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

Abstract

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.

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

“…This common conception of “parental alienation” [PA] appears to be thriving alongside continuing controversy among researchers, professional organizations, family justice practitioners, advocates and parents as to the legitimate existence of the phenomena (Bernet, Boch‐Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, ; Clawar & Rivlin, ; Fidler & Bala, ; Johnston, 2003; Meier, , ; Milchman, Geffner, & Meier, ; Nielsen, ; Walker & Shapiro, ; Warshak, , ). Despite ongoing disagreement about the quality of social science research on the subject, disparities in acceptance of PA across interdisciplinary boundaries and professional organizations, and challenges to the admissibility and use of PA in court proceedings, more than three decades after its introduction (Gardner, , ), the concept of PA continues to be embraced by widening public, professional and international audiences (Bernet, ; Lorandos, ).…”

Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums Of “Alienation:” Lessons Learned In A Decade And Reflections On Challenges Ahead

“…While there are continuing concerns about the lack of understanding by some judges and family justice professionals of the impact of IPV and child abuse and the difficulties that victims face in the family courts (Meier, ; Meier & Dickson, ; Milchman, Geffner, & Meier, ), there is also growing professional education and recognition of the need to screen for abuse and IPV in all cases in the family courts, and practice has been changing. Most advocates for abused women recognize that in addition to issues of failure to properly identify IPV, there are also cases where one parent may influence or pressure a child into believing a parent is bad, wrong or dangerous when they are not, and the child then expressing fear, anger or resistance or rejection of the other parent.…”

“…As denigration alone by one parent was not found to lead the adult child to retrospectively report rejection of the denigrated parent, but rather the parent who was denigrating, these researchers have questioned the validity of the alienation construct and theory, the underlying mechanisms, and the existence of alienated children (Rowen & Emery, , , , ). Moreover, others have since used these findings arising out of an erroneous premise to support their concerns and skepticism about alienation theory and the underlying mechanisms (Lubit, ; Mercer, ; Milchman et al, ). However, it is important to appreciate that denigration is only one PAB, and parental behavior is only one factor in determining whether alienation is present (Fidler et al, ; Fidler, et al, ).…”

“…It is necessary to assess the relative strength and limitations of research to determine the credibility of the research, the potential influences of biases and the applicability of inference. Traps in making sense of social science research specific to alienation are discussed by Robb (), Garber (), Bernet () and Milchman et al (). The AFCC Guidelines for the Use of Social Science Research in Family Law (AFCC, ) provide useful information for family justice practitioners.…”

Misdirection and Double Standards Fail to Clarify Controversial Issues in Social Science

“…This short response is written to directly address the (mis)use by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier () of some the work of this contributor (Robb) and others.…”