For much of the past year, we and several colleagues in our field have been trying to convince a publisher to retract a book.
Advocates are using the text because it contains details on how to advance numerous laws in the United States and throughout the world. The text is also currently being used to influence judicial decisions that affect the lives of thousands of families.
The problem is, the work contains a massive amount of misinformation, misquoted sources, plagiarized text, and many other flaws.
We have been so disappointed with the failure of the publisher and the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) to address our concerns and our request for retraction that we have decided to share our experience with the scientific community.
On December 3, 2021, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, published Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, which was edited by Jean Mercer and Margaret Drew. All of the chapter authors in the book have been staunch critics of parental alienation (PA) research and theory, the study of children who, as one of us (JJH) has written, are influenced by a parental figure to reject their other parent for reasons that are exaggerated or not legitimate during and after a divorce. The field has a strong scientific basis. Our group, comprised of scientists and practitioners working in the field of PA, purchased the book with the intent of writing a book review for a peer-reviewed journal.
We soon identified a pervasive amount of mis/disinformation about PA, overstated and distorted facts, mischaracterization of extant research, use of secondary and tertiary citations (and nonexistent ones), strawman arguments, and other techniques of science denial across all chapters of the book.
The problems were so extensive, we decided to write a thorough critique of the larger issues and submit a request to the publisher to retract the text from circulation, recall existing physical and digital copies, and issue a public statement that this action was taken. The critique and request for retraction was endorsed by 45 organizations studying and working with families affected by PA.
Our organizations – the Parental Alienation Study Group and the Global Action for Research Integrity in Parental Alienation – submitted our critique to Claire Jarvis, senior editor for health and social care at Routledge, and Jeremy North, managing director of books at Taylor & Francis, on August 12, 2022. We also attached a letter that included the following statement:
This is not simply a difference of opinions among professionals with contrasting perspectives on a controversial topic. Rather, our critique centers on factual errors such as distortions of the writings and opinions of other scholars.
Two weeks later, Jarvis responded by stating that the original proposal for the book “was externally reviewed by experts in the field and received two supportive endorsements. Although we appreciate that the field is a contested one, we are happy with the book’s content and will not be withdrawing it from sale.”
Realizing that Jarvis and North were not going to address our concerns, we contacted COPE on August 28, 2022. We asked specifically for help obtaining information about the procedures followed by the publisher to reach their decision to publish the book, and to gain assistance facilitating communication and resolution with Routledge. We were informed by Alysa Levine, operations manager at COPE, that we were required to refrain from posting anything about the case while it was under review.
A week later, Iratxe Puebla, facilitation and integrity officer at COPE, emailed Jarvis and Sabina Alam, director of publishing ethics and integrity at Taylor & Francis. Her email stated that COPE’s role was to provide guidance on whether any procedures were followed, or actions taken that were inconsistent with COPE practices or guidelines. She wrote:
Dr. Bernet has raised concerns that the book mentioned contains errors and inaccuracies about parental alienation. Dr. Bernet considers that the publisher should consult independent experts in assessing his concerns and withdraw the book from publication. We include below a summary of the concerns raised by Dr. Bernet.
Puelba asked Jarvis and Alam about the review process for the book, and how the publisher and its employees handled concerns about the work. She asked for an update on the current status of the follow-up with us, and whether a resolution had been reached regarding the concerns about the book.
In mid-September, Jarvis briefly responded to Puebla and Bernet with the following:
I have further discussed this concern with our editorial and publishing directors. They asked me to reiterate the first reply we gave to you which was that we are happy with the reviews we obtained for this project and also with the academic credentials of both editors. Because of this, we will not be withdrawing this book from sale.
Immediately after receiving this message, Bernet responded by pointing out that there still appeared to be no attempt to investigate the concerns we raised about the book, that we had no information about who specifically conducted the reviews of the project or how the reviewers were selected, and that she did not seem to be aware the book’s chapter authors have spent years publishing derogatory comments and falsehoods about PA.
On September 16, 2022, Puebla emailed to notify us that she had raised our correspondence with Jarvis to the attention of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee at COPE, who would review the matter. She said she would be in touch in “due course.”
For the next 3 months, Puebla repeatedly asked Jarvis to provide a response to the issues raised in her initial email.
Jarvis did not respond to any of the requests.
After Jarvis and her colleagues at Routledge and Taylor & Francis ignored the third deadline that COPE imposed on them, we emailed Puebla on November 28.
This time, we brought to her attention a blog recently posted by Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist and whistleblower. In it, Wilmshurst asked, “Has COPE membership become a way for unprincipled journals to buy a fake badge of integrity?” His point was that COPE may be unable or unwilling to sanction large publishers because COPE needs the funds these publishers pay as membership dues.
Taylor & Francis is a member of COPE, and presumably a substantial payer of dues. We explicitly asked whether there was any hope that Puebla’s office could help us resolve our disagreement with Taylor & Francis. If COPE was powerless to help sort this out, we needed to know so that we could proceed with another approach.
One day later, Puebla replied stating she raised the email to the attention of relevant members of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee.
After receiving no additional response, we again emailed Puebla on December 16, reviewing the chain of events described above. We asked, again, what the next step was—if any. Her response:
This matter is under discussion by relevant members of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee. I should note that the COPE office will be closed for a good part of the next two weeks and thus, we may only be able to provide a further update in January.
On January 1, 2023, we emailed Puebla again, this time with information about a new peer-reviewed paper published in Behavioral Sciences & the Law. The article detailed vast misinformation about PA that has been published and then republished since 1994. We pointed out that four chapters from Challenging Parental Alienation contained this misinformation, something our critique cited.
Our point was that the errors we identified in the book were not random or accidental. Rather, they represent a larger campaign by the editors and authors of the book to discredit PA research and theory. The chapter authors in the book have made the same false statements in other journal articles, book chapters, formal presentations, and government documents. The conveying of disinformation needs to be interrupted, and that is why we were seeking retraction. We asked again what the next steps are and wrote that it seemed Routledge’s membership in COPE should be suspended for failure to respond to COPE’s inquiries.
Exactly one month later, after receiving no response from Puebla, we emailed her again. We provided an outline of our correspondence regarding the matter since August 12, 2022. We informed her that during the time of this inquiry process, the editors of Challenging Parental Alienation have been promoting the book through book reviews in journals, websites, and government documents in the United States.
We again asked her for suggestions on how to resolve our dispute with the publishers, whether they had given up all discussion and negotiations with them, and whether COPE was ready to recommend suspending Routledge’s membership for failure to comply with COPE’s basic expectations regarding the resolution of serious complaints.
Finally, we asked whether she was ready to proceed with the next step in COPE’s flow chart of processes for handling this type of problem, which was that the Subcommittee member and Facilitation and Integrity Officer would review all correspondence and draft a report. We also asked whether we could start to share our concerns on social media and other outlets.
On February 4, Puebla responded to say that she, again, had raised the correspondence to the attention of relevant members of the Facilitation and Integrity Subcommittee and would be in touch as they provided advice. This is the last communication we have had with COPE.
