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

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12493
• Author: Demosthenes Lorandos
• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Date: 01 April 2020

RESPONSE TO MILCHMAN, GEFFNER, AND MEIER IDEOLOGY AND

RHETORIC REPLACE SCIENCE AND REASON IN SOME PARENTAL

ALIENATION LITERATURE AND ADVOCACY: A CRITIQUE

Demosthenes Lorandos

I agree with Dr. Bernet’s sense that “… the publication of cascading criminations, recriminations,

and re-recriminations will simply create confusion and consternation for the readers of Family

Court Review.”However, the intent of the Editors of this Special Issue was to encourage a rich

interchange of views for readers, to help promote respectful, healthy professional dialogue in this

field. I want to do my part.

Milchman, Geffner and Meier (hereinafter MGM) offer that “research in this field might advance

further and more quickly if concrete measures were taken to decrease polarizing rhetoric and cul-

tural ideology”(p. 355). I agree. Let us find a way to work together to collaborate where we agree

and find solutions where we do not. And stepping away from the polarizing rhetoric,wefind a lot

of common ground. MGM write: “we 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”(p. 342). Count me in.

MGM remind us that “evidence-based analysis is essential to accurate decision-making”(p. 343),

and that none of them “dispute the need to identify, assess, and treat parent-child relationship prob-

lems where a parent may have manipulated a child to reject the other parent”(p. 342). Agreed. This

is precisely what our family court judges are asking us to do. These hard-working judges understand

the complexities of these cases and as MGM explain: “a commitment to furthering children’swell-

being and fairness in court requires us to understand complex family dynamics in divorce cases where

one parent is alleged to be undermining the other parent’s relationship with their child, especially

where child abuse and/or domestic violence are also alleged”(p. 355). I agree. We must carefully

assess why children resist or refuse contact with one of their parents and we must do this first. As

MGM explain: “scientific data documenting PA requires objective evidence that alternative causes of

parent resistance and rejection have been objectively ruled out”(p. 353). Yes, of course. We must

examine numerous competing hypotheses to avoid false PA positives as well as false PA negatives.

This seems to be MGMs’position as well. They explain that: “decisions must rely on behavioral

descriptions that provide enough specific evidence pertaining to each possible cause of parent rejec-

tion in individual cases to reduce the risk that children will be removed from protective, loving and

loved parents, and placed with parents they have legitimate reason to fear, resist or reject.”(p. 346).

Well said. We should work together to reduce false PA positives and also false PA negatives.

I agree with MGM when they recommend: “children who did not have a positive pre-divorce

relationship with a parent that they subsequently reject might well be rejecting them for legitimate

reasons and interpreting their rejection as alienation would misclassify them”(pp. 353). We should

work together to reduce false PA positives and false PA negatives by carefully scrutinizing the pre

resist/refuse parent–child dilemma. Staying involved to note how relationships change is a worthy

pursuit as well. Quoting MGM: “…longitudinal research is needed to explore children’s relation-

ships with parents before, during and after the family’s breakup. Even if alienating behaviors were

Corresponding: dr.lorandos@psychlaw.net

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 2, April 2020 371–372

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts