No abstract

Legal and mental health professionals face significant challenges when addressing situations in which children resist contact with a parent. There remains only limited empirical research on the differentiation of types and severity of contact problems, the resulting impacts on children and adolescents, and the outcomes of interventions. Often, family justice professionals encounter conflicting information that presents wildly diverging views on the scientific knowledge base used to guide understandings of human interaction. In cases involving resist-refuse dynamics ("RRD"), the polarized claims, characterized by dichotomous thinking, often assert abuse by the rejected parent, on the one hand, or alienating behavior by the favored parent, on the other hand. When presented with conflicting social science research, understanding basic experimental design methodology is critical to resolving questions of the reliability and utility of the information presented. Equally important, is an understanding of cognitive bias and the human tendency to experience difficulty in modifying belief systems when presented with updated information; this understanding includes changing conceptual frameworks for decision making in family law cases. While polarized and often acrimonious debate in the field may be reflective of larger societal strife, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in the ideas presented in research literature allows for an integrative approach to bring more light, and less heat, to the larger conceptualization of human interactions we have to address in the family court setting. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Human beings have a tendency toward too easily accepting findings that fit into their established thinking, and toward dismissing information which does not.Academic debate exists within a larger societal framework and is not exempt from the influences of socio-political strife.Inquiry errors, misunderstanding of statistics, overreliance on flawed secondary analysis, and other methodological challenges present barriers to the unwary in using social science research.

No abstract

No abstract

patterns of social policy developments does not lead to ever more cursory discussions of the historical and political context of welfare change in specific countries. Second, while the embrace of a more disinterested, social scientific approach to the study of welfare issues has some advantages in raising the professional profile of the discipline, the associated decline of the normative tradition in the subject, noted by Midgley, could lead to a situation in which ever fewer social policy academics seek to promote the progressive, transformative potential of the welfare state.