Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 5 of 8
Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
Evidence published for review
Every source row behind this page is currently marked unverified: an automated check matched every quote and number to an archived copy of its source, and an independent review pass read every row, but the per-row human sign-off defined in the research methods has not been recorded yet. Check any claim against the sources list before relying on it.
The most consistent finding in the sources reviewed is that conflict between parents is associated with worse outcomes for children, whether the parents live together or apart. How much divorce itself adds, how shared parenting time affects children, and how parental alienation should be treated are contested, and this section presents the strongest evidence on each side.
Conflict between parents
A meta-analysis of 71 studies of children aged 5 to 19 found moderate and small-to-moderate associations between children's responses to conflict between their parents and internalizing and externalizing problems [Child Development, 2008, Abstract CHI-025]. An evidence review states that children's outcomes "are adversely affected by conflict between parents/carers whether adults are living together or not" [J Child Psychol Psychiatry (abstract), 2018-03, Abstract CHI-002].
In a US probability sample of 4,112 adolescent-parent pairs, discord between the parents showed "small but significant associations" with adolescent psychopathology [Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol, 2025 CHI-019]. Most of those parents were married and living together, so the finding is not about separated or litigating parents [Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol, 2025 CHI-019].
In a study of 1,200 child twins, the overlap between conflict itself and behavior problems was environmental, while children's self-blame and sense of threat overlapped with problems through genetic correlations, so not every conflict-outcome association is purely environmental [J Abnorm Child Psychol, 2013-02, Abstract CHI-030].
Divorce as an adverse childhood experience
The original 1998 Adverse Childhood Experiences study measured seven categories of childhood exposure, and parental separation or divorce was not one of them [Am J Prev Med, 1998-05, PDF p. 1 CHI-009]. The CDC's later survey module counts "Parents were ever separated or divorced" as an adverse childhood experience; 28.4% of 264,882 adults surveyed in 2011-2020 answered yes [CDC, 2023-06-29, ACEs Definitions CHI-028]. Its graded health findings refer to the total count of experiences, not to this item alone [CDC, 2023-06-29, ACEs Definitions CHI-028].
A Canadian government summary of a 1991 meta-analysis of 92 studies (more than 13,000 children) reports that differences between children of divorced and intact families were statistically significant but "the size of the differences (effect size) was small" [Department of Justice Canada, 2002, 2.1 Retrospective Studies CHI-007]. It also reports longitudinal research in which some children's problems "were present before the divorce", at least for boys [Department of Justice Canada, 2002, 2.1 Retrospective Studies CHI-007].
A UK government-commissioned review concluded that "family functioning has a greater impact on outcomes than family structure" and that "the majority of children will not be adversely affected in the long-term" [UK Dept. for Children, Schools and Families, 2009-06, PDF p. 7 CHI-013; UK Dept. for Children, Schools and Families, 2009-06, PDF p. 8 CHI-013].
A Dutch cohort that followed 2230 children from age 10-12 found that emotional and behavioral problems rose "in the period after parental divorce, not before", although the effects were small [Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2022 CHI-023].
Shared parenting time
In a 2009 Swedish national school survey of 147 839 children, those in joint physical custody reported fewer psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent, but more than those in nuclear families [J Epidemiol Community Health, 2015-08, Data source CHI-003]. The design cannot rule out that different families choose different arrangements [J Epidemiol Community Health, 2015-08, Data source CHI-003].
A review of 40 studies found that joint physical custody "can have positive effects on the well-being of children and of parents", but that samples were dominated by self-selected, highly educated, low-conflict parents, so "the risks and benefits of JPC are not clear yet" [Family Process (abstract), 2019-06 CHI-010].
Australia's official evaluation of its 2006 reforms found children's outcomes in shared care time similar to, or perhaps marginally better than, outcomes with 1-34% of nights or daytime-only care with the father, and no evidence that the harm associated with family violence or high conflict was greater under shared care time, while cautioning that its measures may have been insufficiently sensitive [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009-12, 2 Evaluation methodology CHI-008]. Where mothers expressed safety concerns, it found that "shared care time exacerbates the negative impacts on children" [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009-12, 2 Evaluation methodology CHI-008].
