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

This article presents our Reply to the Responses that Lorandos, Garber, Bernet, and Robb wrote to our Critique article in the Family Court Review Special Issue. Our Reply focuses on the repetition of the rhetoric that some of these authors used to distract from the issues we raised. The principal concern in our Critique article was the lack of adequate research methodology to support claims that parental alienation is a diagnosis, a condition, or a phenomenon that is directly observable rather than an inference that requires detailed behavioral descriptions, factual analysis, logical and scientific reasoning. In our Reply, we show how this concern was not properly addressed in the Responses, which does not facilitate meaningful dialog. However, we also recognize that some of the Responses facilitate improved dialog between the parental alienation and child abuse/ domestic violence communities and we welcome that.

Section: Reply To Robbmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Reply To Robbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reply To Robbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reply To Robbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reply To Robbmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Putting Science and Reasoning Back Into the “Parental Alienation” Discussion: Reply to Bernet, Robb, Lorandos, and Garber

Milchman¹,

Geffner²,

Meier³

2020

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

Milchman¹,

Geffner²,

Meier³

2020

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.

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

Fidler¹,

Bala²

2020

There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related parent-child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others. It is widely acknowledged that PCCP cases are most fruitfully understood from a multi-factorial perspective. While some cases may be totally the "fault" of one parent (a parent perpetrating violence or abuse, or a parent exhibiting alienating behavior), in many situations both parents bear some responsibility: focusing on a single cause is rarely helpful. Most professionals and researchers agree that the challenge in practice is to distinguish between false positives and false negatives for both alienation (or unjustified rejection) and realistic estrangement (justified rejection). There is continuing controversy over whether the concept of "alienation" should be used, especially in court proceedings, and a related disagreement about the extent to which family courts are now failing to respond adequately to cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) or child abuse when alienation is also raised. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active perspective-taking will contribute to effective professional involvement. Increased parent education and prevention can play an important role, although for the more severe PCCP cases the family courts system will continue to play a critical role. While more research must be done, given the complexity of issues, conclusive findings are unlikely in the near future. Legislators and family justice professionals must make decisions based on a thorough analysis of each family's circumstances in the context of our present knowledge, taking account of the limits of the law. They will often face the conundrum of making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Key Points For The Family Court Community:There have been significant advances in understandings and practice related to parent-child contact problems (PCCPs), with a growing consensus about some issues and continuing controversy about others.It is widely acknowledged that PCCPs cases are best understood and addressed by relying on a multi-factorial perspective, a family-systems approach and coordinated professional services.Attention to false positives and false negatives for both alienation (unjustified rejection) and for realistic estrangement (justified rejection) is necessary. For either of these types of contact problems and for cases involving elements of both, it may be in the child's best interest to remedy the strained parent-child relationship and for the child to maintain contact with both parents.Legal and mental health professionals involved in decision making, forensic and clinical assessments, and psychoeducational and clinical interventions face challenges in fact finding and correcting for ubiquitous cognitive biases. Continuing education, intentional exploration of alternative hypotheses, and active dialogue with openness to different perspectives will contribute to effective profess...