Ironically, Routledge has published several books that present PA theory in a responsible, positive manner. But now they have published an extremely negative book replete with misinformation that directly contradicts their previous books on the topic.
We remain concerned that the publisher has refused to retract a book with obviously false and misleading material—which we believe is likely to damage children and families in many countries—and that COPE seems powerless to intervene.
Jennifer Harman is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Colorado State University. William Bernet is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
This story begins with the line, “For much of the past year, we and several colleagues in our field have been trying to convince a publisher to retract a book.” Who is we? The phrasing gives the impression that RetractionWatch is part of “we” because this story appears to be published by Retraction Watch, as opposed to being published elsewhere. Also, there is no byline on the story about who authored it. It can be construed that “we” is Dr. Harman plus RetractionWatch. Hence, it appears that RetractionWatch is supporting banning a book that they disagree with. I’m all for correcting misinformation in research but you do it by open discourse of providing your competing set of facts, not by censorship and violation of free speech. Please clarify whether RetractionWatch has taken a position of book censorship because I will not be supporting an organization that tries to suppress free speech.
Thanks for the comment. The byline appears at the bottom of the post, and the tagline of the post includes brief bios of the authors. It is a guest post, not a Retraction Watch position. For clarity, we have added “Guest post” in front of the headline.
Thanks. That partially answers my concern. How about the question of whether RetractionWatch supports banning books? Books are not peer reviewed. The guidelines of what is allowed in books versus peer-reviewed research studies are very different. Trying to ban books crosses a pretty thick line. Will blog posts on banning tweets be next? Platforming a proponent of book banning on your blog site sends a confusing message about the intentions of RetractionWatch. At the least, a blog like this ought to be accompanied with a statement on RetractionWatch’s position on book banning and/or an editorial comment on how book banning would enlighten your mission of monitoring scientific research.
Michael, this book was published by an academic press — Taylor and Francis — which said that it was “happy with the reviews we obtained for this project and also with the academic credentials of both editors.” Is there really any difference between that and peer review in practice? And retraction is not the same as banning. Recall that COPE guidelines — which are very much in play here — do not recommend making the work disappear, but instead remaining available with a “retracted” label of some kind.
We would no more offer a position on whether this book should be retracted than we would on whether any particular paper would be retracted. And we have published posts describing stories like that.
Ivan – Thank you for clarifying the difference between banning and retraction. My mistake.
I am confused about why retraction watch would be supporting a campaign to censor or “retract” a book based on empirical and clinical research. This guest post reads like a how-to for harassing, disparaging, and spreading falsehoods about scholars with whom the author disagrees. There is no evidence provided of any errors or dishonesty in the book or even mention of what these might be. The link in this screed goes to a journal article rather than “falsehoods or defamatory comments about PA”. Don’t both Harman and Bernet make their living promoting “parental alienation” treatments that they take money provide? A quick Google indicates that “Dr. Bernet has testified about 300 times in 24 states” (for money). This looks like a conflict of interest to me. And Harman has a clear financial interest in drumming up business for herself via https://www.beyondparentalalienation.com/services/
Bingo.
Then there are a lot of books to retract.
Journals have rules and contracts, if you do not follow them or lie about stats or data, then retract away.
Some books have lies that damage children. Some novels contain more truth than all the science journals in the world. Americans can handle that. We do not need Retractionologists to help sort that out. Leave that to Stalin and Castro and see what happens.
I smell something fishy. The guest author has a screaming undeclared conflict of interest. Some simple fact-checking should have prevented this guest article from being posted.
The Pace Law Library Research Guide states:
To date, PAS [Parental Alienation Syndrome] has not been accepted as a disorder by any medical association or psychological society. In 2008, a group of psychiatrists submitted PAS for inclusion in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disoders – 5th Edition). Inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 would have effectively given Gardner’s theory credibility as a verified syndrome. What it also would have done is open a floodgate of litigation on behalf of fathers who believe women’s rights have culminated into a war of the sexes in custody battles. Ultimately, PAS was not included in the latest version of the DSM because scientific methods failed to properly support its conclusions. Proponents of PAS also tried to include a modified version of PAS, called PAD, or Parental Alienation Disorder, which also failed. Hoping to circumvent the controversy surrounding PAS, supporters thought if they removed the word “syndrome” from the title, it might find its way into the books and justifiably be considered for paid medical evaluation. More importantly, courts would then have had to consider its admissibility as accepted science. Neither PAS, PA, nor PAD was admitted to the DSM in 2014, debunking Gardner’s assertions that PAS had not made it into the DSM because there was insufficient existing literature on the subject in 1993/1994.
And
To date, PAS is widely unaccepted by the medical field, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and psychological associations. In fact, PAS has been effectively discredited in criminal cases, as inadmissible pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence and in failing to pass the Frye or Daubert criteria.
Jennifer Harman, seen in the thumbshot makes money serving as an expert witness in cases of parental alienation syndrome. She has a few unimpressive publications on parental alienation and (of course) a TEDx talk to promote her commercial activities.
Her recent narrative review in Developmental Psychology on parental alienation claims a strong and growing literature but it would get failing grades in any formal evaluation as a systematic review with its long list of deficiencies.
And above, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of an “ad hominem” attack – an argument against the messenger in an attempt to avoid having to debate the actual content of the message. Very little in this post is accurate, and the few points that are accurate have been written in a way that distorts the point so much that it is essentially inaccurate. The following is an attempt to demonstrate how one professional might respond to another professional when he or she disagrees with the statements the other professional has made, without making it about attacking someone they do not even know. For those truly seeking to understand the truth about a concept and only having the Internet to help them separate truth from misinformation, I encourage you to note the difference in tone and professionalism here. Statements of misinformation are powerful because they are passionate and ignite a sense of injustice that must be rectified. However, statements of science or fact are rarely passionate or exciting, rarely move people to protest, and rarely speak in absolutes, particularly when the science being debated is social science. There are just way too many variables at play. I have done my best below to demonstrate how a scientist might explain the ad hominem attack against Dr. Harman.
1) PA has been “accepted” by the AMA and the APA (among many other professional organizations). PAS is an outdated term that is no longer used, so continuing to argue about whether it is a “syndrome” is an attempt to distract the eye. So, to say PAS has been “rejected” by medical and psychological organizations is true, but since we are no longer referring to PA as a syndrome and have long since moved past this conceptualization, the entire point is a big ‘so what.’ PA, as a psychological/psychiatric family dynamic has absolutely been accepted by these organizations as evidenced by their ongoing openness to publish research in the journals published by these organizations and encourage presentations at their organization’s annual meetings.
