Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1614511
Madelyn Simring Milchman
Abstract This article analyzes the evidence for parental alienation (PA) through the lens of construct validity. It defines PA as a theoretical construct. It explains why construct validity is needed to identify PA and reliably differentiate it from other causes of parent rejection. It discusses validity problems in using case examples to support PA and then focuses on empirical research. It makes recommendations for future research. Finally, it proposes a way to present evidence about PA in child custody cases that is responsive to the current state of the evidence regarding construct validity. It concludes that PA is a descriptive concept but is not yet a psychological construct because it has not yet achieved construct validity. The article suggests that the political context for PA has obstructed science. While some PA researchers are overcoming that obstacle theoretically, empirical research and forensic practice in child custody cases have yet to catch up.
{"title":"How far has parental alienation research progressed toward achieving scientific validity?","authors":"Madelyn Simring Milchman","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1614511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1614511","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyzes the evidence for parental alienation (PA) through the lens of construct validity. It defines PA as a theoretical construct. It explains why construct validity is needed to identify PA and reliably differentiate it from other causes of parent rejection. It discusses validity problems in using case examples to support PA and then focuses on empirical research. It makes recommendations for future research. Finally, it proposes a way to present evidence about PA in child custody cases that is responsive to the current state of the evidence regarding construct validity. It concludes that PA is a descriptive concept but is not yet a psychological construct because it has not yet achieved construct validity. The article suggests that the political context for PA has obstructed science. While some PA researchers are overcoming that obstacle theoretically, empirical research and forensic practice in child custody cases have yet to catch up.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74849507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1613204
J. Silberg, S. Dallam
Abstract This article presents findings and recommendations based on an in-depth examination of records from 27 custody cases from across the United States. The goal of this case series was to determine why family courts may place children with a parent that the child alleges abused them rather than with the nonoffending parent. We focused on “turned around cases” involving allegations of child abuse that were at first viewed as false and later judged to be valid. The average time a child spent in the court ordered custody of an abusive parent was 3.2 years. In all cases we uncovered the father was the abusive parent and the mother sought to protect their child. Results revealed that initially courts were highly suspicious of mothers' motives for being concerned with abuse. These mothers were often treated poorly and two-thirds of the mothers were pathologized by the court for advocating for the safety of their children. Judges who initially ordered children into custody or visitation with abusive parents relied mainly on reports by custody evaluators and guardians ad litem who mistakenly accused mothers of attempting to alienate their children from the father or having coached the child to falsely report abuse. As a result, 59% of perpetrators were given sole custody and the rest were given joint custody or unsupervised visitation. After failing to be protected in the first custody determination, 88% of children reported new incidents of abuse. The abuse often became increasingly severe and the children's mental and physical health frequently deteriorated. The main reason that cases turned around was because protective parents were able to present compelling evidence of the abuse and back the evidence up with reports by mental health professionals who had specific expertise in child abuse rather than merely custody assessment.
{"title":"Abusers gaining custody in family courts: A case series of over turned decisions","authors":"J. Silberg, S. Dallam","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1613204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1613204","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article presents findings and recommendations based on an in-depth examination of records from 27 custody cases from across the United States. The goal of this case series was to determine why family courts may place children with a parent that the child alleges abused them rather than with the nonoffending parent. We focused on “turned around cases” involving allegations of child abuse that were at first viewed as false and later judged to be valid. The average time a child spent in the court ordered custody of an abusive parent was 3.2 years. In all cases we uncovered the father was the abusive parent and the mother sought to protect their child. Results revealed that initially courts were highly suspicious of mothers' motives for being concerned with abuse. These mothers were often treated poorly and two-thirds of the mothers were pathologized by the court for advocating for the safety of their children. Judges who initially ordered children into custody or visitation with abusive parents relied mainly on reports by custody evaluators and guardians ad litem who mistakenly accused mothers of attempting to alienate their children from the father or having coached the child to falsely report abuse. As a result, 59% of perpetrators were given sole custody and the rest were given joint custody or unsupervised visitation. After failing to be protected in the first custody determination, 88% of children reported new incidents of abuse. The abuse often became increasingly severe and the children's mental and physical health frequently deteriorated. The main reason that cases turned around was because protective parents were able to present compelling evidence of the abuse and back the evidence up with reports by mental health professionals who had specific expertise in child abuse rather than merely custody assessment.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72821401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1610135
J. Rowen, R. Emery
Abstract Parental denigration is a phenomenon characterized by disparaging comments made by one parent about the other parent, in front of their children. It is an emerging area of research with implications that appear to follow from a conflict perspective, rather than a parental alienation perspective. In three prior studies of young adults, sibling pairs, and parents, denigration was found to be (a) measured reliably and validly, (b) reciprocally occurring, (c) related to children feeling more distant from both parents, particularly the more frequent denigrator, (d) associated with various measures of maladjustment, and (e) underreported by divorced parents. These results held across marital status and parent gender, in group and individual analyses, across sibling reports, and across studies. In the current study, parent reports of co-parent denigration behaviors were similar to child reports in both married and divorced families. However, divorced parents consistently underreported their own denigration behaviors compared to child reports, and their reports of parent–child closeness and attachment was not associated with child reports. This is consistent with findings from previous work that divorced parents may be less aware of their harmful behaviors and view co-parents in a globally more negative light than children perceive them.
{"title":"Parental denigration reports across parent–child dyads: Divorced parents underreport denigration behaviors compared to children","authors":"J. Rowen, R. Emery","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1610135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1610135","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Parental denigration is a phenomenon characterized by disparaging comments made by one parent about the other parent, in front of their children. It is an emerging area of research with implications that appear to follow from a conflict perspective, rather than a parental alienation perspective. In three prior studies of young adults, sibling pairs, and parents, denigration was found to be (a) measured reliably and validly, (b) reciprocally occurring, (c) related to children feeling more distant from both parents, particularly the more frequent denigrator, (d) associated with various measures of maladjustment, and (e) underreported by divorced parents. These results held across marital status and parent gender, in group and individual analyses, across sibling reports, and across studies. In the current study, parent reports of co-parent denigration behaviors were similar to child reports in both married and divorced families. However, divorced parents consistently underreported their own denigration behaviors compared to child reports, and their reports of parent–child closeness and attachment was not associated with child reports. This is consistent with findings from previous work that divorced parents may be less aware of their harmful behaviors and view co-parents in a globally more negative light than children perceive them.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74199374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-25DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1575318
Maria Khan, K. Renk
Abstract Given that young children of mothers with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) exhibit increased risk for maladaptive outcomes (including being maltreated by their caregivers), this study investigated a comprehensive model for predicting children’s emotional and behavioral problems in the context of mothers’ ACEs. A community sample of 146 mothers with children aged one and onehalf to five years provided ratings of their ACEs, depressive symptoms, parenting characteristics, mother–young child attachment, and young children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Mothers’ ACEs and depressive symptoms predicted uniquely young children’s internalizing problems. In contrast, mothers’ ACEs, depressive symptoms, and punitive parenting behaviors predicted uniquely young children’s externalizing problems. These results suggested the importance of trauma-informed interventions for high-risk mothers who may be involved with child welfare systems and for their young children who are likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems as child custody decisions are made.
{"title":"Mothers’ adverse childhood experiences, depressive symptoms, parenting, and attachment as predictors of young children’s problems","authors":"Maria Khan, K. Renk","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1575318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1575318","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given that young children of mothers with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) exhibit increased risk for maladaptive outcomes (including being maltreated by their caregivers), this study investigated a comprehensive model for predicting children’s emotional and behavioral problems in the context of mothers’ ACEs. A community sample of 146 mothers with children aged one and onehalf to five years provided ratings of their ACEs, depressive symptoms, parenting characteristics, mother–young child attachment, and young children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Mothers’ ACEs and depressive symptoms predicted uniquely young children’s internalizing problems. In contrast, mothers’ ACEs, depressive symptoms, and punitive parenting behaviors predicted uniquely young children’s externalizing problems. These results suggested the importance of trauma-informed interventions for high-risk mothers who may be involved with child welfare systems and for their young children who are likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems as child custody decisions are made.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90767916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-22DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1580963
Ashley Chambers
{"title":"How circle of security parenting can help you nurture your child’s attachment, emotional resilience, and freedom to explore","authors":"Ashley Chambers","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1580963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1580963","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81517582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-21DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1568947
Leanne Francia, P. Millear, R. Sharman
Abstract Drawing on interviews with separated mothers (N = 36) this Australian qualitative study explored “hate” in a child custody context within enduring parenting disputes. This preliminary study observed that hate may be present within enduring parenting disputes. A conceptualization of hate, being circular theory of hate in co-parental conflict was developed which tentatively proposes that in a post separation context, hate may functionally serve as a self-protective mechanism that enables a parent to avoid experiencing their own emotions; avoid confronting or taking responsibility for their own behavior; or avoid facing their own lived experiences. Three themes emerged from the study that may contribute to understanding hate’s genesis, growth, and stability post separation. Firstly, an inability or unwillingness to self-reflect, secondly, inverse caring, and thirdly, relentlessness. Practitioners working with hate in a child custody context may consider these tentative observations when identifying barriers parents might experience that prevent them from keeping their child’s needs front and center following separation.
