Methodological Challenges in Social Science: Making Sense of Polarized and Competing Research Claims

The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA-from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child's rejecting stance. By contrast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children's rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi-factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Several socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the prevalence, focal concerns and ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.Persistent erroneous assumption that an alienating parent is primarily the source of a child's resistance/rejection of a parent (called the dominant Single-Factor theory of PA) is problematic in applying PA constructs in research and practice.Four principal factors (illustrating a refined multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified as goals for preventive-interventions and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across different kinds of interventions resist/refuse cases in practice.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Johnston¹,

Sullivan²

2020

“…PA activism is also furthered by distorting and reducing the legitimacy of opponents' arguments. For instance, Robb () accuses Meier and Dickson () of misrepresenting their evidence to support their conclusion that gender disparities in custody/parenting time decisions exist in PA cases. He asserts that they do not define “lost custody,” equate “winning” a custody/parenting time decision with “losing custody,” and include “termination of parental rights in the same category as cases where ‘a parent gained an hour' of time with their child.” He then concludes that Meier and Dickson's () argument for gender disparity rests on data that a father gained “even an iota of outcome that the mother opposed” (p. x).…”

Section: Reductio Ad Absurdummentioning

confidence: 99%

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.

“…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.…”

Section: More and Better Research? Absolutely And…mentioning

confidence: 99%

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...