Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand

Reviewed by Wichuda Atthamethakon, LL.M., Thai Bar Licence 3149/2556, for ThaiLawOnline, a Thai law firm acting for foreigners since 2006.

Parental alienation syndrome in Thailand (also known as “PAS”) or other countries is a type of emotional child abuse. It can seriously harm both the child and the parent who is being alienated. It occurs when one parent manipulates their child’s emotions to distance them from the other parent. It occurs typically after a divorce or separation. The effects of Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand can last well into adulthood. It may also lead to long-lasting psychological trauma. It’s important to know what it is, how it happens, and how to protect children from it.

What Is Parental Alienation Syndrome?

Addressing Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand should involve open dialogue and a commitment to co-parenting strategies that prioritize the child’s interests. Parents need to recognize the signs of Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand to intervene effectively.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a type of emotional child abuse that occurs when one parent manipulates their child’s emotions to distance them from the other parent. This form of psychological abuse typically arises following divorce or separation, when a custodial parent, intentionally or unconsciously, engages in behaviors designed to destroy the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The effects of parental alienation can be devastating. Children subjected to alienating behavior may develop anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, difficulty forming healthy relationships, and long-lasting psychological trauma that extends well into adulthood. For the targeted parent, the experience is equally devastating, watching their child turn against them without understanding why.

While the psychological impact of parental alienation is well-documented internationally, Thailand’s legal system approaches this issue differently. Thai courts do not recognize PAS as a legal concept or medical diagnosis. Instead, Thai family law provides specific mechanisms, including custody modification (Section 1521 CCC) and revocation of parental authority (Section 1582 CCC), to address parental conduct that harms a child’s welfare. Understanding these legal tools is essential for any parent seeking to protect their relationship with their child in Thailand.

The Origin and Evolution of Parental Alienation Syndrome

The concept of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) was not initially established by a supreme court of a country. It was rather coined in 1985 by Dr. Richard A. Gardner, an American child psychiatrist. While the earliest legal literature describing alienating behaviors dates back to an 1804 English case (De Manneville v. De Manneville), Gardner’s formal thesis emerged in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s. During this time, family courts shifted from the “tender-years” doctrine, which presumed mothers were inherently superior caregivers, to the gender-neutral “best-interests-of-the-child” standard and joint custody models.

Gardner posited that this shift led to a surge in bitter custody litigation, during which one parent would “brainwash” or program the child to wage an unjustified campaign of denigration and hatred against the other parent. Although PAS has been cited in various family courts globally, its admissibility has been widely challenged; for example, the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom has rejected its admissibility, and numerous U.S. appellate courts have debated its scientific validity without a unified Supreme Court ruling endorsing it.

Over time, the concept has evolved from Gardner’s strict medical “syndrome” label to a broader understanding of “parental alienation” (PA) and “resist-refuse dynamics”. Modern psychological and legal professionals often reject the narrow PAS model because it overly simplifies the issue by blaming only one parent for a child’s rejection. Today, the actual thesis recognizes that when a child refuses contact with a parent, it is typically a complex, multi-factored issue.

While true parental alienation involves one parent intentionally using coercive control and psychological manipulation to destroy the child’s relationship with the targeted parent, a child’s rejection can also stem from legitimate “estrangement” (due to actual abuse, neglect, or poor parenting by the rejected parent), the child’s own vulnerabilities, or the extreme stress of the litigation process. Consequently, the focus has shifted toward identifying specific “parental alienating behaviors” rather than diagnosing a medical syndrome.

Why Parental Alienation Syndrome Remains Controversial

Today, the concept remains highly controversial and is fraught with systemic problems. Neither the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 nor the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 recognizes parental alienation as a standalone psychiatric disorder.

A major problem is that parental alienation accusations are frequently weaponized in family courts, often by abusive parents attempting to deflect legitimate allegations of domestic violence or child sexual abuse. Critics and domestic violence advocates highlight that the label has been used to discredit protective parents, disproportionately mothers, resulting in dangerous custody reversals where children are placed into the care of their abusers or forced into traumatizing “reunification camps”.

In response to tragedies resulting from these court decisions, legislation like “Kayden’s Law” has recently been enacted in several U.S. states to restrict the use of unproven reunification therapies and ensure courts prioritize child safety and evidence of past abuse over claims of alienation.

This global controversy underscores why Thai courts take a different, and arguably more practical, approach. Rather than engaging with the PAS debate, Thai family courts look at what a parent actually did or failed to do, measured against the concrete standard of the child’s welfare.

Education on Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand can empower parents to make informed decisions about custody and visitation rights.

A Critical Note: “Parental Alienation” Is Not Recognized in Thai Law

It is important to understand from the outset that Thai law does not recognize “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) as a legal doctrine or medical diagnosis. Unlike certain jurisdictions in the United States, Canada, or Europe where PAS has gained traction in custody proceedings, Thai family courts do not apply this concept when deciding custody disputes.

This does not mean that Thai law leaves you without remedies. On the contrary, Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) provides robust mechanisms for modifying custody arrangements and even revoking parental authority when a parent engages in misconduct. This includes behavior that Western practitioners might classify as “parental alienation”.

The key difference is in the framing: Thai courts evaluate parental conduct through the lens of the child’s welfare and parental fitness, not through the lens of alienation theory. Understanding this distinction is critical for any parent, especially a foreign parent, seeking legal protection in Thailand.

What Thai Law Actually Says: The Legal Framework

Thai custody law is governed by Book V (Family) of the Civil and Commercial Code, specifically Sections 1520 through 1598/37. The framework operates on a simple principle: the best interest of the child comes first.

Thai courts address Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand through these key provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code:

CCC Provision	What It Does
Section 1520	After divorceThe court decides which parent exercises parental authority based on the child’s welfare and the consideration of both parents’ involvement.
Section 1521	Allows the court to change custodial arrangements when circumstances change, the primary remedy for alienating behavior
Section 1566	Lists who holds parental authority (both parents during marriage, one parent after divorce) under the child custody laws.
Section 1567	Defines the scope of parental authority, residence, discipline, age-appropriate work, and reclaiming a child from unlawful detention
Section 1582	Allows revocation of parental authority, in part or in whole, for improper exercise of parental power, bad conduct, or a court order of incompetency, the most severe remedy
Section 1584/1	Protects the non-custodial parent’s right to visit and maintain a relationship with the child

Section 1520 CCC, Custody on Divorce

When parents divorce, the court must decide which parent will exercise custody. If the parents reach an agreement, the court will generally respect it. If they cannot agree, the court decides based on the child’s welfare. Importantly, Section 1520 also provides that on a divorce by judgment the court may revoke a parent’s parental power where there are grounds under Section 1582 and appoint a third party as guardian, a powerful provision that underscores how seriously Thai law treats parental fitness.

Section 1521 CCC, Modification of Custody Arrangements

This is often the most relevant provision for parents dealing with alienating behavior. Section 1521 allows the court to change an existing custody arrangement when circumstances have materially changed since the original order. A parent who is being denied access, or whose child is being turned against them by the custodial parent, may petition under Section 1521 to have custody modified.

Section 1521 lets the court change who exercises parental power where that parent behaves improperly or circumstances have changed since the order, always with the child’s welfare as the test. To rely on a change of circumstances, you must demonstrate that conditions have shifted since the original order was made. Examples include: the custodial parent repeatedly blocking visitation, relocating the child without consent, or systematically undermining the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Section 1582 CCC, Revocation of Parental Authority

This is the most severe remedy available. Section 1582 allows the court to revoke a parent’s parental authority when that parent has abused their parental power, behaved badly, or been declared incompetent or quasi-incompetent by the court. Revocation may be in part or in whole, and the court may act on its own motion or when a relative of the child or the public prosecutor applies.

Revocation under Section 1582 is not the same as modification under Section 1521. Modification changes who exercises custody; revocation strips a parent of their legal authority entirely. Courts reserve Section 1582 for serious cases, abandonment, abuse, criminal conduct, or persistent and egregious failure to perform parental duties.

For foreign parents: Do not confuse these two remedies. If your ex-spouse is badmouthing you to your child, that alone is unlikely to trigger revocation under Section 1582. However, if they are systematically denying court-ordered access, concealing the child’s location, or interfering with the child’s schooling, a petition under Section 1521 for custody modification, supported by concrete evidence, may be appropriate. Consult a child custody lawyer in Bangkok before deciding which route to pursue.

The law behind this page

English

Section 1521

Full text

If it appears that the person exercising parental power, or the guardian, under Section 1520 behaves improperly, or circumstances have subsequently changed, the Court may order a change of the person exercising parental power or of the guardian, having regard above all to the happiness and interest of the child.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 1582

The court may deprive a person of parental power, in whole or in part, where that person is adjudged incompetent or quasi-incompetent, abuses the parental power as regards the child's person, or is guilty of gross misconduct. Separately, where the person is bankrupt or is likely to endanger the minor's property by mismanagement, the court may deprive that person of the right of management. In either case the court may act of its own motion, or on the application of a relative of the child or of the Public Prosecutor.

Full text

If the person exercising parental power is adjudged incompetent or quasi-incompetent by order of the Court, or exercises parental power over the person of the minor improperly, or is guilty of gross misconduct, the Court may, of its own motion or on the application of a relative of the minor or of the public prosecutor, order that person to be deprived of parental power in part or in whole. If the person exercising parental power becomes bankrupt, or manages the minor's property wrongly so as to endanger it, the Court may, by the procedure in paragraph one, order that person to be deprived of the power to manage the property.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 1520Amended on 23 January 2025

Full text

In the case of a divorce by mutual consent, the spouses shall make a written agreement as to which of them is to exercise parental power over which child. If no agreement is made, or agreement cannot be reached, the court shall decide. In the case of a divorce by judgment of the court, the court trying the divorce action shall also decide which party is to exercise parental power over which child. If, in so deciding, the court considers that there are grounds under Section 1582 for depriving the spouses of parental power, the court may deprive the spouses of parental power and order that a third person be guardian. In all of this, the court shall have regard primarily to the well-being and interests of the child.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 1584/1

Full text

A father or a mother is entitled to contact with their child as is reasonable in the circumstances, whoever exercises parental power over the child or is the child's guardian.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 1566

A minor child is under the parental power of both parents. Parental power rests with the father or the mother alone only in the cases this section lists, such as the death of the other parent, an adjudication of incapacity or quasi-incapacity, or a court order giving parental power to one of them.

Full text

A child who has not yet attained majority is subject to the parental power of the father and mother. Parental power rests with the father or the mother in the following cases: (1) the mother or the father is dead; (2) it is uncertain whether the mother or the father is alive or dead; (3) the mother or the father has been ordered by the court to be an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person; (4) the mother or the father has to be admitted to hospital by reason of mental infirmity; (5) the court orders that parental power rest with the father or the mother; (6) the father and mother have so agreed, in a case where the law provides that they may agree.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 1567Amended on 25 March 2025

A person exercising parental power may determine the child's place of residence, punish the child to admonish, instruct or correct the child's behaviour, provided it does not amount to cruelty, violent harm to the child's body or mind, or improper treatment, require the child to do work reasonably suited to the child's ability and station in life, and demand the return of the child from anyone unlawfully detaining the child. Representing the child is Section 1569 and managing the child's property is Section 1571.

Full text

The person exercising parental power has the right: (1) to determine the child's place of residence; (2) to punish the child for the purpose of admonition, instruction or correcting behaviour, provided that this does not amount to cruelty, physical or mental violence, or other wrongful treatment; (3) to require the child to do work suitable to the child's ability and station in life; (4) to demand the return of the child from any other person who unlawfully detains the child.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 317Amended on 21 March 2017

Section 317 punishes taking a child not over fifteen years of age away from its parents, guardian or carer without reasonable cause, with imprisonment from three to fifteen years and a fine from 60,000 to 300,000 baht. Anyone who dishonestly buys, disposes of or receives such a child is punished in the same way, and the penalty is heavier where the taking was for profit or for an indecent purpose.

Full text

Whoever, without reasonable cause, takes a child not over fifteen years of age away from its parents, guardian or carer shall be liable to imprisonment from three to fifteen years and a fine from sixty thousand to three hundred thousand baht. Whoever dishonestly buys, disposes of, or receives a child taken away under paragraph one shall be liable to the same punishment as the person who took the child away. Where the offence under this Section is committed for profit or for an indecent purpose, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment from five to twenty years and a fine from one hundred thousand to four hundred thousand baht.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

Section 318Amended on 21 March 2017

Taking a minor over fifteen but not over eighteen away from parents, guardian or carer, where the minor was not willing to go, carries two to ten years and a fine from 40,000 to 200,000 baht. No special purpose need be shown, unlike Section 319 where the minor was willing.

Full text

Whoever takes a minor over fifteen but not over eighteen years of age away from its parents, guardian or carer, without that minor being willing to go, shall be liable to imprisonment from two to ten years and a fine from forty thousand to two hundred thousand baht. Whoever dishonestly buys, disposes of, or receives a minor taken away under paragraph one shall be liable to the same punishment as the person who took the minor away. Where the offence under this Section is committed for profit or for an indecent purpose, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment from three to fifteen years and a fine from sixty thousand to three hundred thousand baht.

ThaiLawOnline translation

Our annotated sectionOfficial text

ไทย

มาตรา 1521

ข้อความเต็ม

ถ้าปรากฏว่าผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองหรือผู้ปกครองตามมาตรา ๑๕๒๐ ประพฤติตนไม่สมควร หรือภายหลังพฤติการณ์ได้เปลี่ยนแปลงไป ศาลมีอำนาจสั่งเปลี่ยนตัวผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองหรือผู้ปกครองโดยคำนึงถึงความผาสุกและประโยชน์ของบุตรเป็นสำคัญ

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 1582

ข้อความเต็ม

ถ้าผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองเป็นคนไร้ความสามารถหรือเสมือนไร้ความสามารถโดยคำสั่งของศาลก็ดี ใช้อำนาจปกครองเกี่ยวแก่ตัวผู้เยาว์โดยมิชอบก็ดี ประพฤติชั่วร้ายก็ดี ในกรณีเหล่านี้ศาลจะสั่งเอง หรือจะสั่งเมื่อญาติของผู้เยาว์หรืออัยการร้องขอให้ถอนอำนาจปกครองเสียบางส่วนหรือทั้งหมดก็ได้ถ้าผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองล้มละลายก็ดี หรือจัดการทรัพย์สินของผู้เยาว์ในทางที่ผิดจนอาจเป็นภัยก็ดี ศาลจะสั่งตามวิธีในวรรคหนึ่งให้ถอนอำนาจจัดการทรัพย์สินเสียก็ได้

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 1520แก้ไขเมื่อ 23 มกราคม 2568

ข้อความเต็ม

ในกรณีหย่าโดยความยินยอม ให้คู่สมรสทำความตกลงเป็นหนังสือว่า ฝ่ายใดจะเป็นผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองบุตรคนใด ถ้ามิได้ตกลงกันหรือตกลงกันไม่ได้ ให้ศาลเป็นผู้ชี้ขาด ในกรณีหย่าโดยคำพิพากษาของศาล ให้ศาลซึ่งพิจารณาคดีฟ้องหย่านั้นชี้ขาดด้วยว่าฝ่ายใดจะเป็นผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองบุตรคนใด ในการพิจารณาชี้ขาดถ้าศาลเห็นว่ามีเหตุที่จะถอนอำนาจปกครองของคู่สมรสนั้นได้ตามมาตรา ๑๕๘๒ ศาลจะถอนอำนาจปกครองของคู่สมรสและสั่งให้บุคคลภายนอกเป็นผู้ปกครองก็ได้ ทั้งนี้ ให้ศาลคำนึงถึงความผาสุกและประโยชน์ของบุตรนั้นเป็นสำคัญ

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 1584/1

ข้อความเต็ม

บิดาหรือมารดาย่อมมีสิทธิที่จะติดต่อกับบุตรของตนได้ตามควรแก่พฤติการณ์ ไม่ว่าบุคคลใดจะเป็นผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองหรือผู้ปกครองก็ตาม

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 1566

ข้อความเต็ม

บุตรซึ่งยังไม่บรรลุนิติภาวะต้องอยู่ใต้อำนาจปกครองของบิดามารดา อำนาจปกครองอยู่กับบิดาหรือมารดาในกรณีดังต่อไปนี้ (๑) มารดาหรือบิดาตาย (๒) ไม่แน่นอนว่ามารดาหรือบิดามีชีวิตอยู่หรือตาย (๓) มารดาหรือบิดาถูกศาลสั่งให้เป็นคนไร้ความสามารถหรือเสมือนไร้ความสามารถ (๔) มารดาหรือบิดาต้องเข้ารักษาตัวในโรงพยาบาลเพราะจิตฟั่นเฟือน (๕) ศาลสั่งให้อำนาจปกครองอยู่กับบิดาหรือมารดา (๖) บิดาและมารดาตกลงกันตามที่มีกฎหมายบัญญัติไว้ให้ตกลงกันได้

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 1567แก้ไขเมื่อ 25 มีนาคม 2568

ข้อความเต็ม

ผู้ใช้อำนาจปกครองมีสิทธิ(๑) กำหนดที่อยู่ของบุตร(๒) ทำโทษบุตรเพื่อว่ากล่าวสั่งสอนหรือปรับพฤติกรรม โดยต้องไม่เป็นการกระทำทารุณกรรมหรือทำร้ายด้วยความรุนแรงต่อร่างกายหรือจิตใจ หรือกระทำโดยมิชอบ(๓) ให้บุตรทำการงานตามสมควรแก่ความสามารถและฐานานุรูป(๔) เรียกบุตรคืนจากบุคคลอื่นซึ่งกักบุตรไว้โดยมิชอบด้วยกฎหมาย

ตรงตามข้อความในราชกิจจานุเบกษา / สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกฤษฎีกา (Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 317แก้ไขเมื่อ 21 มีนาคม 2560

ข้อความเต็ม

ผู้ใดโดยปราศจากเหตุอันสมควร พรากเด็กอายุยังไม่เกินสิบห้าปีไปเสียจากบิดามารดา ผู้ปกครอง หรือผู้ดูแล ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกตั้งแต่สามปีถึงสิบห้าปี และปรับตั้งแต่หกหมื่นบาทถึงสามแสนบาท ผู้ใดโดยทุจริต ซื้อ จำหน่าย หรือรับตัวเด็กซึ่งถูกพรากตามวรรคแรก ต้องระวางโทษเช่นเดียวกับผู้พรากนั้น ถ้าความผิดตามมาตรานี้ได้กระทำเพื่อหากำไร หรือเพื่อการอนาจาร ผู้กระทำต้องระวางโทษจำคุกตั้งแต่ห้าปีถึงยี่สิบปี และปรับตั้งแต่หนึ่งแสนบาทถึงสี่แสนบาท หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๑๑ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๖) พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๐]

ข้อความจากฐานข้อมูลประมวลกฎหมายของเรา โปรดตรวจสอบกับข้อความทางการ (Thai text from our annotated code. Check it against the official text.)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

มาตรา 318แก้ไขเมื่อ 21 มีนาคม 2560

ข้อความเต็ม

ผู้ใดพรากผู้เยาว์อายุกว่าสิบห้าปี แต่ยังไม่เกินสิบแปดปีไปเสีย จากบิดามารดา ผู้ปกครอง หรือผู้ดูแล โดยผู้เยาว์นั้นไม่เต็มใจไปด้วย ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกตั้งแต่สองปีถึงสิบปี และปรับตั้งแต่สี่หมื่นบาทถึงสองแสนบาท ผู้ใดโดยทุจริต ซื้อ จำหน่าย หรือรับตัวผู้เยาว์ซึ่งถูกพรากตามวรรคแรก ต้องระวางโทษเช่นเดียวกับผู้พรากนั้น ถ้าความผิดตามมาตรานี้ได้กระทำเพื่อหากำไร หรือเพื่อการอนาจาร ผู้กระทำต้องระวางโทษจำคุกตั้งแต่สามปีถึงสิบห้าปี และปรับตั้งแต่หกหมื่นบาทถึงสามแสนบาท หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๑๑ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๖) พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๐]

ข้อความจากฐานข้อมูลประมวลกฎหมายของเรา โปรดตรวจสอบกับข้อความทางการ (Thai text from our annotated code. Check it against the official text.)

มาตราพร้อมหมายเหตุของเราข้อความทางการ

Français

Article 1521

Si le titulaire de l'autorité parentale ou le tuteur visé à l'article 1520 se conduit mal, ou si les circonstances changent, le tribunal peut le remplacer, en considérant principalement le bien-être et l'intérêt de l'enfant.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 1582

Le tribunal, d'office ou sur demande d'un parent du mineur ou du procureur, peut retirer l'autorité parentale, en tout ou partie, en cas d'incapacité judiciaire, d'abus ou d'inconduite; en cas de faillite ou de gestion dangereuse, il peut retirer la gestion des biens.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 1520Modifié le 23 janvier 2025

En cas de divorce par consentement mutuel, les époux conviennent par écrit de celui d'entre eux qui exercera l'autorité parentale sur chaque enfant. À défaut d'accord, ou s'ils ne parviennent pas à s'accorder, le tribunal statue. En cas de divorce prononcé par jugement, le tribunal saisi de l'action en divorce statue également sur la partie qui exercera l'autorité parentale sur chaque enfant. Si, en statuant, le tribunal estime qu'il existe un motif de retirer l'autorité parentale aux époux en vertu de l'article 1582, il peut leur retirer l'autorité parentale et ordonner qu'un tiers soit tuteur. Dans tous les cas, le tribunal prend principalement en considération le bien-être et l'intérêt de l'enfant.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 1584/1

Le père ou la mère a le droit d'entretenir des contacts avec son enfant dans la mesure raisonnable selon les circonstances, quelle que soit la personne qui exerce l'autorité parentale ou la tutelle sur cet enfant.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 1566

L'enfant qui n'a pas encore atteint la majorité est soumis à l'autorité parentale de ses père et mère. L'autorité parentale appartient au père ou à la mère dans les cas suivants : 1° la mère ou le père est décédé ; 2° il est incertain que la mère ou le père soit en vie ou décédé ; 3° la mère ou le père a été déclaré par le tribunal incapable ou quasi incapable ; 4° la mère ou le père doit être admis à l'hôpital en raison d'un trouble mental ; 5° le tribunal ordonne que l'autorité parentale appartienne au père ou à la mère ; 6° le père et la mère en sont convenus, dans les cas où la loi leur permet de convenir.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 1567Modifié le 25 mars 2025

Le titulaire de l'autorité parentale peut fixer la résidence de l'enfant, le punir pour le corriger sans cruauté, violence physique ou psychologique ni abus, le faire travailler selon ses capacités et sa condition, et le réclamer à quiconque le retient illégalement.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 317Modifié le 21 mars 2017

Soustraire sans motif raisonnable un enfant de quinze ans au plus à ses parents, tuteur ou gardien est puni d'un emprisonnement de 3 à 15 ans et d'une amende de 60 000 à 300 000 bahts. Acheter, vendre ou recevoir frauduleusement l'enfant ainsi soustrait est puni de même. Si l'infraction vise un profit ou des fins indécentes: emprisonnement de 5 à 20 ans et amende de 100 000 à 400 000 bahts.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Article 318Modifié le 21 mars 2017

Soustraire un mineur de plus de quinze ans et de dix-huit ans au plus à ses parents, tuteur ou gardien, contre son gré: emprisonnement de 2 à 10 ans et amende de 40 000 à 200 000 bahts. Acheter, vendre ou recevoir frauduleusement le mineur ainsi soustrait est puni de même. Si l'infraction vise un profit ou des fins indécentes: emprisonnement de 3 à 15 ans et amende de 60 000 à 300 000 bahts.

résumé non officiel

Notre article annotéTexte officiel

Supreme Court decisions

• 4104/2564 (2021): Expelling the Wife From the Home Is Serious Hostility; Later Family Trips Are Not Forgiveness
• 1649/2567 (2024): A Guardian Cannot Renounce a Minor's Inheritance Without Prior Court Approval
• 8151/2560 (2017): At-Fault Spouse Cannot Claim Alimony but May Get Maintenance Until the Divorce Is Final

Sources

• Civil and Commercial Code, Office of the Council of State, retrieved 31 October 2026
• Penal Code, Office of the Council of State, retrieved 31 October 2026
• deka.supremecourt.or.th, Supreme Court of Thailand decisions database (copy held in our library), retrieved 19 February 2026

How Thai Courts Evaluate Parental Misconduct in Custody Disputes

Thai courts do not use the term “parental alienation.” Instead, they assess whether a parent’s conduct serves or harms the child’s welfare. When the Supreme Court of Thailand (ศาลฎีกา) reviews custody disputes, it consistently focuses on several factors:

1. The Child’s Physical and Emotional Wellbeing

The court examines who has been the child’s primary caregiver, whether the child is healthy and thriving, and whether the child’s emotional needs are being met. A parent who creates an environment of hostility or anxiety, for example, by constantly disparaging the other parent in front of the child, may be viewed as failing to provide emotional stability.

2. Stability and Continuity

Thai courts are conservative and generally prefer to maintain the status quo unless there is a compelling reason to change it. If a child has been living with one parent and is stable in their school and social environment, courts are reluctant to uproot them. This means that a parent seeking to change custody must present strong evidence that the current arrangement is harming the child.

3. The Parent’s Conduct and Cooperation

Courts look favorably on the parent who facilitates, rather than obstructs, the child’s relationship with the other parent. A custodial parent who repeatedly denies visitation, speaks negatively about the other parent to the child, or makes unilateral decisions about the child’s life without consulting the other parent may be seen as failing to act in the child’s best interest.

4. The Parent’s Fitness and Lifestyle

This includes financial stability, moral character, living conditions, and the presence of other household members. Courts will consider whether a parent’s lifestyle or personal conduct creates risks for the child.

Thai Supreme Court Decisions on Parental Alienation

While Thai law does not yet recognise “parental alienation syndrome” as a standalone legal doctrine, the Supreme Court (ศาลฎีกา) has repeatedly addressed the underlying behaviour, blocking contact, manipulating custody, and speaking ill of a co-parent, through existing provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code on parental authority (อำนาจปกครอง) and the best interest of the child (ประโยชน์สูงสุดของเด็ก). The following landmark decisions illustrate how Thai courts protect children and alienated parents.