2) Correct, there was a time in the mid 2000s where professionals were advocating for PAS (now PA) to be included as a disorder in the DSM. However, the DSM committee believed that it could not be included primarily because DSM diagnoses are designed to apply to only one person. One (not the only, just one) of the purposes of the DSM is to provide a diagnosis to insurance companies in order to get reimbursed (APA, 2013). Insurance policies cover one person at a time. If PA was a part of the family system, who do you give the diagnosis to? The child who is alienated? The alienating parent? The rejected parent? And why would you give it to one person and not another? The family dynamic is way too complicated to apply to only one person and doing so would not do a good job at imparting information or guiding treatment, the two things written in the DSM as its stated goals. The psychiatry and psychology professions have guided professionals to use a V code in the DSM for PA (again, not PAS). V codes are used to note stressful situations that might have a negative impact on mental health. They are not diagnoses, and may apply to people with or without mental illness. So, for example, a clinician may assign the V code for parent/child relational problem to denote PA (or any other relational problem) and then also give a diagnosis for how PA is impacting the members of the family, if at all. For example, the child may have a generalized anxiety disorder, the alienating parent may have a personality disorder, and the alienated parent may have depression. Similarly, none of them may have a mental health diagnosis as well. PA is a family systems problem just like codependency systems, child abuse where one parent beats a child, another parent allows the beatings, and the child is a victim, or still other family systems where one partner is a batterer and the other partner is a victim who cannot bring themselves to leave. We are 15 years post the 2008 DSM debate about PA as a diagnosis and the science and understanding of PA has evolved since then. The conversation about PA and the DSM needs to evolve with it.
3) There is no reliable evidence to suggest that including PAS in the DSM would have opened the floodgates of litigation on behalf of fathers who believe women’s rights have culminated into a war of the sexes in custody battles. In reality, those who research PA are puzzled by how the rhetoric of PA has become about some kind of feminism, mother’s rights, father’s rights, or any of these “who’s side are you on” type of argument. The floodgates of litigation are always open to anyone who perceives it as a way to solve a wrong they feel entitled to. I am very unclear as to how PA being in the DSM would have opened these gates any more than they already are. This is an extremely speculative statement that has no grounding in science that I am aware of.
4) The statement that PAS was not included in the DSM because science failed to support its conclusions is part correct and part not correct. Again, see #2, but PAS (now PA) as it was conceptualized for the DSM was unable to support the idea that PA ONLY APPLIES TO ONE PERSON IN THE FAMILY SYSTEM AND THAT THE DIAGNOSIS SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO ONLY ONE PERSON. The idea of PA only applying to one family member continues to be unsupported, so much so, the research around PA has shifted significantly to looking at it from a family systems perspective. There is growing evidence that Alienating Behaviors may have the potential to be operationalized in a way that meets the goals of the DSM (impart information and guide treatment), as does a concept of Alienated Child. Each have unique and independent characteristics and traits that have been 1) validated as to the standards that define the problem; 2) has been tested; 3) reliably measured (i.e., has a known error rate); 4) Subjected to peer review (blind peer review I would add); and 5) widespread acceptance with a relevant scientific community. In fact, many of these blind peer reviewed scientific studies of validation and reliability have been published in some of the best journals in the field.
5) I am actually not very familiar with attempts to push for a diagnosis of Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD), so I cannot really speak to it with too much knowledge. However, if it was an attempt to repackage PAS and try to have it included in the DSM, then it would have failed for the same reasons as have already been stated.
6) It is probably important to restate that a human experience not included in the DSM does not mean it does not exist or is not a valid human experience. In the DSM-I, there were 102 categories of diagnoses, 182 in the DSM-II, 265 in the DSM-III, and 297 in the DSM-IV. The DSM-5 added at least 14 new disorders that did not exist in the DSM IV and the DSM-5 TR has revised criteria of 70 other diagnoses and even added a few more (Kawa & Giordano, 2012). The continued creation of diagnoses does not mean these disorders did not exist until the DSM created them. It also does not mean all human suffering has now, finally, been accounted for in this one book. It means providers now have more ways to bill insurance for the things they see in their office every day. There are still many things providers see that they cannot use the DSM to document. When this happens, they just write “Adjustment Disorder NOS.”
7) I do think it is fair to say if any part of PA was to be included in the DSM it would make it easier for professionals who take insurance to be reimbursed for their services. I cannot deny this may have been a motivator (though I must admit, I do not know for sure). However, the inclusion of the word “syndrome” had nothing to do with that. Considering that PA could be understood as a syndrome-like phenomenon was a part of the scientific inquiry in understanding alienation. Scientific inquiry is not static. Particularly in the social sciences, it is always evolving and changing. Just look at all the different ways people talk about their identity these days – racial, sexual, gender – and compare that to how people talked about their identity in the early 80s. Or how we have come to understand the impact of commercial images of women and their bodies and how that affects the self-esteem of young girls. I could go on and on, but these examples demonstrate just how dynamic and evolutionary the process of social science inquiry is. Yes, there was a time when the science was exploring the concept of alienation as a syndrome. However, as more work was done, scientists have realized that looking at alienation from a reductionist standpoint of the diagnostic impression of one person is not the best fit for understanding it. However, if one continues to focus only on 20 year old articles, one may still believe this very old DSM argument.
8) The statements made around courts’ consideration of alienation was dependent on its getting accepted in the DSM is just wrong. There are many, many dynamics that meet the Daubert standard of admissibility that are not in the DSM – battered women’s syndrome being one of them. Furthermore, the assertion that PA is not admissible because it does not meet the Daubert standard is also inaccurate. I encourage the reader to review Appendix B written by Demosthenes Lorandos in the book entitled Parental Alienation Science and the Law by Lorandos and Bernet published in 2020. The Appendix is a 47 PAGE list of all the cases in the United States where PA has been admitted as a scientific phenomenon that meets the Daubert criteria. Many articles were published in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s that argued that PA was a novel science that, at the time, had insufficient evidence to meet the Daubert Standard. However, 20 years have passed since then and most of the scientific research that has been conducted on PA has been conducted during the past 20 years.
9) The statement, “In fact, PAS has been effectively discredited in criminal cases, as inadmissible pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence and in failing to pass the Frye or Daubert criteria,” was plagiarized word for word from the following website of a project posted by a law student: https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/c.php?g=907824&p=6632598. However, in looking at the student’s project, several notable problems arise. First, the work cited and relied on by this student regarding PA”S” inadmissibility was published in 1994, 2001, and 2006. The legal cases this student cited to support PA inadmissibility were in 1988, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2001. The 2001 case was the case where the above plagiarized statement was made is 22 years old (to be fair, the student project does not cite its author(s), so perhaps Mr. Coyne was the, or, one of the students involved in this project). A LOT has changed since then.
To put a finer point on it, DNA was discovered in 1984 and first used by police in 1986 (the DNA in the 1986 case was used by police to clear a suspect and still had not been tested in court). The Daubert case outlining what came to be the standard by which the Federal court (and many state courts) judged scientific evidence was not decided until 1993. Although most people reading this post may think of DNA testing as an infallible scientific approach, in actuality, DNA testing has been regularly challenged, using the Daubert criteria. From sample collection standards, to testing approaches, to statistical analyses, and more, there are always going to be questions about its reliability. This was particularly true in the early years of its use in court. And this is as it should be. We question DNA not because it is wrong, biased, unreliable, or bad science. It has been the best tool we have for overturning wrongful convictions. We question DNA in specific situations because science is never perfect when humans are involved. DNA is not perfect. PA is not perfect. We question science because science continually evolves, but this evolution comes to a halt when the questioning replaces curiosity with an agenda or a belief system that refuses to move forward and acknowledge new information.
Scientists are the people actively questioning with a curious mind. Dr. Jennifer Harman is one of those people. I’m always amused when people criticize experts for “making money” on their expertise, as Mr. Coyne has here. It is such a low hanging fruit of a criticism. Everyone working in a courtroom is making money, including the jurors. One thing many do not know is being a professor is not necessarily a lucrative endeavor. A professor in the business school, law school, or engineering may make $200K-250k a year, but a professor in the social sciences makes around$90K. Social scientists do research because they love it and because they want to contribute something to the world. Every once in a while, the work they do is relevant in a courtroom, but I have yet to meet a social scientist who set out to be some money printing machine in the courtroom. Most social scientists end up doing expert work by accident. When you do enough research in one area and become recognized for that research, the lawyers end up finding you.
Dr. Harman is no different. I don’t know what her salary is, but she works at a public university, so anyone can look it up if they want to. I don’t know what she charges for expert testimony either. I do know that she only talks about the science and her research. I would also put money on this guess: if you looked at her testimony across the cases she has testified in, her answers to the questions asked of her would be consistent, she would have cited published research to support her statements, and she would acknowledge what science has not figured out yet.
The fact that Dr. Harmon does testify about PA should also tell you that Mr. Coyne’s statements about inadmissibility are also completely inaccurate. If PA was so inadmissible, then how could Dr. Harmon “make money serving as an expert witnesses in cases of parental alienation syndrome?”
Furthermore, Dr. Harmon’s publications are not unimpressive. To the contrary, she has published her work in some of the highest ranked journals in the field. I encourage those who might debate this, including Mr. Coyne, to research the journals she has published in and note their impact factor, peer review process, rejection rate, and other statistics that help us know whether a journal is trustworthy. I also challenge the curious reader to note that Dr. Harmon publishes RESEARCH. She does the HARD work, knows how to do it, and gets it done. Look up what has been written about PA. Note that those who share the misinformed views of Mr. Coyne and manage to find an outlet to publish these views are not publishing research, they are not publishing in highly-ranked journals, and many of them are not even scientists.
Dr. Harmon’s paper in Developmental Psychology is not a “narrative,” it is a research study published in one of the most well-respected journals in the field, and therefore vetted by some of the most well-respected researchers in the field through the peer review process. While it is difficult for the general public to know what journals to rely on for accurate information, there are many metrics available to help if you know where to find them. Most of these metrics – h-index, SJR, impact factors, and rejection rates calculate things like how often a journal is cited by others, how often an author who is published in that journal is cited by others (h-index/SJR), how the work typically published in these journals impacts the field overall (impact factor), and how competitive it is to have an article published in the journal (rejection rate). Mr. Coyne suggests Dr. Harman’s research is “unimpressive” and particularly gives her work in Developmental Psychology “failing grades.” These statements can be debunked by understanding the journals that have published her work.
For example, Developmental Psychology is ranked 19th out of 78 journals in the field, rejects about 80% of all submissions, has an h-index of 222, a SJR impact factor of 1.7 and a 5 year impact factor of 5.8.
By comparison, The Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development (formally the Journal of Child Custody), a journal that routinely publishes “critiques” of research (including negative critiques of PA with arguments similar to that of Mr. Coyne) and rarely (if ever) publishes actual research, is not ranked, rejects only 45% of all submissions, has an h-index of 21, a SJR impact factor of .3, and a 5-year impact factors of 1.9.
The fact is Dr. Harmon is a tenured (and don’t get me started about how hard it is to get tenure) researcher at a well-respected institution of higher learning. Her research is some of the most rigorous available in the area of PA, it has been peer-reviewed and accepted by the top journals in the field, and it is changing how we understand PA. I don’t know what to tell people like Mr. Coyce who find this threatening to some belief they hold dearly, but I hope those who are on the fence about this topic have learned something from this exchange.
Brought to you courtesy of The Alienation Doctors: Debunking Conspiracies with Science
What is your relationship/connection to Dr. Harmon if I may ask? Why defend Dr. Harmon?
None. I am not defending “her,” I am defending the science she publishes (and honestly, science and scientists more generally).
Thank you for your comment, James. Very well stated and true.
This exactly. How many of the people who signed this alleged letter to the publisher complaining about a published book on alienation claims don’t make their living “treating” it? Any?
How many people who wrote the initial book have made their living from the idea that women are not believed when they make abuse claims in court and any father who seeks custody of their children is an abuser? (I do know Dr. Mercer does not.)
We need to clear up some parental alienation misinformation:
(1) It is incorrect to say that PA has not been accepted by any medical or psychological associations. The following professional organizations have published official documents recognizing and discussing the importance of PA: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
(2) It is misleading to say that the DSM-5 Task Force thought there was not enough evidence for PA to be considered a mental disorder. It is true they said not enough research to be a “mental disorder,” but that PA should be considered a “mental condition.” Those are terms of art for DSM. “Mental disorders” are traditional diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. “Mental conditions” are included in the DSM as “relational problems,” child maltreatment, intimate partner violence and related conditions.
(3) It is misleading to say that PA was not admissible in a criminal trial. But PA was considered acceptable for testimony in more than 1,100 civil trials (such as custody disputes) in the U.S. The entire list of those trials is in the appendix of Parental Alienation: Science and Law.
(4) The ad hominem comments about Dr. Jennifer Harman are insulting. Mr. Coyne is entitled to express his opinions, but not to invent his own facts.
Cher Dr Berner,
Depuis 1994, je recherche les causes des défaillances de la ” Justice ” de plus de 60 Pays ( actuellement) concernés par les Séparations Parentales Conflictuelles où des enfants souffrent de troubles comportementaux divers ; dont certains souffrent de débilité mentale ! Dont certains se suicident dès 13 ans, jusqu’à la trentaine.
Les Parentectomies ( Dr Williams 1990 ) se développent à une vitesse Vv’ !
En Belgique, 1 enfant / 3 ( même lorsqu’ils ont 30 ans ) souffrent de troubles psychiques dont on en ignore les raisons ! Et qu’ils doivent attendre plus de 6 mois pour consulter un Psychiatre !
Nous connaissons tous les dégâts qu’occasionne l’Aliénation parentale ! Tant sur la santé des enfants ! Mais aussi sur celle des parents privés de leurs enfants, sans raison d’être ! Mais en raison d’enlèvement et de séquestration d’enfant par vengeance ! Et pour en retirer du Profit !
