Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Confirmatory Bias and Abductive Inference in Child Custody Evaluations

Abstract

Had Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective, the great Sherlock Holmes, actually engaged in deductive reasoning, he would have solved many fewer crimes. In fact, Holmes' logical progression from astute observation to hypotheses is a model of a type of inductive reasoning. This paper argues that mental health professionals tasked to evaluate why a child is resisting/refusing contact with one parent must approach each family the way that Holmes approached each case, without a presumed suspect, moving systematically from detail to hypothesis, well‐versed in the full range of dynamics that may be at play, and erring in favor of parsimony rather than pathology. By contrast, the custody evaluator who approaches these matters through a deductive process, seeking data that support an a priori theory, is vulnerable to confirmatory bias and doing harm to the child whose interests are paramount. The literature concerned with resist/refuse dynamics is reviewed, yielding 13 non‐mutually exclusive variables that evaluators must consider so as to more fully identify why a particular child is resisting or refusing contact with one parent. On this basis, the hybrid model is expanded to include the full spectrum of contributing dynamics. Specific recommendations are made for judicial officers in the interest of writing orders for custody evaluations that minimize the risk of confirmatory bias. Key Points for the Family Court Community Deductive reasoning seeks to confirm or refute an a priori hypothesis Deductive reasoning is highly vulnerable to confirmational bias Confirmational bias can corrupt and invalidate forensic evaluation to the detriment of all involved Resist/refuse dynamics must be understood through an inductive process that is open to all possible hypotheses A survey of the literature identifies at least thirteen mutually compatible hypotheses, all of which must be evaluated Courts must take care to word orders for forensic family evaluations in a manner that minimizes confirmatory bias and invites inductive investigation

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

“…In response to the deficiencies in the Single‐Factor Model, during the past 20 years, many family court professionals have explicitly adopted or developed more nuanced, multi‐factor models to guide their assessments of and to intervene with families where a child is resisting or refusing contact with a parent. As illustrated in this Special Issue (Fidler & Bala, ), these models increasingly draw upon a wide range of basic and applied social science research (Garber, , , ; Judge & Deutsch, ).…”

“…They can generate unrealistic expectations for outcomes that, when not met, result in disappointment, further devaluation and blame. From a research perspective, the list of factors potentially contributing to resist/refuse dynamics is long, and data available to support clinical theorizing are in short supply (Garber, ). Progress toward goals and outcomes in treatment are difficult to evaluate when different factors contribute to the problem and goals of intervention vary across cases.…”

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

“…At minimum, a descriptive language is needed that is rich enough to counter decision‐making by labeling. To reduce the risk of misclassification, evaluations must be thorough, comprehensive, and objective, as many scholars have insisted (Drozd et al, ; Fidler & Bala, ; Garber, ); appropriate techniques must be used (Benjamin, Beck, Shaw, & Geffner, ; Milchman, ) and evaluators must have ‐ or arrange to retain others with ‐ objectively documented specialized expertise in child abuse, child trauma, and domestic violence.…”

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

“…In some cases, screening and assessment may occur during a child protection investigation or parenting capacity assessment as part of a child protection process (Fidler, Bala, & Hurwitz, ; Morrison, Tisdall, & Callaghan, ; Saini et al, ). If there has not been a prior criminal, child protection or IPV finding, it may be desirable to have a child custody evaluation by an adequately trained court‐appointed mental health professional, including IPV screening (Garber, ; Milchman, ), before a trial is held in family court.…”

“…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.…”