{"title":"If love is blind, then hate cannot see: hate within enduring parenting disputes","authors":"Leanne Francia, P. Millear, R. Sharman","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1568947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1568947","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Drawing on interviews with separated mothers (N = 36) this Australian qualitative study explored “hate” in a child custody context within enduring parenting disputes. This preliminary study observed that hate may be present within enduring parenting disputes. A conceptualization of hate, being circular theory of hate in co-parental conflict was developed which tentatively proposes that in a post separation context, hate may functionally serve as a self-protective mechanism that enables a parent to avoid experiencing their own emotions; avoid confronting or taking responsibility for their own behavior; or avoid facing their own lived experiences. Three themes emerged from the study that may contribute to understanding hate’s genesis, growth, and stability post separation. Firstly, an inability or unwillingness to self-reflect, secondly, inverse caring, and thirdly, relentlessness. Practitioners working with hate in a child custody context may consider these tentative observations when identifying barriers parents might experience that prevent them from keeping their child’s needs front and center following separation.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73365117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1609384
Morgan Shaw
Abstract This introduction highlights the need for a special issue in the Journal of Child Custody on the misconceptions and misapplications of research within the family law arena. First, an examination of why these topic areas are relevant is conducted including an overview of the types of false assumptions and biases that are still very much present within the family legal system and child custody evaluations, and how they have an ongoing negative impact on the lives of children and families. Then, this introduction introduces and outlines the different ways that the articles included in this first of the double special issue address the misconceptions contributing to faulty practice, including false memories, and provide a critical examination of the different ways that parental alienation is assessed and treated. Both issues within this two-part special issue present articles that clearly identify better and more appropriate directions for future research in order to strengthen child custody evaluations and the family law system as a whole.
{"title":"Misperceptions and misapplications of research in family law cases: Myths of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and implanted false memories","authors":"Morgan Shaw","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1609384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1609384","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This introduction highlights the need for a special issue in the Journal of Child Custody on the misconceptions and misapplications of research within the family law arena. First, an examination of why these topic areas are relevant is conducted including an overview of the types of false assumptions and biases that are still very much present within the family legal system and child custody evaluations, and how they have an ongoing negative impact on the lives of children and families. Then, this introduction introduces and outlines the different ways that the articles included in this first of the double special issue address the misconceptions contributing to faulty practice, including false memories, and provide a critical examination of the different ways that parental alienation is assessed and treated. Both issues within this two-part special issue present articles that clearly identify better and more appropriate directions for future research in order to strengthen child custody evaluations and the family law system as a whole.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79225312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1590285
R. Blizard, Morgan Shaw
Abstract False Memory Syndrome (FMS) and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) were developed as defenses for parents accused of child abuse as part of a larger movement to undermine prosecution of child abuse. The lost-in-the-mall study by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus concludes that an entire false memory can be implanted by suggestion. It has since been used to discredit abuse survivors’ testimony by inferring that false memories for childhood abuse can be implanted by psychotherapists. Examination of the research methods and findings of the study shows that no full false memories were actually formed. Similarly, PAS, coined by Richard Gardner, is frequently used in custody cases to discredit children’s testimony by alleging that the protective parent coached them to have false memories of abuse. There is no scientific research demonstrating the existence of PAS, and, in fact, studies on the suggestibility of children show that they cannot easily be persuaded to provide detailed disclosures of abuse.
{"title":"Lost-in-the-mall: False memory or false defense?","authors":"R. Blizard, Morgan Shaw","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2019.1590285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1590285","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract False Memory Syndrome (FMS) and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) were developed as defenses for parents accused of child abuse as part of a larger movement to undermine prosecution of child abuse. The lost-in-the-mall study by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus concludes that an entire false memory can be implanted by suggestion. It has since been used to discredit abuse survivors’ testimony by inferring that false memories for childhood abuse can be implanted by psychotherapists. Examination of the research methods and findings of the study shows that no full false memories were actually formed. Similarly, PAS, coined by Richard Gardner, is frequently used in custody cases to discredit children’s testimony by alleging that the protective parent coached them to have false memories of abuse. There is no scientific research demonstrating the existence of PAS, and, in fact, studies on the suggestibility of children show that they cannot easily be persuaded to provide detailed disclosures of abuse.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83976903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2018.1557578
J. Mercer
Abstract Strong claims have been made for the possibility of diagnostic discrimination between children who refuse contact with a nonpreferred divorced parent due to parental alienation (PA) created by the preferred parent and those who refuse for other reasons such as abuse. PA proponents have also argued that interventions, which include custody changes, can alter the alienated children’s attitudes and create positive behavior toward the nonpreferred parent. This article examines the plausibility of PA diagnostic and treatment claims and relevant empirical evidence. It is concluded that PA advocates have failed to provide empirical support for the safety and effectiveness of their methods and that custody proceedings should take these facts into consideration. Future research directions based on established understanding of child development are suggested.
{"title":"Are intensive parental alienation treatments effective and safe for children and adolescents?","authors":"J. Mercer","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2018.1557578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1557578","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Strong claims have been made for the possibility of diagnostic discrimination between children who refuse contact with a nonpreferred divorced parent due to parental alienation (PA) created by the preferred parent and those who refuse for other reasons such as abuse. PA proponents have also argued that interventions, which include custody changes, can alter the alienated children’s attitudes and create positive behavior toward the nonpreferred parent. This article examines the plausibility of PA diagnostic and treatment claims and relevant empirical evidence. It is concluded that PA advocates have failed to provide empirical support for the safety and effectiveness of their methods and that custody proceedings should take these facts into consideration. Future research directions based on established understanding of child development are suggested.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83582657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284
Roy Lubit
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79253479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：