Ma question est celles-ci :
Depuis les années 80, ou R. Gardner lança un cri d’alarme, et qu’en 1993, le CIM-10 énonça une série de troubles psychiques constatés chez les enfants aliénés ; pourquoi aucun Ministre de la Santé ( des 60 Pays concernés) n’eurent la réaction de prévenir le Législateur pour qu’il puisse légifèrer ? Puisque les troubles ( inscrits dans le CIM-10 ) et résultant de délits bien connus! Lesquels délits PORTENT PRÉJUDICES À LA SOCIÉTÉ !!!
✓ Oui ! Pourquoi les Ministres de la Santé n’ont-ils pas réagi ?
Au sein de notre Groupe de Paroles ( 3.218 Membres) le silence des Ministres de la Santé et de la Justice serai dû à une grande Organisation Mafieuse !
Pour d’autres il s’agirait d’une très grande Association de Malfaiteurs !
Qu’en pensez-vous ?
À Dinant et Namur, la Juge Carlier applique le modèle de consensus parental ( Modèle de Cochem 1992 ) résolvant jusque 95 % des conflits de séparations parentales ! Cela, sans avocat !
Anvers pratique le même processus.
Avec mes sincères salutations, cher Dr Bernet
Michel O. Willekens
Belgique
R.E.C. 1994 © INTERNATIONAL NETWORK GROUP
Hello Mr. Willekens: Thank you for your comments. I agree that there should be more education regarding parental alienation theory for mental health and legal professionals, government officials, and legislators.
Très Cher Dr Bernet, je vous remercie pour votre avis qui me conforte dans ce que je pensais pour éviter à ~ 95 % les conflits de séparations parentales, comme dans la pratique du ” Modèle de Consensus Parental ” ( Modèle de Cochem 1990 du Juge Rudolf Jürgen ) pratiqué à Dinant, Namur, par la Juge Carlier, depuis 2012 ! Et à Anvers ( Belgique ) !
Mais nos Députés ont introduit deux projets qui furent refusés au Parlement ! Cela, selon mon humble avis, par manque total de connaissances des dégâts délétères, voir mortifères sur la santé de millions d’enfants souffrant de troubles Schizophrène et Bipolaire !
Or, le Législateur ne se manifeste pas pour endiguer ce fléau de Parentectomie ( c/f le Dr Williams en 1990 ) ! Ou encore le fléau du ” Syndrome de Médée” !
✓ Lequel syndrome est un parcours sadique de la perte d’amour ! C/f le Dr Antonio Andreoli.
Ce SdM est très explicite ! Et les auteurs d’ harcèlement mise en œuvre, par un parent, voulant priver son conjoint de la relation avec ses enfants et apparaissant à l’occasion d’une rupture conjugale.
“Ce concept ajoute des dimensions psychopathologiques importantes à la notion de syndrome d’aliénation parentale : utilisation de l’enfant pour se venger, deuil sadique d’amour, retour de rites sacrificiels chez des sujets avec trouble de la personnalité confrontés à des relations d’amour dramatiques.
“Les aspects cliniques et légaux du syndrome sont analysés dans le but de fournir des clés valables de décision médicale.
Le syndrome de Médée est une réaction destructive très grave avec impact négatif majeur sur les enfants et les adultes.
Une nouvelle législation est nécessaire afin de décourager ce comportement et de mieux protéger les victimes.” Dr Andreoli
Source:
https://www.revmed.ch/revue-medicale-suisse/2010/revue-medicale-suisse-236/le-syndrome-de-medee-parcours-sadique-de-la-perte-d-amour
> Le syndrome de Médée est important en raison de la gravité extrême de la souffrance infligée et de la fréquence augmentée des séparations conjugales aboutissant à des confrontations hostiles et stigmatisant !
> Des interventions médicales spécifiques s’imposent, et ont un certain succès, en particulier chez la victime
> L’entourage proche, mais aussi les professionnels, réagissent parfois à la survenue du syndrome de Médée par des réactions d’évitement ou de dénégation que le médecin doit bien connaître, s’agissant de comportements pouvant beaucoup aggraver le stress traumatique de la victime
> Des nouvelles législations devraient permettre de mieux reconnaître le caractère délictueux de la privation d’enfant à but de vengeance passionnelle et de sanctionner cette conduite de façon appropriée. ”
Auteurs
Antonio Andreoli
Accueil et urgences psychiatriques Département de psychiatrie Hôpital cantonal universitaire
1211 Genève 2014
Alors, ma question :
Pourquoi,… parmi tant de Psychiatres, Pédopsychiatres,… n’y a-t-il pas quelques uns qui lancent des Alertes ??? Pour mettre un terme très rapide de l’aliénation parentale ?
Et pourquoi ? L’aliénation parentale est-elle contestée depuis la fin des années 90 ?
J’ai pu lire les réfutations du Dr Gardner ! Que j’admire en tant que Héro ! Décédé pour l’humanité !
Les crises cardiaques ne pardonnent pas dans de telles conditions de dénigrements par des personnes malfaisantes ! Ou par des malades mentaux !
Car il faut avoir connu les effets destructeurs de l’Aliénation parentale ! Ou de la Parentectomie ! Ou encore du Syndrome de Médée !
Mais, seule l’aliénation parentale fut contestée !
Est-ce que cette Société est sérieuse ?
Alors, Cher Docteur Bernet ? Pouvez-vous nous aider à sauver des enfants du suicide ? De l’angoisse de vivre ?
De souffrir des troubles indiqués dans le CIM-10 , en 1993 ?
Sans oublier les Parents privés de leurs enfants , sans raison d’être ? Souffrant tant ? Malades de diverses maladies causées par leur Stress insupportables ?
Des mamans m’ont confié que grâce à mon Groupe International de Paroles , elles ne se sont pas suicidée.
Sur plus de 15.000 cas de séparations parentales conflictuelles, depuis 1994, je suis écœuré de voir que l’on abat tant de parents et d’enfant !
Nous croyons tous que c’est par cupidité !
Car des parents se suicident par désespoirs ! Ruinés par leurs frais d’avocats : 16.000 € / an ! Et plus !
Je sais que j’ai dépassé le sujet, d’ici.
Mais, svp, aidez-nous à lancer vos alertes dans les Médias ! TV ! Journaux !
4 de mes connaissances sont affectées par le SAP/PAS !
Un Papa, faussement accusé de choses horribles, est allé chez son Ex partenaire pour la tuer d’un coup de fusil ! Et puis il s’est suicidé devant son fils de 6 ans !
Un peu plus loin, un autre Papa, de retour chez son Père, après avoir été expulsé de son foyer ( sans raison d’être ) s’est pendu dans le grenier de la maison ! Quelle horreur pour son vieux père ! Non ?
Bien cordialement vôtre, cher Docteur,
Michel
Recherches – Études – Communications 1994 © INTERNATIONAL NETWORK GROUP
Comité de Défense des Droits Familiaux
Village de Felenne ( Belgique )
Without some actual examples of unambiguous scientific ethics violations in the published work this raises a skeptic’s alarms. This would have been better with a much briefer coverage of all of the back and forth supported by actual examples of the problems. As the article stands it’s hard to muster any support for the authors’ plight.
Thank you for your interest. The 126-page document with about 200 examples of parental alienation misinformation is at:
https://pasg.info/app/uploads/2023/04/Analysis-of-Mercer-Drew-2023-04-04.pdf. The examples of misinformation are not ambiguous. They are clearly false or misleading statements about parental alienation theory. The purpose of the essay by Harman and Bernet is to describe how the publisher and COPE responded to this very problematic book.
This discussion as well as some unfortunate statements outside the realm of science will cause almost any reader to become (more) skeptical about the veracity of scientific literature.
It seems clear that ideology is seen as a useful tool in presenting unsupported attacks, in this case attacks against Dr. Harman and Dr Bernet.
For those who remain loyal to traditional science based inquiry, the document in the above post (https://pasg.info/app/uploads/2023/04/Analysis-of-Mercer-Drew-2023-04-04.pdf ) should provide good evidence for thoughtful debate.
How odd to suggest that the defenders of Harman et al’s attacks on the book are defending “science.” Read the critiques of Harman & Lorandos’s attack on Meier et al’s empirical findings, and then judge for yourself who is interested in true science. In fact, read the chapter on scientific support or lack thereof by Meier in the book (Challenging Parental Alienation) if you are genuinely open to learning where science actually lands in this debate. I think it should be apparent to many objective readers of this thread that the folks defending the Harman et al attack on the book are, purely and simply, ideologues. Bernet’s statements above, are also not factually correct – more ideology. Many of those assertions were debunked in an article by Milchman et al in the Family Court Review, 2020.
No, actually the document was removed as defamatory.
This document you mean? No it wasn’t. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/fcre.12476
Read this article if you want to know how credible the authors of this guest post are:
Joan S. Meier, Sean Dickson, Chris S. O’Sullivan & Leora N. Rosen (2022): The trouble with Harman and Lorandos’s attempted refutation of the Meier et al. Family court study, Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, DOI: 10.1080/26904586.2022.2036286
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26904586.2022.2086659 Harman and Lorandos’ false critique of Meier et al.’s family court study
very good short video on J. Meier
https://youtu.be/K2G6o_nrUHQ
Far from “very good,” this video is embarrassing – for the producers. The narrator herself and her simpering, sneering, etc, should suffice to discredit it. The narrator also, like all PA ideologues, takes words out of context in order to attack them. To be clear, Meier (me) has never denied that parents sometimes use behaviors to drive children away from the other parent. All of my work focuses on the misuse of that concept to deny true abuse. The problem of abusive parents alienating their children from their adult victim (of abuse) is a real one, one I have consistently written about. See my articles in the Journal of Child Custody in 2009 and 2010.
“The problem of abusive parents alienating their children from their adult victim (of abuse) is a real one, one I have consistently written about.”
How do you differentiate between the two?
By investigating children’s reports of abuse and the reasons they don’t want to be near the parent they fear rather than rejecting their report of abuse without investigating them as long as the parent they fear claims they’re a great parent who’s the real victim (of being reported for abuse by their child).
If the report is investigated and it can’t be proven abuse occured, what happens next?
I am familiar with Jennifer Harman’s work from people who have had her write parental alienation assessment reports. She has done this WITHOUT meeting both parties or the children involved. She also puts in the caveat in her report “I am not a licensed mental health professional who operates in a capacity to diagnose the parties or make recommendations for intervention or treatment to the Court.”
I seriously question the ethics of someone who writes reports on people she has not even met or interviewed. Her source of data from actual interactions was ONLY one party – the father.
In addition, she wrote an Evaluation of the Turning Points for Families (TPFF) led by Linda Gottlieb. It was a glowing review of the program. However, other personal accounts say something very different. https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/20/expose-the-quiet-epidemic-of-judicial-child-trafficking-in-america/
Please see Joan Meier’s rebuttal to Harman and Lorandos’ Parental Alienation “study”. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26904586.2022.2036286
Also see her updated rebuttal: Harman and Lorandos’ false critique of Meier et al.’s family court study https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26904586.2022.2086659
It is wonderful how much scrutiny Gail brings to this topic by highlighting how some of Jennifer Harman’s reports are written WITHOUT having met BOTH parental parties and/or the children involved. I happen to know that Gail is right about this ‘dubious’ practice and, by way of evidence, can point to a similar report beside me now, albeit written by Linda Gottlieb in 2014. However, why does Gail’s scrutiny stop strategically short of mentioning that the very good reason for this undesirable practice is not the professional incompetence of Jennifer or Linda, but the absence of cooperation and connection from that other parent? Why didn’t you mention that Gail? I’ll tell you. Because, doing so would have admitted to the debilitation and unimpartable sorrow visited upon those alienated, including the children.
Of course, this particular report of Linda Gottlieb’s was felt as an affront to the family court’s own claims to expertise – (and how dare she make such assertions having not even met ALL the parties)! Yet, it was Linda who gauged what the family court agencies failed to pick up on in multiple interviews The outcome was 100% alienation, meaning not only alienation of a parent, but isolation of a child with an abusive parent throughout all developmental stages from aged 11 to 20. The outcome, near ruinous; the re-connection, a lifeline for the child, and not achieved through any legal or government agency; and it took 9 years of never knowing whether it would ever come about.
I watched Linda Gottlieb state that “virtually the only explanation for a child rejecting a parent is a programming” referring to an alienating parent. This kind of generalization gets a pass? It is sounds to me like she is promoting an ideology that her career and income is based on whether or not it causes harm or chaos for families. Is it not likely that children could reject a parent for an untold number of complex and simple reasons that have 100% nothing to do with an alienating parent? Jean Mercer has stepped in to emphasizes that this is one of the things that might be missing from the parents al alienation model and is Mercer not correct?
I know that the mother was not even aware of this report until three years after it was done by Harman. And she only found out because the father submitted it to the court. She was never contacted by Harman to get her input… Ever.
As a co-editor of the book Challenging Parental Alienation (Routledge, 2022), I would like to comment on Harman’s statements. The remarks offered here on Retraction Watch closely resemble a 127-page critique posted on ResearchGate, which was taken down as defamatory; it stated that the editors and chapter authors had intentionally misled the public and accused authors of one chapter of lying about their experiences with PA. There appears to be a planned attack on challenges to the PA belief system, including an email blitz to the Routledge editor, and I have to wonder whether a PR firm has been hired to organize this. (I have seen that happen with another alternative psychotherapy when it was criticized.)
