Child Custody Evaluations: In Cases Where Parental Alienation Is Alleged

Lorandos, Demosthenes; Bone, Jan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13942-5_16

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 150 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a book chapter, Lorandos and Bone () devoted several pages to listing professionals who challenge alienation theory and making harsh personal attacks on them. Three are professional women who are longstanding critics of the concept of alienation.…”

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three are professional women who are longstanding critics of the concept of alienation. They described one author's critique as “true to the “Three Premises” of Idiot America.” (Lorandos & Bone, , p. 218). They described another author as displaying “a frank desire to mislead readers” (Lorandos & Bone, , p. 217).…”

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They described one author's critique as “true to the “Three Premises” of Idiot America.” (Lorandos & Bone, , p. 218). They described another author as displaying “a frank desire to mislead readers” (Lorandos & Bone, , p. 217). The third target complained formally to the publisher about the content and tone of the text targeting her.…”

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third target complained formally to the publisher about the content and tone of the text targeting her. After further exchanges, the next edition of the book replaced the offending text with 2 ½ pages, which are blank apart from the words “Content Excluded.” This edition also added a page at the end of the book titled “Retraction Note,” which states “the publisher chose to exclude this text” (Lorandos & Bone, , pp. 219–221, App.…”

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique

Milchman¹,

Geffner²,

Meier³

2020

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes rhetorical strategies that are often used to legitimize classifying children's parent rejection as "alienation," conceived as a mental disorder or diagnosis. Use of evaluative labels or diagnoses instead of descriptions of behavioral functioning is problematic in child custody evaluations. We address Distorted Claims of consensus, Alienation Labeling, Renaming, Proof by Assertion, Misrepresenting Endorsement by Authorities, Reduction Ad Absurdum, and Ad Personam Attacks. Rhetoric distracts from the evidence and observable behaviors required to accurately classify mistreated/alienated children and protective/alienating parents. It creates an ideology that obfuscates the absence of and need for scientific validity studies; reliable prevalence data; non-conclusory assessment of parent-child relationship quality; empirical evidence testing the coaching hypothesis; and valid, objective evaluations of treatment programs. The article concludes with suggestions to improve dialogue between scholars in order to advance research and custody evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ad Personam Attacksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations