Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 8 of 8
What the evidence cannot show
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.
These are results, not unfinished work: each was searched for deliberately and not found. They are the questions a court system, bar or legislature would have to answer with data before anyone could say how the incentives play out in practice.
No data measures legal fees against marital assets, or settlement timing against remaining assets [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002; AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
No data ties fees to conflict level, number of issues or case length beyond one commercial survey's self-reported figures [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011].
No family-law-specific share of hourly, flat-fee and limited-scope engagements was found [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015; Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
The widely repeated figure that a small share of high-conflict cases takes about 90% of court attention has no primary source that could be found [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
No court-records study of whether temporary orders predict final custody was found [Loma Linda University dissertation, 2024-06, Abstract TAC-027].
No frequency data exists in the evidence base for emergency or ex parte custody orders, continuances, discovery sanctions or judge substitution in family cases [Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse, 2022-12, PDF p. 20 TAC-030; Southern California Law Review, 2024-05-14, A. Research Methodology TAC-020].
No US court-based measure of knowingly false allegations was found; the US study is from 1990 and covers sexual-abuse allegations only [Child Abuse & Neglect (abstract), 1990 TAC-011].
No evaluation of fee caps or family-case time limits was found [Family Court Review, 2017-01, PDF p. 6 HRM-016; Arizona Senate fact sheet, 2026-02-16, PDF p. 1 HRM-024; Alabama Unified Judicial System, n.d., Rule Text HRM-025].
No measured effect of any recent equal-parenting presumption was found [Kentucky Acts ch. 198 (2018), 2018-04-26, PDF p. 1 POL-011; Florida CS/HB 1301 (2023), 2023-07-01, PDF p. 2 POL-022].
No primary source links Title IV-D incentive payments to custody outcomes [42 U.S.C. 658a, 2023, (A) In general POL-001; Congressional Research Service, 2026-01-13, CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure POL-013].
No 50-state compilation of guardian ad litem or custody-evaluator fee rules for private custody cases was found [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017].
No state-level divorce-cost survey with a published sample size was found. One state-by-state table traces to a 2015 commercial study with no published sample, and in 48 of its 50 states the "cost with children" figure is about 1.5 times the base figure - a multiplier, not a measurement [24/7 Wall St., 2018-11-08, Most Expensive States to Get a Divorce DAT-008]. Another is a desk compilation from one law firm's web page [Self Financial, 2026-09-21, Methodology DAT-010].
No measurement of how often referral relationships or conflicts of interest occur was found [California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-019; AFCC, 2019, PDF p. 4 ANC-020].
No public cost data for reunification programs, parenting coordinators or forensic accountants was found [Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021-06-09, Key message ANC-028; Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (1) ANC-006; California Evidence Code 730, 1990 ANC-033].
Coverage is uneven. State-specific sources cover 29 states; CT, DC, HI, IA, ID, LA, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, WA and WY have none. The latest per-state court caseload table that could be archived is for 2016 [NCSC Court Statistics Project, 2018, PDF p. 13 DAT-007; NCSC Court Statistics Project, 2020, PDF p. 11 DAT-005].
Several core studies - the major divorce meta-analyses, the two US case-law studies on alienation cross-claims, and the only located scholarly critique of equal-parenting presumptions - were paywalled or blocked and could not be archived, so they appear here only through abstracts, a government summary or a news release, or not at all [Department of Justice Canada, 2002, 2.1 Retrospective Studies CHI-007; GWU Law School study (abstract), 2020, Abstract CHI-012; Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science TAC-026; National Parents Organization, 2025-04, PDF p. 3 DAT-012].
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.
ANC-006 C.R.S. 14-10-128.1 (parenting coordinator)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (colorado.public.law). Page states it is current through Fall 2025.
Pages quoted: section: (1); section: (6); section: (a). Claim tags: C3.3+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-019 Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts: family court appointees (Report 2009-109)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Audit of two county superior courts (Sacramento and Marin) covering April 2006 to March 2010, requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee; file tests were small, for example nine Sacramento private mediators, five Sacramento private evaluators, five Sacramento minor's-counsel case files, seven Marin staff mediators, five Marin cases with private evaluators, and eight complaints reviewed (report summary, pdf p.6-8).
Reliability notes: Government audit of two counties only, now 15 years old; findings concern court administration (qualification records, complaint logs, conflict policies), not evidence that any evaluator acted improperly.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.6. Claim tags: C3.7+ C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-020 Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: professional guideline text (task force consensus document)
Reliability notes: Voluntary professional standards, not law; AFCC is a professional association whose members include the providers it guides. The existence of the prohibition shows referral payments are regulated, not how often they occur.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.8; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C3.3+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Systematic mapping review; databases searched Nov 2020; 1 review article and 54 primary studies, mostly US cross-sectional surveys; no methodological appraisal or synthesis.
Reliability notes: Archived page is the English summary, not the full report; the page shows 'Published 09.06.2021' (day.month.year). Government agency review. It explicitly did not appraise quality or synthesise results and 'is not meant to be used to support evidence-based decision making'; it covers parental rejection/alienation interventions broadly, not US reunification programs by name, and gives no cost data.
Pages quoted: section: Key message; section: Discussion. Claim tags: C3.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-033 Cal. Evidence Code 730 (appointment of expert witness by court)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute via a mirror site. It is a general expert-appointment statute, not specific to forensic accountants; it provides no fee data for valuation or accounting experts (a recorded gap).
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.8~ C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Voluntary online survey of State Bar of Michigan members conducted 2023 for 2022 rates: emailed to 41,065 active members, 18,292 opened, 3,819 completed (20.9% of those who opened; private practitioners responded at a higher rate); family law hourly-rate n = 386.
Reliability notes: Self-reported by Michigan bar members who chose to respond; rates are stated hourly rates by respondents who bill by the hour, so the table says nothing about the share of family-law work billed hourly versus flat.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What the evidence cannot show
BIL-020 Clio, Legal Trends Report - flat fees (web page)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: method not published on the page used (Clio's Legal Trends Report is based on Clio platform data and surveys; details not archived here)
Reliability notes: Vendor marketing page that summarizes a larger report; edition year and sample are not stated on the archived page; figures are across all practice areas, not family law. Date is the Wayback capture year; the report edition is not stated. Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: Clients prefer flat fees; section: Law firms are doing more flat fee work. Claim tags: C1.1~ C1.1-
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What the evidence cannot show
-
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
-
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
CST-002 Elkins Family Law Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations (April 2010)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: task force report; the findings come from 15 months of information gathering, outreach and discussion, not from a sampled dataset.
Reliability notes: Government task force assertions without a cited dataset in the quoted passages; the $300 per hour and $5,000 retainer figures are unsourced averages. The run-out-of-money statement is the closest official statement to asset or income exhaustion found for claim C2.3 but is anecdotal and does not measure fees as a share of assets. Single state, 2010 (post-recession context).
Pages quoted: pdf p.12; pdf p.16; pdf p.16. Claim tags: C2.1~ C2.2~ C2.3~ C2.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
CST-011 The Average Cost of a Divorce (reproducing Martindale-Nolo Research 2019 survey figures)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method not published in this archived copy (secondary reproduction of a 2019 Martindale-Nolo survey; respondent count and sampling not given). The original Nolo page could not be archived (blocked).
Reliability notes: Commercial survey seen only through a secondary financial-publisher website (its page says some listed products come from partners that compensate it); the underlying Nolo page was blocked (HTTP 403; Wayback copy HTTP 402). Respondents are self-reported and the page does not describe how they were sampled, so costs cannot be treated as representative and the survey cannot show fees as a share of assets. Medians are given for only some categories. Averages are pulled up by high-cost cases. Table and prose figures conflict slightly (for example $10,600 versus $10,400; $20,379 versus $17,700), apparently because one lists total costs and the other attorney fees; treat them as approximate. 2019 data. The page also repeats, without a source, that divorce 'older studies' show a 77 percent wealth drop, which is not used here.
Pages quoted: section: The Average Cost of a Divorce; section: The average cost of divorce; section: Average divorce attorney fees: $11,300. Claim tags: C2.1+ C1.4+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
CST-013 Innovations in Interventions with High Conflict Families (Introduction)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: introduction to an edited volume; figures attributed to other 2004 works (not examined).
Reliability notes: This is the most-repeated form of the 'small share, most of the attention' claim, but the passage gives no method and 'attention' is undefined. The primary study it cites could not be located in this evidence base, so treat 8-12 percent and 90 percent as unverified assertions of the professional association. The 'litigation costs drain their finances' sentence is likewise an assertion, not a measurement of fees against assets. The editors and chapter authors work in this field and have a professional interest in interventions for these families.
Pages quoted: pdf p.11. Claim tags: C2.6+ C2.3~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
DAT-005 State Court Caseload Digest: 2018 Data
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-reported incoming caseload data compiled by NCSC/COSCA from state court administrators; state participation varies by case type (20 and 24 states in the cited figures).
Reliability notes: Official-court-system data but coverage is partial and definitions vary by state. The PDF names states only through chart labels, so the full list of the 24 states is not recoverable from the document. Archived via Wayback copy of the original PDF. The 20-state composition chart labels include DC (19 states + DC); the 24 trend states represent 'approximately 41 percent of the U.S. population' (pdf p.12).
Pages quoted: pdf p.11; pdf p.12. Claim tags: C8.1+ C8.1~
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
DAT-007 State Court Caseload Digest: 2016 Data (Divorce Caseloads and Rates in 41 States, 2016)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-reported 2016 incoming caseloads; 41 reporting jurisdictions (39 states, DC, Puerto Rico); census of reporting courts, no sampling; single-tiered systems flagged with an asterisk.
Reliability notes: Official court-system compilation, 2016 data, now ten years old. Missing states, read from the table: Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Counts are of cases filed (court workload), not of marriages ended. The 2018 digest (DAT-005) shows the number of reporting states can differ by case type and year. The source's 'Forty-one states' counts DC and Puerto Rico (39 states). The second quoted segment (pdf p.12) describes a separate 20-jurisdiction composition chart (incl. DC) and is not used in the claim. Archived via Wayback copy of the original PDF.
Pages quoted: pdf p.13; pdf p.12. Claim tags: C8.1+ C8.6+
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method not published: the page cites 'survey data presented in' the Martindale Nolo Research 2015 divorce study and gives no respondent number or per-state sample size.
Reliability notes: Secondary news derivation from a commercial survey; no original per-state Nolo table is cited, and nolo.com returned 403. In 48 of the 50 entries the 'with children' figure is about 1.5 times the base figure (ratios 1.495 to 1.509, consistent with 1.5x after rounding to $100) [derived: ratios computed from the page's 50 pairs]. The page shows Indiana as $1,710 (apparently a dropped digit; 1.5 x $11,400 = $17,100) and Minnesota as $21,300 against $11,400 (1.87x). The pattern indicates a multiplier applied to a base figure rather than a separately measured state value. The same article cites Nolo's 'typical divorce costs $15,500', above the averages of 43 of the 50 states [derived: count of state averages below $15,500], which it does not reconcile. Data are about a decade old. Not independent of the original survey.
Pages quoted: section: Most Expensive States to Get a Divorce; section: Most Expensive States to Get a Divorce. Claim tags: C8.3+ C8.3~
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
DAT-010 The Cost of Divorce: Where is it most expensive? (state tables, Methodology section)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method as published: desk compilation of state filing fees and attorney-fee estimates from one third-party web page; no survey, no respondent n.
Reliability notes: Weakest class of source: a content-marketing compilation whose only state-level input is a law firm's marketing web page (not named here). Shown for the point that cost-by-state figures online trace to non-survey inputs. Its extremes (California highest, Montana lowest) match DAT-008, but the with/without-children adjustment comes from the Motley Fool page (CST-011), and common ancestry of the state baselines with DAT-008 cannot be ruled out. Not usable as evidence of actual fees paid.
Pages quoted: section: Methodology; section: How much does a divorce cost in each state?; section: Key findings. Claim tags: C8.3~
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
DAT-012 2025 Shared Parenting Report Card
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statutory coding of every state and DC by NPO's research team (21 factors, weighted algorithm); no sampling; in 2025 only states with relevant new legislation since 2019 were re-reviewed.
Reliability notes: Advocacy position, not a finding: the grading criteria themselves reward presumptions of equal shared parenting, which the organization advocates. The factor weights are not given in the report text, which says only that a weighted factors algorithm was used. Internal inconsistency: the Appendix A text says 10 states and DC received a B, while the summary table gives 10 B grades and the Appendix B listing shows 9 states plus DC under B (10 in total). NPO's own site cites a 2026 law review critique of equal-parenting presumptions, but the article's text could not be archived (publisher 403); no opposing state-by-state grading was found. Appendix A's counts (6 + 10 + DC + 19 + 14 + 2) total 51 states plus DC [derived: 6 + 10 + 19 + 14 + 2 = 51].
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.15; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C8.4+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
DAT-017 Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings (State Statutes Series)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statute review of all states, DC and territories, current through June 2021; no sampling.
Reliability notes: Official and genuinely 50-state, but its scope is dependency (abuse and neglect) proceedings, where the state or county commonly pays; it does not describe fee rules or rates for GALs or custody evaluators appointed in private divorce and custody cases, where parties usually pay. Do not read it as the custody-case fee rule. Source inconsistency: North Dakota is listed both as not addressing compensation (fn 28) and as court-paid (fn 29); Pennsylvania appears in fn 27 and fn 28.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Pilot description and evaluation: 40 informal trials, June 2013-December 2015, Deschutes County Circuit Court, Oregon; evaluation by questionnaire conversations with three judges and three attorneys (March-April 2016); litigant survey abandoned for low response.
Reliability notes: Article written by court insiders describing their own pilot; the authors themselves say a statistically valid evaluation could not be done. Informal trials are a simplified procedure, not a fee cap or time limit. Archived via Wayback of the NCSC-hosted PDF.
Pages quoted: pdf p.6; pdf p.6; pdf p.6. Claim tags: C6.4~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help,What the evidence cannot show
HRM-024 Arizona S.B. 1657 (2026): family court; attorney fees; cap - Senate fact sheet
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: legislative fact sheet for a bill (no empirical data).
Reliability notes: A proposal, and its enactment status was not verified (the bill-tracking page returned 403). It caps fee awards shifted onto a party, not lawyers' fees. Cited only to show that fee-cap proposals exist without an evaluation.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.4~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text (recommended time standards; no evaluation data on the page).
Reliability notes: A recommended standard, not a binding cap, and undated on the archived third-party rules page. No outcome evaluation of this or any other family-case time standard was found in this research (see notes).
Pages quoted: section: Rule Text. Claim tags: C6.4~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help,What the evidence cannot show
POL-001 42 U.S.C. 658a, Incentive payments to States (U.S. Code, 2023 ed.)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Statute as codified (2023 ed.); the pool figures for later years are formulas keyed to CPI and were not independently recomputed. The absence of a custody-related measure is read from the list in paragraph (4) and is an inference from absence.[cite: 42 U.S.C. 658a(b)(2), (b)(4), (f)]
Pages quoted: section: (A) In general; section: (4) Incentive base amount; section: (f) Reinvestment; section: (A) In general. Claim tags: C7.2+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Session-law text (strike/underline merged in extraction). The Act also applies the presumption to temporary orders and modifications (other pages, not quoted). Enacted text only: no source located measuring its effect on Kentucky parenting-time allocations (see notes). The Act's Section 5 domestic-violence carve-out is tied to entry of a domestic violence order. Signed by the Governor April 26, 2018 per the document footer.[cite: KRS 403.270(2), 403.280(2), 403.340(6); 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 198 s.5]
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.4; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C7.1+ C1.6~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
POL-013 The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program, CRS In Focus IF10113
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: CRS summary of FY2024 OCSE Preliminary Data Report and statute
Reliability notes: CRS is Congress's nonpartisan research arm; this is a secondary summary of OCSE data, and the FY2023 incentive figure is an estimate. The archived copy is a mirror (everycrsreport.com); the original CRS product page was not fetched. The source contains no evidence about any effect of incentives on custody outcomes. It also reports a program-effectiveness figure of $4.24 collected per $1 spent (FY2024), which is context for the incentive design.
Pages quoted: section: CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure; section: CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure; section: Visitation Grants and Parenting Time. Claim tags: C7.2~ C7.3+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
POL-022 Florida 2023 CS/HB 1301 (enrolled), amending Fla. Stat. 61.13: equal time-sharing presumption
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Enrolled bill with strike/underline merged in the extracted text (the sentence stating the presumption itself is garbled by deleted wording, so only the rebuttal-standard and findings sentences are quoted). The archived enrolled text states the act takes effect July 1, 2023 (pdf p.9), which is the date column; a 2023-06-27 signature date seen in a Florida Senate summary was not archived. No measured effect cited.
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.2. Claim tags: C7.1+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 169-case file sample from court counselors, family court and child-protection files; 129 with a validity determination; 12 US domestic relations courts; surveys and interviews with professionals; data collected before 1990
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed). Old data. Covers sexual-abuse allegations only, not physical abuse or domestic violence. 'Found to involve no abuse' is not the same as knowingly false. Study-unit counts (12 courts) and the 169-case sample are described only in the abstract.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C4.4+ C4.4-
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 240 LexisNexis decisions citing CCP 170.6, 2021, California; no formal statistics ('suggestive trends'); orders only, dockets not reviewed
Reliability notes: Student note; the sample is reported decisions citing the statute, not all challenges filed, so it cannot give a rate; not family-law-specific (the text mentions family law only as a covered proceeding). 'Do not occur frequently' is the author's characterization of that sample.
Pages quoted: section: A. Research Methodology; section: INTRODUCTION. Claim tags: C4.7~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show
-
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
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 652 parents (ages 19-64, child 3-17) with a US family-court decision; 85-item online survey; social-media recruitment; convenience sample; 3 weeks in 2022
Reliability notes: Abstract only. This is a doctoral dissertation (committee-reviewed, not journal peer-reviewed). Self-reported, convenience-sampled, no court records, no effect size in the abstract; the best public quantitative signal found for the temporary-to-final link and still weak.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract. Claim tags: C4.5~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Working-group review of other states' laws (31 jurisdictions counted, described as a conservative count); survey answers from 87 attorneys and guardians ad litem (Maine); December 2022
Reliability notes: State working-group report written for a legislature considering whether to create an ex parte process; the 50-state count is the group's own review (it says it is likely conservative); survey respondents were self-selected. The misuse finding quoted is from a 2010 report on the protection-from-abuse system, not family-court ex parte custody orders, and is reported secondhand. No grant-rate data.
Pages quoted: pdf p.20; pdf p.22; pdf p.9. Claim tags: C4.3~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show