I would like to point out that the only motive for saying that our book contains misinformation is in the simple fact that we disagree on many points with PA proponents like Harman and Bernet. If these people would like to demonstrate that they are right and we are wrong, they are free to do that by carrying out the empirical research that would be needed to show that they have evidence-based methods of identifying PA cases and safe and effective ways of treating such cases. Their current offerings of level 3 studies are not adequate (see cebc4cw.org and effectivechildtherapy.org for descriptions of levels of evidence in this kind of research). Even a long-term proponent of PA thinking, Richard Warshak, has pointed out in a 2020 paper that the number of false positives in identification of PA cases contributes to the existing skepticism about the whole belief system. It is essential to develop a valid, reliable method of identification of PA cases, and Madelyn Milchman’s chapter in Challenging Parental Alienation proposes one that would replace the “five factor model”, the latter never having been validated on real-life cases, but only on reactions to artificial vignettes.
I hope Harman and her colleagues will consider doing serious research on these issues rather than spending their time on book bans and on irrelevancies like counting the number of journal articles that refer to PA.
As a complete outsider I won’t attempt to comment on the merits, but as far as this is concerned:
“I would like to point out that the only motive for saying that our book contains misinformation is in the simple fact that we disagree on many points with PA proponents like Harman and Bernet. ”
I’ll just say that one does notice that the original post certainly leaves that impression.
I have to agree. The linked PDF does contain many examples of troubling generalizations and possible false statements, but this guest post is written in an explicitly political tone and focuses on the differing scientific conclusions reached by the book’s authors.
Glad RW accepted this guest post but this reflects badly on its author.
Hello Dr Mercer,
Thank you for weighting in on this discussion. In your description of the authors of the review you point out that they have a history of defamation against you (others). I’m sorry to hear that and glad that you got a removal of the malicious material.
You also make it clear that the only reason to claim that your work contains misinformation is because of simple disagreement with your findings.
To allow for a better understanding of how you work is beyond anyones ability to disagree, and to be entirely responsive to this thread why not post the names of the reviewers and their comments as you were given them?
Seems that would put very strong end to this entire discussion.
Thanks
No scholar would claim the standard for scholarly work is for it to be “beyond anyones [sic] ability to disagree.” Scholars engage in debate in peer reviewed journals rather than attempting to get books retracted if they don’t agree with them.
Hello Dr. Mercer: Thank you for reading the document, the “Comprehensive Review,” that Dr. Harman and I and our colleagues developed regarding your book, Challenging Parental Alienation. You have said that some parts of the “Comprehensive Review” are defamatory. Please let me know exactly what sentences or paragraphs of “Comprehensive Review” are incorrect or defamatory; and we will consider your concerns and, if necessary, make adjustments in our document. We are striving for the “Comprehensive Review” to be as thorough and as accurate as possible. You can reach me at [email protected].
As much as Dr. Harmon tried to bring the paper to as many people’s attention as she could, not one single person with any authority was interested in Dr. Harmon’s brilliant opinions about the book CHALLENGING PARENTAL ALIENATION. So, Jean Mercer wrong, and everyone who agrees with Jean Mercer is wrong, and everyone who declined to take any action on Dr. Harmon’s complaints are wrong? So everyone who does not agree with Dr. Harmon is wrong?
Does retractionwatch just let anyone do a guest spot? Radu was obviously over the line but this seems to have been a poor choice as well.
I see the above post as a very respectfully written, informative, whistleblow. However, it would also be quite understandable if after more than a few unsuccessful attempts to get any kind of substantial response from them, COPE has stretched Dr. Harman’s patience.
Regardless of the understandable lack of patience she may or may not have in this circumstance, she is raising a profound question in an open forum. Can large publishers get away with results which are quasi peer reviewed, “contains a massive amount of misinformation, misquoted sources, plagiarized text, and many other flaws”? If not, should they not run toward information which shows a wealth of contrary data while being completely accountable to a system setup for that purpose?
It seems to me that providing an answer to the questions put to COPE should be quite simple. All publishers and authors should not only be willing, but anxious to defend their work.
Writing posts which do the opposite, attack a messenger while avoiding answers, may not generate much confidence in either the work or the author.
The hugely profitable parental alienation industry from which Dr. Harmon benefits is a *”kafkaesque” remedy to the problem of children’s welfare in a divorce.
Dr. Harmon, Amy Baker and Linda Gottlieb and others have tapped into a huge lucrative audience of fathers thrilled to cry foul and pay a lot of $ to try and get an upper hand in a situation where they had the opportunity to bond and respect and position themselves in their children’s lives and find themselves rejected for an untold number of reasons.
Once this flawed parental alienation model is thrown out there will still remain the real problem of parents who do behave poorly keep children from another parent and that will require new complex solutions to make sure that children are taken care of an good fathers do not get steam rolled by crazy women.
What is inherently wrong with “attacking a messenger”? is it not part of how our society deals with issues and concerns? We seem to like attacking a messenger when the messenger does not promote out point of view but we do not like it when someone attacks a messenger who does promote out point of view. I assume you are an advocate of the parental alienation model or a supporter or ally of Dr. Harmons?
And Robert, what is exactly inherently wrong with a child rejecting a subpar antisocial disrespectful parent for their own good reason or even for no reason at all?
*Jean Mercer said “kafkaesque”
Correction
Dr. Harmon, Amy Baker and Linda Gottlieb and others have tapped into a huge lucrative audience of fathers thrilled to cry foul and pay a lot of $ to try and get an upper hand in a situation where they had the opportunity to bond and respect and position themselves in their children’s lives and did not while the mother actually did the work and bonded with the children and now the fathers who half *ssed it find themselves rejected and that could be for an untold number of reasons, none of which is the mother mind controlling the children as if they are mindless malleable puppets. Teens are intelligent small adults who want to make choices just like older adults do and they quite the opposite of the blobs Amy Baker Dr. Harmon and Linda Gottleib are promoting so they can line their pockets being expert on a false premise.
Why do you keep calling Dr. Harman “Dr. Harmon”?
Correction. Dr. Harman
You’ve said a great deal.
Unfortunately it’s generally unhelpful about the veracity of the one publication or the other.
BTW, if you’re concerned about high earns misleading about the science, do you have any idea how wealthy Dr Mercer has become from her private forensic work alone?
Her attempt to hold Dr Warshak responsible for identifying a misuse of PA through false positives, is a misdirected shadow of what Dr Warshak thinks and writes.
In answer to a question you put to me, yes, I am quite involved with PA (it’s not only a notion, nor just something like pa thinking) issues, education, and advocacy.
Are you the Robert Samery who is a realtor who has been spreading the misinformation that there are no shelters for men in Canada and promotes disrupting events where research on violence against women is presented?
In the interests of shifting this discussion to a factual one, I offer the following information about the main substantive points under contention.
1. The statement that PA is not accepted in DSM-5 in any form is correct.
The reason this is correct is that PA (capitalized as a proper noun with a unique name) denotes a discrete, identifiable phenomenon, an entity that is a “thing.” Those labels reify a concept. They are NOT equivalent to particular behaviors conceptualized as factors that are part of PAS or PAD, or even as PABS. While PABS refers to behaviors, they are still conceptualized as factors that are part of an identifiable phenomena and whose presence helps identify the existence/the presence of that phenomena. They are not just behaviors which, among other behaviors, are harmful to children.