Two Australian government-commissioned studies found shared overnight care of children under four associated with worse regulation outcomes that were no longer evident by age 4-5 [Australian Attorney-General's Dept. report, 2010-05, PDF p. 9 CHI-006]. In a sample of 131 high-conflict families, living arrangement did not independently predict children's mental health after four years, but children in shared care reported more conflict between their parents and lower contentment with their arrangements [Australian Attorney-General's Dept. report, 2010-05, PDF p. 8 CHI-006].
The contrary position on infant overnights could not be archived, so that dispute is not characterised here [Australian Attorney-General's Dept. report, 2010-05, PDF p. 8 CHI-006].
In a US birth cohort of mostly low-income families, frequent overnights with the nonresident parent were "significantly associated with attachment insecurity among infants", less clearly for toddlers; the authors say this does not settle the question [J Marriage Fam, 2013-08, Abstract CHI-024].
A review in a family-law journal reports a Wisconsin random sample of 590 shared and 590 sole residence families in which roughly 15% of couples in both groups described their relationship as hostile, and shared-residence couples were more likely to report conflicts over childrearing (50%) than families where the children lived with their mother (30%) [American Journal of Family Law, c. 2013, PDF p. 6 CHI-015]. The review is a narrative, position-laden review, not a systematic one [American Journal of Family Law, c. 2013, PDF p. 6 CHI-015].
A Family Court Review framework paper proposes matching parenting plans to the "potency, pattern, and primary perpetrator" of alleged violence, from no contact or supervised access to co-parenting, and its authors say the scientific foundation is limited [Family Court Review, 2008-07, PDF p. 1 CHI-011].
The paper is a proposal, not an outcome study; no evaluation of this differentiated approach is in the evidence base [Family Court Review, 2008-07, PDF p. 1 CHI-011].
The parental alienation debate
The World Health Organization removed the index terms "parental alienation" and "parental estrangement" from ICD-11, stating that "Parental alienation is an issue relevant to specific judicial contexts" and that "There are no evidence-based health care interventions specifically for parental alienation" [World Health Organization, n.d., Review CHI-004]. This is a classification decision, not a finding that the behaviour does not occur [World Health Organization, n.d., Review CHI-004].
A UN Special Rapporteur's report states that there is "no commonly accepted clinical or scientific definition" of parental alienation and recommends that States "legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudoconcepts in family law cases" [UN Special Rapporteur, 2023-04-13, PDF p. 3 CHI-005; UN Special Rapporteur, 2023-04-13, PDF p. 19 CHI-005]. The report rests on self-selected submissions [UN Special Rapporteur, 2023-04-13, PDF p. 3 CHI-005].
A 2018 Psychological Bulletin review argues the opposite: that parental alienation "has been largely unacknowledged or denied by legal and health professionals as a form of family violence" [Psychological Bulletin (abstract), 2018-12 CHI-022]. Its abstract frames it as a call to action, not a prevalence or outcome study [Psychological Bulletin (abstract), 2018-12 CHI-022].
A 2020 Family Court Review article takes a middle position: the concept "remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy", and single-factor models that blame one parent are "inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading" [Family Court Review (abstract), 2020-04, Abstract CHI-020].
A George Washington University Law School analysis of over 2000 published US custody opinions over ten years reports that mothers' abuse claims "are associated with a risk of losing custody, and that fathers' cross-claims of alienation virtually double that risk" [GWU Law School study (abstract), 2020, Abstract CHI-012; GWU Law School report (abstract), 2019, Abstract: TAC-014].
A rival study of 967 appellate case reports, described in a Colorado State University news release, reported that alienation claims were not being used to override abuse allegations and that gender "didn't seem to play a role" [Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science TAC-026]. The first study's authors published a re-analysis saying the rival study's findings are "not supported by their data" [J Fam Trauma Child Custody (abstract), 2022-11, The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parenta... CHI-014]. No reply from the rival authors was archived [NCJRS abstract, 2022-11, The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parenta... TAC-025].
Both court studies code published, mostly appellate opinions, which over-represent contested and appealed cases, and neither full text could be archived. The evidence base cannot say which study is right [GWU Law School study (abstract), 2020, Abstract CHI-012; Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science CHI-026; GWU Law School report (abstract), 2019, Abstract: TAC-014].
Sources for this section
0 of 182 rows in the evidence base have a recorded per-row sign-off. What the explainer does not claim.
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Narrative evidence review (no pooled effect size or count of studies stated in the abstract); reviews research on children and adolescents internationally, UK policy examples.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (University of Cambridge repository record of the accepted manuscript; the full text was not machine-readable). Publication date is not shown on the archived page (only the volume); confirm against the journal. Narrative review by authors who also propose intervention models; most underlying studies are observational and correlational, so the abstract does not establish magnitude.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.1+ C5.3~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Cross-sectional national classroom survey conducted in 2009; 147 839 sixth- and ninth-grade pupils (ages 12 and 15) included from 207 700 eligible; linear regression adjusted for age, country of origin, perceived material resources and parent-child relations; Sweden.
Reliability notes: Open-access full text via PMC (PMC4516006). Cross-sectional with no pre-separation data, so selection of families into joint custody cannot be excluded (the authors call for longitudinal data); children's self-report of symptoms; Sweden has a high share of joint physical custody, so results may not transfer to other legal settings.
Pages quoted: section: Data source; section: Results; section: Conclusions. Claim tags: C5.6+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-004 Parental alienation and parental estrangement (WHO ICD-11 frequently asked questions)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: classification-body FAQ statement; no sample.
Reliability notes: The page is undated (copyright line 2026); the date of the decision was not on the page, so it is not asserted here. It is a classification decision and statement of scope, not a finding that the behaviour does not exist; WHO notes the broader 'caregiver-child relationship problem' category covers aspects that health services can address.
Pages quoted: section: Review; section: Review; section: Parental alienation and parental estrangement. Claim tags: C5.4- C5.5~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Thematic report drawing on over a thousand submissions from Member States, international and regional organizations, NGOs, academia and victims (many duplicated, particularly from fathers' organizations) and online consultations; submissions are not a representative sample.
Reliability notes: An independent expert's report to a UN body, not a peer-reviewed study; it advances a position and uses the term 'pseudo-concept'; it is the opposing position to the Harman et al. review and the Colorado State release; submissions are self-selected; the report ends with recommendations, which are positions, not findings.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.2; pdf p.19. Claim tags: C5.5+ C5.4-
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Study 1: panel of 131 high-conflict families using community mediation, interviewed over four years; Study 2: Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, national random samples of parents of 5,000 infants and 5,000 children aged 4-5; Australia.
Reliability notes: Commissioned government report, not peer reviewed as a whole; Study 1 is a small non-random select sample of high-conflict families (authors caution against generalizing); infant findings are disputed in the literature (the contrary consensus-report position is not archived here); copy hosted by a county bar association website.
Pages quoted: pdf p.8; pdf p.9; pdf p.7. Claim tags: C5.6- C5.7+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Secondary summary of a meta-analysis of 92 studies (more than 13,000 children, studies before 1991) and of longitudinal studies (Cherlin et al., 1991); the review itself did not pool data.
Reliability notes: Secondary government literature review; date taken from the report-series path (2002_2) because the page shows only a 2022 modification date; summarizes research now 30+ years old (pre-1991 studies); does not replace the primary meta-analyses, which were behind paywalls.
Pages quoted: section: 2.1 Retrospective Studies; section: 2.1 Retrospective Studies; section: 2.2 Prospective Studies. Claim tags: C5.2~ C5.3+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate,What the evidence cannot show
CHI-008 Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms: Summary report (Australian Institute of Family Studies)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Multi-study evaluation: 2,005 pre-reform and 10,002 post-reform separated parents (Longitudinal Study of Separated Families wave 1 2008), national parent surveys of 5,000 each, plus the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children; regression modelling; wellbeing mostly parent-reported; Australia.
Reliability notes: Government-commissioned evaluation, parent-reported child wellbeing in the large dataset; authors say their measures may have been insufficiently sensitive; legislative setting is Australia (2006 presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, later amended), not the US; archived via Wayback (live page returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: 2 Evaluation methodology; section: 3.10 Children's wellbeing; section: 3.10 Children's wellbeing. Claim tags: C5.6~ C5.7~ C5.1+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Retrospective mailed questionnaire to adult members of one large HMO in San Diego who had a standardized medical evaluation (wave I): 13,494 mailed, 9,508 responded (70.5%), 8,056 (59.7% of the wave I sample) included in the analysis after exclusions; cross-sectional.
Reliability notes: Archived from a third-party copy of the journal PDF (publisher page returned 403). Absence-of-term finding checked by full-text search of the archived copy (zero hits for 'divorce', 'separated', 'separation'); later ACE versions and the CDC BRFSS module differ in item sets. Self-reported, retrospective, single HMO population.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C5.2~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-010 Children's and Parents' Well-Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review. Fam Process 58(2)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Literature review of 40 studies (2007-2018) from North America, Australia and Europe; narrative, not a pooled meta-analysis.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed record, archived via Wayback copy). Review conclusions are limited by the author's own point about self-selection and low-conflict samples; the review is not a meta-analysis and does not estimate an effect size.
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.6~ C5.7~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: conceptual and clinical-legal framework paper; no empirical sample; the authors state the guidelines are preliminary and rest on a limited scientific foundation.
Reliability notes: Archived from a copy of the journal article hosted by the Learning to End Abuse program (a violence-prevention advocacy site). The paper is a proposal, not an outcome study; the authors say there is only a limited scientific foundation to build on.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C5.7~ C5.1~ C2.6~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Ten years of US published custody opinions involving abuse or alienation claims (case count not in the SSRN abstract; see the author's slide deck row for the dataset size); published opinions, observational coding.
Reliability notes: Abstract only. The lead author directs a family-violence law center at the authors' university (per her slides) and the project was NIJ-funded; analysis is of published (mostly appellate) opinions, which over-represent contested and reversed cases; the reanalysis dispute with Harman and Lorandos is described in other rows.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.5+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Rapid evidence review, mainly of existing review-level evidence plus targeted database searches (not a systematic search); UK/international literature.
Reliability notes: Government-commissioned review of other reviews; limited time and resources per the report's own method note; no new data; the conclusion that functioning outweighs structure rests largely on observational research and cannot by itself separate conflict from other pre-divorce differences.
Pages quoted: pdf p.8; pdf p.7. Claim tags: C5.1+ C5.2~ C5.3+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Re-analysis of the Harman and Lorandos dataset (design, dataset construction, variable coding and statistical errors criticized); case counts not in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (OJP/NCJRS record). The archived record lists no authors; the author list is from the journal, not the archive (the abstract refers to 'the current authors' study' and 'the Meier et al. study'). An author-side rebuttal of a study that criticized the authors' own work, so it is a party position in an open dispute; no reply from Harman and Lorandos was archived.
Pages quoted: section: The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parental Alienation Allegations in Family Court Study. Claim tags: C5.5+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-015 Shared Residential Custody: Review of the Research (Part I of II). American Journal of Family Law
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Narrative review of what the author calls two dozen studies; the quoted Wisconsin study is a random sample of 590 shared and 590 sole residence families, data collected three years after divorce.
Reliability notes: The author's note in the article describes her work on shared parenting and service as an expert witness on shared parenting research; the article is a position-laden narrative review in a practitioner journal, not a systematic review; year inferred (latest reference cited is 2012); relies on older, mostly low-to-moderate conflict samples, so does not address abuse; counter-evidence is in the McIntosh and Australian evaluation rows.
Pages quoted: pdf p.6; pdf p.5. Claim tags: C5.7~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: N = 4,112 adolescent-parent dyads; National Comorbidity Survey-Adolescent Supplement (fielded 2001-2004 per the article's reference list); US; cross-sectional association, age 13-17.
Reliability notes: Open-access full text via Europe PMC XML (canonical: PMC12031646). Cross-sectional, so no causal direction; discord rated mainly by the biological mother; most families were intact (the authors report 93% of parents were married), so the association is for discord between mostly married co-resident parents, not separated or litigating parents; the authors list generalizability limits; effect described by the authors as small.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.1+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: theoretical and conceptual review; no empirical sample.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (university repository record). Presents a middle position between the two camps; authors are practising custody-dispute researchers and both advocacy movements are described as shaping definitions.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.4~ C5.5~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-022 Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychol Bull 144(12)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Narrative review comparing parental alienating behaviors and outcomes with child abuse and intimate partner violence; number of studies not stated in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed-derived record via Europe PMC). The abstract itself frames the review as a call to action for recognition of the construct; it is not a prevalence or outcome study; its claims are contested in the rows from WHO, the UN Special Rapporteur and the Family Court Review paper.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.4+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: TRAILS prospective cohort, northern Netherlands; 2230 children aged 10-12 at baseline; first four waves (2001/2002 to 2009/2010); multilevel analysis of self-reported emotional and behavioral problems.
Reliability notes: Open-access full text via Europe PMC XML (canonical PMC9209384). Coefficients reported in the abstract are small (0.03), observational design, divorce not randomized, no measure of interparental conflict reported in the abstract; one Dutch region; self-report.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.2+ C5.3-
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, 20 US cities; unweighted analysis samples of 1,023 families (age 1) and 1,547 (age 3) from a total sample of 4,898 families; longitudinal; attachment and adjustment reported by mothers.
Reliability notes: Open access via PMC (PMC4307616). Sample is primarily low-income, racial/ethnic minority parents, including nonmarital births, so it does not represent divorcing middle-income families; observational, mother-reported outcomes; authors state it does not resolve the debate about frequent overnights.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Method. Claim tags: C5.6- C5.6~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Meta-analysis of 71 studies (from 67 articles) of children aged 5 to 19; English-language publications only; countries not summarized in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Author manuscript via PMC (open access). Measures children's responses to conflict, not exposure to conflict as such; included studies are mostly correlational; the article itself notes that not all children exposed to conflict show problems.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Method. Claim tags: C5.1+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Per the release: 967 US appellate-level case reports in which parental alienation was found or alleged, coded by 19 research assistants blind to the hypotheses; hypotheses preregistered on the Open Science Framework; years of the opinions not stated in the release.
Reliability notes: Press release from the authors' university, so it is a statement of the authors' position, not the paper; the journal article was not reachable (publisher abstracts withheld). The release does not state the cases' jurisdiction (US is inferred). The findings are disputed in a published reanalysis (see the Meier et al. 2022 row). Appellate opinions only.
Pages quoted: section: Clearing the way for sound science. Claim tags: C5.4+ C5.5-
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: BRFSS ACE module, all 50 states and DC, 2011-2020, n=264,882 adult respondents; retrospective self-report about the first 18 years; the page cites a CDC MMWR analysis for the figures.
Reliability notes: Archived via Wayback copy of the CDC page (live page returned 403 to the archiver). Shows classification and prevalence only, not harm from divorce as such; the page's graded dose-response statement refers to the total ACE count, not to this item alone; self-reported, retrospective.
Pages quoted: section: ACEs Definitions; section: Prevalence of ACEs by Category among U.S. Adults, 2011-2020 BRFSS ACEs Module; section: ACEs Prevalence. Claim tags: C5.2+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 1,200 child twins aged 6-11, Michigan State University Twin Registry; child-reported conflict (CPIC scales) and parent-reported behavior problems; multivariate twin models; US.
Reliability notes: Author manuscript via PMC (open access). Twin registry sample, community not custody-litigating families; a genetically informed design is a qualifier on causal interpretation of observational conflict-outcome links, not a finding that conflict is harmless.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.1~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Over 2000 published court opinions, ten years, US; coded for claims, outcomes and gender; published electronically available opinions only
Reliability notes: Abstract only (CALiO catalogue copy of a 2019 research report abstract; the later peer-reviewed journal version was not archived). Published opinions over-represent appealed, contested cases and exclude settled and unpublished ones. The abstract takes a position (it calls parental alienation 'pseudo-scientific'), so the framing is the authors'. A rival study disputes the findings (TAC-026, news-release account only); TAC-025 is these authors' reply to it.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract:; section: Abstract:. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Response article, 23 pages; sample not stated in the abstract
Reliability notes: Abstract only. A response by the original study's authors (TAC-014), i.e. a party to the dispute; the rival study is described only through its university's news release (TAC-026), and no rejoinder by the rival authors was archived. NCJRS lists NIJ grant 2014-MU-CX-0859 and George Washington University as corporate author. Cited to show the evidence is contested, not to resolve it.
Pages quoted: section: The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parental Alienation Allegations in Family Court Study. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 967 appellate-level (country not stated in the release) case reports where parental alienation was found or alleged; coded by 19 research assistants blind to the hypothesis; pre-registered per the release
Reliability notes: News release, not the paper (the APA paper itself is paywalled and could not be archived), reporting the authors' own account; the authors treat parental alienation as real abuse (position); its findings are disputed in a peer-reviewed response (see TAC-025). Tagged ~ because it addresses the same question as TAC-014 from the opposite direction.
Pages quoted: section: Clearing the way for sound science; section: Clearing the way for sound science. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate,What the evidence cannot show