Parental alienation syndrome has been considered a phenomenon that disrupts family relationships, attacking the best interests of children and adolescents; however, legally the effects of its adoption within judicial rulings are unknown. Hence, this research addresses the criteria and requirements that the Constitutional Court has established so that the parental alienation syndrome affects decision-making that affects the rights of children in family judicial proceedings. This study is approached from a qualitative method that highlights jurisprudential analysis as a systematic tool to decant the results and the respective conclusions, for this purpose the technique of the jurisprudential line proposed by the author Lopez Medina (2006) was used, which refers to the consultation of one archimedical sentence with reverse engineering about three sentences, nodal points and citational niches, to arrive at the contrasts, as well as the final reflection of the required analysis. From this, the main result is the need to carry out a scientific evaluation of the psyche of boys, girls and adolescents, in order to demonstrate the objective origin of the parental alienation syndrome in judicial processes, therefore it is concluded that Legal operators must deal with sufficiency, comprehensiveness and impartiality in cases where their best interests must be decided, to adopt rulings in their favor and not in favor of the interests of their parents.