pas failed the frye test as the appropriate professional community did not generally accept. at the time, gardner listed fifty cases on his website that he claimed set precedents that made pas admissible. upon review it was determined that none of the cases set precedents for the admissibility of pas. forty-six set no precedents or did not discuss admissibility and the remaining four were problematic. in the first the trial court found that pas passed the frye test, but that finding was not reviewed on appeal so as to become precedential as the trial court " out the words 'parental alienation syndrome'" and focused instead on the "willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the parents and the child" under the state's child custody best interest factors. in the second case, the appellate court did not discuss pas. the third case specifically chose not to discuss the admissibility of pas and the fourth made no decision on pas. case law in one new york case, matter of robert coull v. pamela rottman, 15 n.y.s.3d 834, 131 ad 3d 964 (2015), child support was suspended based upon a trial court's finding of a parent's alienating behaviors. the court found that the father was prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother through a "pattern of alienation", and child support was suspended on that basis. the decision was not based upon a psychological diagnosis, but was instead based upon a pattern of alienation actions and behaviors by the mother and her conduct during court proceedings. a focus on parental behavior allows a court to base its decision "upon accepted psychological concepts and diagnoses... without mention of the controversial and potentially inflammatory concept of pas"; new york has followed this approach, with a court explaining, pas, essentially dismissed as "junk science", is not generally accepted in the scientific community, as it is not an approved term or diagnosis in the field of psychiatry and no new york court has allowed the admission of testimony concerning pas.... however, new york courts have embraced parental alienation as a concept. in recognizing that parental alienation can exist, some courts have loosely defined it as a custodial parent's active interference with or deliberate and unjustified frustration of the non-custodial parents' reasonable right of access to the child. that approach treats parental alienation as a descriptive concept, allowing a court to consider parental behavior without the need to determine whether parental alienation is a valid psychological construct.