Putting Science and Reasoning Back Into the “Parental Alienation” Discussion: Reply to Bernet, Robb, Lorandos, and Garber

• Author: Madelyn S. Milchman,Robert Geffner,Joan S. Meier
• Date: 01 April 2020
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12477

PUTTING SCIENCE AND REASONING BACK INTO THE

“PARENTAL ALIENATION”DISCUSSION: REPLY TO BERNET, ROBB,

LORANDOS, AND GARBER

Madelyn S. Milchman, Robert Geffner, and Joan S. Meier

This article presents our Reply to the Responses that Lorandos, Garber, Bernet, and Robb wrote to our Critique article in the

Family Court Review Special Issue. Our Reply focuses on the repetition of the rhetoric that some of these authors used to dis-

tract from the issues we raised. The principal concern in our Critique article was the lack of adequate research methodology

to support claims that parental alienation is a diagnosis, a condition, or a phenomenon that is directly observable rather than

an inference that requires detailed behavioral descriptions, factual analysis, logical and scientific reasoning. In our Reply,we

show how this concern was not properly addressed in the Responses, which does not facilitate meaningful dialog. However,

we also recognize that some of the Responses facilitate improved dialog between the parental alienation and child abuse/

domestic violence communities and we welcome that.

Keywords: Abuse; Alienation; Child Custody; Child Maltreatment; Family Court; Research Methodology; Rhetoric.

I. INTRODUCTION

Our main Critique article in this Special Issue sought to reduce the hostilities and lack of

meaningful dialog between scholars who focus primarily on alienation and those who focus pri-

marily on child abuse and domestic violence. We proposed that rhetoric in the service of ideology

creates obstacles to reasoned intellectual exchange. Bernet, Garber, Lorandos, and Robb

responded to our Critique of their articles. This Reply responds to their Responses,withaneyeto

whether they help advanc e future exchange or con tinue to use rhetor ical strategies tha t fail to

facilitate mean ingful dialog about su bstantive issues. Due to time constraints we could not

develop one narrative voice , so this Reply has separately authored sections; however, we all agree

generally with each.

II. REPLY TO GARBER AND LORANDOS

A. MADELYN MILCHMAN, ROBERT GEFFNER & JOAN MEIER

We appreciate and welcome the Responses from Benjamin Garber and Demosthenes Lorandos,

both of whom appear to agree that some of our concerns about the misuses of the alienation label

warrant serious attention. We also appreciate and agree with Garber’s objection to the pathologizing

of relationships as “disorders.”We are particularly pleased to see that Lorandos echoes our con-

cerns about the importance in practice of protecting children from abuse and avoiding the use of

the parental alienation (PA) label to sideline such concerns (Lorandos, 2020, p. 371), an acknowl-

edgment we have seen in theory, but that too often in our experiences is ignored in practice.

We also welcome Garber’s call to move away from individual “diagnoses”to a focus on family

systems. As noted in our initial Critique in this special issue, we too feel that family courts and

Corresponding: madelynmilchman@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 375–385

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts