Response to “Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique,” by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12489
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Author: William Bernet
• Date: 01 April 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE: PARENT-CHILD CONTACT PROBLEMS: CONCEPTS,

CONTROVERSIES, & CONUNDRUMS

RESPONSES TO MILCHMAN, GEFFNER, AND MEIER

RESPONSE TO “IDEOLOGY AND RHETORIC REPLACE SCIENCE AND

REASON IN SOME PARENTAL ALIENATION LITERATURE AND

ADVOCACY: A CRITIQUE,”BY MILCHMAN, GEFFNER, AND MEIER

William Bernet

The author wrote an article, “Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation,”for this Special Issue of Family Court

Review, which is devoted to various aspects of parental alienation (PA). This short article is a response to the article by

Milchman, Geffner, and Meier, which discussed my article and other contributions to the Special Issue. All of these articles

represent an attempt by the Editors of the Special Issue to promote “dialogue”among writers who have different perspectives

regarding parental alienation. In my view, this is a misguided endeavor, since the publication of cascading criminations,

recriminations, and re-recriminations simply creates confusion and consternation for the readers of Family Court Review.

This new article offers an alternative approach for creating constructive dialogue among PA-promoters and PA-detractors,

that is, convene a face-to-face discussion of these individuals and encourage them to write an article together in which they

jointly explain their various perspectives regarding PA.

Keywords: Misinformation; Parental Alienation.

This author wrote an article, “Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation,”in this Spe-

cial Issue of Family Court Review, which is devoted to various aspects of parental alienatio n (PA).

Milchman, Geffner, and Meier wrote a commentary—“Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and

Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique”—that discussed my arti-

cle and other contributions to the Special Issue. This short, new article is a response to the critique

by Milchman et al.

It is noteworthy that Milchman et al. and I have almost the same definition for the phenomenon

that I refer to as “parental alienation.”In my article in this issue of Family Court Review, I provided

this definition of PA: “a mental condition in which a child—usually one whose parents are engaged

in a high-conflict separation or divorce—allies himself or herself strongly with an alienating parent

and rejects a relationship with the target parent without legitimate justification.”

In their article in this issue of Family Court Review, Milchman et al. say:

None of the authors of this article dispute the need to identify, assess, and treat parent–child relationship

problems where a parent may have manipulated a child to reject the other parent. …[Geffner,

Milchman, and Meier] all agree that in cases where a parent intentionally attempts to cause a child to

reject a parent, the parent’s actions should be described behaviorally and addressed through appropriate

interventions, as should any other problematic parenting behavior (p. 342).

Correspondence: william.bernet@vumc.org

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 362–367

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts