Valid and invalid ways to assess the reason a child rejects a parent: The continued malignant role of “parental alienation syndrome”

Q1 Social Sciences Journal of Child Custody Pub Date : 2019-01-02 DOI:10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284
Roy Lubit
{"title":"Valid and invalid ways to assess the reason a child rejects a parent: The continued malignant role of “parental alienation syndrome”","authors":"Roy Lubit","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite widespread rejection of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), some custody evaluators use the presence of its components to invalidate abuse allegations and blame the preferred parent. Although PAS supporters claim that the elements of PAS are unique to Parental Alienation (PA) and can, therefore, be used to diagnose it, no scientific study has yet demonstrated this. Reanalysis of Gardner’s data, and our current knowledge of children, indicate that the elements of PAS are not unique to PA. Many PA/PAS advocates approach custody cases assuming that when children reject parents, it is probably the result of a denigration campaign by the preferred parent. Confirmation bias then leads the evaluator to spin, value, and vet information so that it support their expected conclusion. Children’s avoidance of significant visitation with a parent is often driven by a desire to remain with their primary attachment figure, rather than a rejection of the other parent. Forcing visitation and cutting the children’s time with the primary attachment figure leads to rejection of that parent, rather than solving it. The article suggests a method of scientifically assessing if a child’s rejection of a parent is due to PA, affinity, or justified rejection.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Child Custody","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

Abstract Despite widespread rejection of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), some custody evaluators use the presence of its components to invalidate abuse allegations and blame the preferred parent. Although PAS supporters claim that the elements of PAS are unique to Parental Alienation (PA) and can, therefore, be used to diagnose it, no scientific study has yet demonstrated this. Reanalysis of Gardner’s data, and our current knowledge of children, indicate that the elements of PAS are not unique to PA. Many PA/PAS advocates approach custody cases assuming that when children reject parents, it is probably the result of a denigration campaign by the preferred parent. Confirmation bias then leads the evaluator to spin, value, and vet information so that it support their expected conclusion. Children’s avoidance of significant visitation with a parent is often driven by a desire to remain with their primary attachment figure, rather than a rejection of the other parent. Forcing visitation and cutting the children’s time with the primary attachment figure leads to rejection of that parent, rather than solving it. The article suggests a method of scientifically assessing if a child’s rejection of a parent is due to PA, affinity, or justified rejection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估孩子拒绝父母原因的有效和无效方法:“父母疏离综合症”的持续恶性作用
尽管父母疏离综合症(parent Alienation Syndrome, PAS)被广泛拒绝,但一些监护评估者利用其组成部分的存在来证明虐待指控无效,并指责首选父母。尽管父母疏离感的支持者声称父母疏离感的因素是父母疏离感所特有的,因此可以用来诊断父母疏离感,但目前还没有科学研究证明这一点。重新分析加德纳的数据,以及我们目前对儿童的了解,表明PAS的要素并非PA所独有。许多PA/PAS的拥护者在处理监护权案件时假设,当孩子拒绝父母时,这可能是首选父母诋毁运动的结果。确认偏误会导致评估者歪曲、重视和审查信息,以支持他们预期的结论。孩子们避免与父母进行重要的探视,通常是由于他们希望与主要的依恋对象保持联系,而不是拒绝父母中的另一方。强迫探视和减少孩子与主要依恋对象在一起的时间会导致对父母的拒绝,而不是解决问题。这篇文章提出了一种科学评估孩子对父母的拒绝是由于PA、亲和还是合理的拒绝的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Child Custody
Journal of Child Custody FAMILY STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Since the days of Solomon, child custody issues have demanded extraordinary wisdom and insight. The Journal of Child Custody gives you access to the ideas, opinions, and experiences of leading experts in the field and keeps you up-to-date with the latest developments in the field as well as discussions elucidating complex legal and psychological issues. While it will not shy away from controversial topics and ideas, the Journal of Child Custody is committed to publishing accurate, balanced, and scholarly articles as well as insightful reviews of relevant books and literature.
期刊最新文献
The Child Abuse Risk Evaluation Dutch Version (CARE-NL): A retrospective validation study Assessment criteria in relocation cases: An exploratory study of Spanish family court Judges Adjustment of children in joint custody and associated variables: A systematic review First, do no harm to self: Perspectives around trauma-informed practice and secondary traumatic stress among rural child protective services workers Understanding the relationship between mothers’ childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and current parenting behaviors through adult intimate partner violence: A moderation analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1