Blocking a Parent From Seeing Their Child, Supreme Court Decision No. 819/2546 (2003)

In this case, a mother left an abusive household with her child. The father’s family then tricked the child away and systematically prevented the mother from having any contact. Despite being blocked at every turn, the mother never stopped trying, she even followed the father to a hospital vaccination appointment, where the father physically assaulted her.

The Supreme Court awarded the mother sole parental authority, noting her “great love for the child” (ความรักอันยิ่งใหญ่ที่โจทก์มีต่อบุตรผู้เยาว์) and the fact that “even though the plaintiff was blocked from seeing the child, she never gave up trying.” The Court found that the father could not care for the child himself and had been leaving the child with relatives.

Key takeaway: Thai courts view a parent who obstructs contact as exercising parental authority improperly, and this can be grounds for transferring custody entirely.

Changed Circumstances Can Override a Custody Agreement, Supreme Court Decision No. 448/2546 (2003)

A mother who had agreed to give the father custody during divorce later sought to regain parental authority. The father had placed the twin boys with his own mother in another province while the father lived elsewhere. The mother alleged the father and his family obstructed her visits. She eventually took the children and raised them successfully for five years, enrolling them in school and providing stable care.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and transferred parental authority to the mother, applying the “welfare and best interest of the child” standard (ความผาสุกและประโยชน์ของบุตร) under Sections 1520-1521. The Court reasoned that circumstances had materially changed, disrupting the children’s now-stable life with the mother would cause harm.

Key takeaway: Even if a divorce agreement grants one parent custody, Thai courts can and will reassign parental authority when the child’s best interest demands it under Section 1521 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

Enforcing a Custody Settlement on the Child’s Surname, Supreme Court Decision No. 7547/2561 (2018, Full Bench)

After a mediated divorce settlement gave the mother sole custody, she changed the child’s surname from the father’s to her own without the father’s consent. The father asked the court to enforce the compromise and to restore his surname.

In a Full Bench (ประชุมใหญ่) decision, the Supreme Court ruled the surname change was improper. Changing a child’s surname is not among the rights Section 1567 gives the parent who holds parental power. The Court ordered the mother to register the father’s surname as the child’s middle name within 30 days, failing which the father could do it himself, and held that the court has power to make that order without a prior application to the district registrar.

Key takeaway: holding parental power does not let one parent cut the other out of the child’s identity, and the court will enforce a compromise judgment on custody against the parent who departs from it. If you are negotiating a divorce settlement, put what matters to you, including a mutual non-disparagement clause, into the compromise itself.

When Parents Weaponise Custody, Supreme Court Decision No. 2998/2565 (2022)

This highly contentious case between two medical doctors featured an extraordinarily detailed settlement agreement: shared parental power with the children living with one parent, handovers every Sunday morning at a named department store and a return the same evening, school and tutoring choices split between the parents, maintenance of 100,000 baht a month, and an express ban on either parent disparaging the other. Despite all of this the arrangement broke down, and the case went back to court over who should hold parental power.

The Supreme Court ultimately split parental power, one child to each parent, in Decision No. 1781/2565: one parent took sole parental power over one boy and the other sole parental power over the second. It shows that where a shared arrangement has failed, the Court will restructure it rather than keep it alive. Decision No. 2998/2565 is the sequel to it: once parental power had been split that way, the temporary orders the lower courts had made could no longer be enforced, and the Supreme Court corrected them so that they did not contradict the final ruling.

Last reviewed: 19 September 2026. This was a targeted review of the case citations on this page rather than of the page as a whole. Decision 2998/2565 was read in Thai and the account above is accurate, including the settlement terms and the reason the lower courts’ temporary orders fell away. Decision 1781/2565 is not held in our sources, so it was verified indirectly: 2998/2565 quotes its outcome in terms, giving one boy to each parent. The facts of 1781/2565 itself, including why the arrangement failed, have not been read against that judgment and are not asserted here. Re-read on 5 October 2026: Decisions 7547/2561, 4681/2552, 448/2546, 819/2546, 2199/2561, 3902/2568, 6155/2540, 3772/2565, 4323/2540 and 1616/2518 were read in Thai. The non-disparagement clause this page quoted from 7547/2561 does not appear in that judgment, which ordered the father’s surname added as a middle name; that passage and every claim built on it (that courts enforce such clauses, and that 2998/2565 reassigned custody for breach of one) were withdrawn. 4681/2552 is about bringing the request by petition, not mediation; 819/2546 was an initial award, not a modification. Three garbled sentences were repaired.

Key takeaway: where a shared arrangement has broken down, the court can restructure custody rather than keep it alive, as the split in 1781/2565 shows. Why that arrangement failed has not been read here, so do not treat these cases as authority on the consequences of obstruction as such.

International Custody and the Best Interest Standard, Supreme Court Decision No. 3902/2568 (2025)

A Belgian father sought sole custody and revocation of the Thai mother’s parental authority, along with orders for the mother to sign documents granting the children Belgian citizenship. The case demonstrates that cross-border custody disputes follow the same “best interest of the child” framework as domestic cases. While this particular case was dismissed as moot when the father passed away during proceedings, the lower courts had already ordered the mother to cooperate on nationality documentation, a significant point for foreign parents.

Key takeaway: Foreign parents have standing to petition Thai courts for custody changes and nationality-related orders. The courts apply the same child-centred standard regardless of the parent’s nationality. Learn more about father’s rights in Thailand.

Additional Procedural Decisions

ฎีกาที่ 4323/2540 (1997): The court exercised its power under Section 1582 to revoke parental authority on its own initiative, without anyone applying (โดยลำพังโดยไม่ต้องให้ผู้ใดร้องขอ) where a mother had abandoned her child at approximately one year old and did not return, raising serious concerns under the child protection act. The court appointed the person who had actually been raising the child as guardian, confirming that persistent failure to perform parental duties is grounds for revocation.

ฎีกาที่ 4681/2552 (2009): A request to change parental power may be brought by petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the court’s power to change parental authority under Section 1521 (read together with Section 1566(5)), confirming that post-divorce custody arrangements, even those agreed upon between the parties, can be revised when circumstances change.

ฎีกาที่ 6155/2540 (1997): This decision addressed jurisdictional rules for custody disputes arising from divorce agreements registered at a district office, a reminder that choosing the correct court is a threshold issue.

ฎีกาที่ 3772/2565 (2022): A new custody petition is not barred as a “repeat claim” (ฟ้องซ้ำ) when the earlier case ended by compromise without a substantive ruling on the merits. Parents retain the right to bring fresh petitions based on current circumstances.

ฎีกาที่ 1616/2518 (1975): Even where the father normally holds parental authority, the court left a two-year-old child with the mother, reasoning that a very young child’s need for stability and maternal warmth outweighed the father’s custodial claim, preserving the modification pathway under Section 1521.

These decisions, taken together, paint a clear picture: Thai courts have the tools and the willingness to address parental conduct that harms a child’s relationship with the other parent. The key is presenting concrete, documented evidence, not psychological theories.

Criminal Dimensions: When Alienation Crosses Into Abduction

Many foreign parents ask whether Thailand’s criminal law offers protection against parental alienation. The answer requires precision.

Sections 317-319 of the Thai Criminal Code address the offence of “taking away” a minor (พรากผู้เยาว์). However, these provisions are designed for situations involving the physical removal or concealment of a child, not psychological manipulation.

• Section 317 criminalizes taking a child aged 15 or under away from their parent, guardian or carer without reasonable cause.
• Section 318 covers taking a minor over 15 but not over 18 away from their parent, guardian or carer where the minor does not go willingly.
• Section 319 covers taking a minor over 15 but not over 18 away from their parent, guardian or carer for profit or for an indecent purpose, where the minor goes willingly.

What this means in practice: If a custodial parent physically relocates the child to another province or country without the other parent’s consent, or conceals the child’s whereabouts in defiance of a court order, Sections 317-319 may apply. Police and prosecutors can act on this basis. For more on this topic, see our article on child abduction in Thailand.

However, these provisions do not cover psychological alienation. A parent who speaks negatively about the other parent, discourages phone calls, or subtly undermines the child’s affection is not committing an offence under Sections 317-319, because there is no physical taking or concealment.

Practical takeaway: Do not rely on criminal law as your primary strategy for addressing alienating behavior. The criminal route is appropriate only when the child has been physically removed or hidden. For all other situations, the civil remedy is petitioning for custody modification under Section 1521 CCC . That’s the correct legal avenue.

Practical Guidance for Foreign Parents in Thailand

If you are a foreign parent dealing with behavior that resembles parental alienation, here is what you need to know:

1. Thai Courts Require Concrete Evidence, Not Theories

Do not walk into a Thai courtroom and argue “parental alienation syndrome.” The judge will not be familiar with the concept, and it may undermine your credibility. Instead, focus on specific, documented conduct: dates your visitation was denied, evidence of school enrollment changes made without your knowledge, screenshots of messages showing the other parent instructing the child not to speak with you, and witness statements from teachers, neighbors, or family members. The mother in Supreme Court Decision 819/2546 won precisely because she could demonstrate persistent, documented efforts to see her child despite being blocked.

2. Include an Anti-Alienation Clause in Your Settlement

Settlements approved by the court can carry a ban on either parent disparaging the other; the agreement in 2998/2565 had one, and a compromise judgment is enforceable like any judgment (7547/2561 enforced one on the child’s surname). If you are negotiating a divorce settlement or custody arrangement, include such a clause. A breach is also evidence of improper conduct under Section 1521.

3. Changed Circumstances Are Your Legal Basis

Under Section 1521 CCC, you do not need to prove the original custody agreement was wrong, only that circumstances have materially changed and the child’s welfare now requires a different arrangement (Decision 448/2546). Alienating behavior that develops after a custody order is made, such as blocking access, relocating the child, or coaching the child against you, constitutes a change of circumstances.

4. Non-Compliance Has Real Consequences

If your co-parent refuses to follow custody orders, the court may change who exercises parental power under Section 1521 (Decision 448/2546 is an example of a change on changed circumstances). Document every instance of non-compliance. These records form the foundation of a modification petition under Section 1521, or, in extreme cases, a revocation petition under Section 1582.

5. Obtain a Court Order Early

If you are separated but do not yet have a formal custody order, you are in a vulnerable position. Without a court order, there is no legal mechanism to enforce visitation. The custodial parent (often the mother, by default under Thai law for children born outside marriage per Sections 1546 and 1566 CCC) has no obligation to allow access. Get a court order as early as possible. A child custody lawyer in Bangkok can help you initiate this process.

6. Foreign Parents Have Equal Standing

Nationality plays no part in the Civil and Commercial Code’s custody rules, and foreign parents succeed in Thai courts: in Supreme Court Decision 2199/2561 an American father was confirmed as the child’s legitimate father with sole parental power, and in 3902/2568 the trial court ordered a Thai mother to sign the documents for the children’s Belgian nationality. If you are an expatriate parent, do not assume the court will automatically favor a Thai mother over a foreign father in matters of child custody in Thailand. The law applies equally, and the court’s sole focus is the welfare of the child. Read more about father’s rights in Thailand.

Legal actions regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand remain sensitive and require careful handling to ensure the child’s emotional safety.

7. Document Everything

Thai courts rely heavily on documentary evidence. Keep records of every denied visit, every unanswered phone call, every unilateral decision made about the child. Photographs, LINE/WhatsApp messages, school records, medical records, all of these can support your case. The more specific and timestamped your evidence, the stronger your petition.

8. Be the Cooperative Parent

Courts look favorably on the parent who facilitates, rather than obstructs, the child’s relationship with both parents. If you are seen as the reasonable, cooperative parent while the other parent is blocking access, this disparity works powerfully in your favor under Section 1521.

Building Your Case: Evidence That Thai Courts Accept

To succeed in a custody modification petition under Section 1521 CCC, you must demonstrate a material change of circumstances. Here are the types of evidence Thai courts consider persuasive:

Direct Evidence of Obstruction

Documented instances where the custodial parent refused court-ordered visitation, records showing the child was not made available at agreed times, evidence of the child being taken to a different location during scheduled visits.

Communication Evidence

Screenshots of messages (LINE, WhatsApp, SMS) showing the custodial parent discouraging the child from contacting the other parent, evidence of blocked phone numbers, recordings (where legally obtained) of the custodial parent making disparaging remarks.

Institutional Records

School enrollment changes made without the non-custodial parent’s knowledge, medical decisions taken without consultation, evidence that the custodial parent provided false information to schools or hospitals about the other parent’s status.

Witness Testimony

Statements from teachers who observed changes in the child’s behavior or attitude toward a parent, testimony from family members or mutual friends, professional assessments from child psychologists (while PAS itself is not recognized, a psychologist’s observation that a child has been coached or influenced is admissible evidence).

Evidence of Relocation or Concealment

Any evidence that the custodial parent moved the child to a new address without informing the other parent, changed the child’s school without consent, or made plans to leave the country with the child. See also: child abduction in Thailand.

Important: Thailand’s privacy and recording laws apply. Ensure that any evidence you gather is obtained lawfully, especially in the context of international child abduction cases. Illegally obtained recordings may be inadmissible and could expose you to criminal liability. Always consult with your lawyer before conducting any form of surveillance or recording.

Preventing Parental Alienation in Thailand: 8 Practical Steps

While the legal remedies described above provide recourse when alienation has already occurred, prevention is always preferable. Here are eight practical steps every parent should take:

a) Encourage Open Communication

Create a safe space where your child feels comfortable expressing their feelings about both parents. Listen without judgment and validate their emotions. Children caught between parents need to know it is okay to love both.

Preventing Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand

b) Avoid Negative Talk

Never speak negatively about the other parent in front of your child, regardless of how you feel. Children internalize these remarks and suffer emotionally. If your settlement contains a non-disparagement clause, it binds you as much as the other parent: set the standard yourself.

c) Co-Parent Positively

Work with the other parent to make decisions that benefit your child. Cooperation demonstrates to the court, and more importantly to your child, that you prioritize their welfare. If direct communication is difficult, consider using a structured co-parenting app or mediator.

d) Seek Professional Help

If you suspect alienating behavior, consult both a family lawyer and a child psychologist. A psychologist can document the child’s emotional state and provide professional observations that carry weight in court, even though PAS itself is not recognized as a diagnosis in Thailand.

e) Educate Yourself and Others

Understanding Thai family law and the dynamics of parental alienation helps you recognize early warning signs and respond effectively. Share this knowledge with family members and caregivers involved in your child’s life.

f) Respect Parenting Time

If you are the custodial parent, scrupulously respect the other parent’s access schedule. Section 1584/1 CCC protects the non-custodial parent’s right to visit and maintain a relationship with the child. Obstruction can lead to custody modification under Section 1521.

g) Promote Family Activities

Encourage your child to maintain relationships with both sides of the family. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins provide essential emotional support. Cutting a child off from their extended family is detrimental and compounds the harm of alienation, affecting their overall well-being.

h) Set a Positive Example

Your child watches how you handle conflict, stress, and the divorce process. Model respectful behavior, emotional regulation, and constructive problem-solving. This not only helps your child’s emotional development but also positions you favorably in any future court proceedings.

Frequently Asked Questions About Parental Alienation in Thailand

Parental alienation syndrome is a serious problem in Thailand and other countries. It can harm a child’s emotional and mental health for a long time and can even continue well into adulthood. Parents who are going through a separation or divorce should take extra measures to prevent PAS in Thailand. By committing to healthy co-parenting practices, parents are putting the child’s needs first. They should seek out counseling and legal help when necessary. Parents can also stop Parental Alienation Syndrome in Thailand. They can also make sure their children keep good relationships with both parents.

• Parental Alienation Syndrome in Canada (2009)