Alienating behaviors (lower case “a” and “b”) are what is included in DSM-5, not PA by any of its names. There are 2 categories that include descriptions of alienating behaviors:
V.61.20 (Z62,820) Parent-Child Relational Problem – “Examples of behavioral problems include … negative attributions of the other’s intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement” (p. 715
V.61.29 (Z62.898) Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress – “high levels of conflict, … or disparagement” (p. 716)
Claims that DSM-5 recognize “Alienation” are misleading. It recognizes harmful parenting practices that cause problems for the child within the family system – along with behaviors such as inadequate parental involvement with the child and parental overprotection (V. 61.20) and parental distress (V.61.29). None of these behaviors warrant special or specific legal or forensic remedies. DSM-5 does not recognize “Alienation” as a diagnostic entity, no matter how it is labeled, neither as a Disorder or a Condition.
2. The statement that DSM-5 rejected P/A/S/D/B/ in part because it lacked scientific validity studies is true.
It is true that PAS/D/B/A refers to a family system problem, not a mental condition in one person and it is true that this was part of the reason for its rejection by DSM-5. It is also true that proponents of the phenomenon have reconceptualized its identifying criteria to meet this objection and propose that it is a disorder in the child – though various treatises describe it as a relational problem, and, definitionally, it is so because there has to be one parent who manipulates the child against the other for the child’s behavior to be considered alienated. However, it is not true that this is the only reason DSM-5 rejected it (see Bernet, 2010 for a detailed history).
The conceptual shifts did not compensate for the lack of adequate scientific validity studies. Scientific validity studies have rigorous methodological requirements (see Saini et al., 2012, 2016) that must establish 2 types of validity. One is that the identifying criteria discriminate the phenomenon from others that appear similar (discriminant validity). The other is that phenomenon which should be related to the phenomena under question are so related (convergent validity).
There is no scientific study which meet these validation criteria (Milchman, 2019), though anecdotal evidence and examples have been cited as support for the concept, and claims that logically plausible related concepts (e.g., encapsulated delusions) are evidence of its (convergent) validity are made. Especially important is that every proposed P/A/S/D/B/ factor could just as logically be interpreted as signs of defensive thinking or post-traumatic avoidance in child abuse victims (Milchman, 2022 – in Challenging PA).
3. The statement that there is a risk of increased litigation if P/A/S/D/B/ is recognized is realistic.
It is true that there is no research evidence that documents this risk. Such research would have to document rates of divorce litigation in courts that have/have not accepted PA.
However, Meier et al.’s FCO study indicates the benefits that accrue to parents alleging alienation as a rebuttal to child abuse allegation. The risk can also be indirectly assessed by following the progress of alienation claims and their outcomes in international courts.
Brilliant. You appear to know your stuff. Thank-you .
Short and to the point:
Who is correct? The honeybee argues that nectar and pollen from the flowers are best. The fly argues that the pile of dung is best.
I have seen and also conducted my own study on the effects and outcomes of PA on adult children of parental alienation, ages 18 to 79 years old.
I have seen the effects and outcomes on target parents, grandparents, family and friends, also on rehabilitating alienating parties.
Unfortunately, I neglected to document any positive outcomes.
Dr Mercer and followers: Can you, with any funding available from your sponsors document relevant positive outcomes refuting the existing negative findings?
I suspect that Dr Mercer and followers will also be able to prove Attorney Mary Roby Sanders an AV Pre-eminent rated attorney’s remark: “My theory on litigation is if any custody case gets in front of a judge, there is a mental health problem. Either one or both litigants have mental issues or possibly the lawyers”. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLCsbtS9dUA&t=3757s
If somebody with a magic wand eliminates parental alienation in the wink of an eye, who will lose out more: Will it be the psychologists, psychotherapists, or other medical and support persons that can spend more time with other clients in need, earning around $300 or will it be the family law attorney earning up to $1,500 a day practising only family law the past ten years?
Finally, Dr Mercer and Co.: I believe most of you are legal professionals. How many of you have any psychological, psychotherapy, or other medical training and experience?
Dr. Milchman is a licensed psychologist.
Dr. Mercer is an academic researcher.
Ms. Meir is an attorney.
This is the only Andries van Tonder I can locate on Google scholar . Are you a veterinarian? https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?hl=en&user=SxloJIkAAAAJ
About Parental alienation:
Alienating behaviours:-
PASG published definition (modified 08/2022): Alienating behaviours refer to the activities of the alienating party, which contribute to the child’s unjustified contact refusal of the target parent such as: denigrating the target parent; limiting the child’s contact with the target parent; allowing the child to choose between their parents or carers; creating the impression the target parent is dangerous and unloving; etc.
General description:- Parental alienation has been described as a situation when a child’s resistance or hostility towards the target parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the alienating party.
Simple definition:- Parental Alienating Behaviours are abuse and neglect that teach, encourage, or allow a child to hate, disrespect, dishonour, or abuse.
Legal definition (June 2022-IEDC):- Parental Alienating Behaviours refer to acts of negligence and/or behaviours not inherent in lawful sanction directed towards preventing and/or disrupting the attachment bond between a child and its parent(s) or legal guardian(s).
Parental Alienating Behaviours regularly cause the abandonment of the child by the target parent(s). This is an offence. Procuring and promoting abandonment is also an offence.
The actions of the alienating party include but are not limited to, hostile aggressive parenting, domestic violence by proxy (legal abuse), coercive control, false accusations, psychological manipulation, brainwashing, triangulation, enmeshment, and/or parentification. The mentioned actions are cruelty to children, causing serious harm, reckless endangerment of the child, and coercion.
Parental Alienating Behaviours are not inherent in lawful sanction, therefore it is contrary to lawful sanction.
Copied from http://oupajoe.ie/pa/Completed/Alienation%20Terminology.html
I find this discussion about parental alienation interesting, but Retraction Watch is not the forum to debate the science of parental alienation. It would be beneficial if we stick to the issue at hand. Drs. Harman and Bernet have produced a voluminous report that contains considerable allegations of misquotes, misrepresentations of research, fraudulent citations, science denial techniques, plagiarism and more. These allegations are irrespective of the science. I have read their report and the documented errors are very disturbing and seem difficult to deny. I trust that anyone else who is commenting in this blog has actually viewed the review and its claims. The fact is that either Mercer’s book contains such errors or it doesn’t. Anyone can make this determination by checking out the allegations in the report and deciding for themselves. You don’t have to be a scientist to see if a quote is plagiarized or if a citation is false or misleading. It is within the realm of COPE’s ethical guidelines for a publisher to retract a book that is replete with so many errors if the allegations are demonstrated to be valid through a thorough review process.
Harman and Bernet asked COPE to facilitate that the publisher will conduct such a review process, yet the publisher refused to acknowledge COPE’s deadlines to do so. COPE also seems to have shirked its responsibility to follow through on their request and Retraction Watch is a proper forum to describe how the publisher and COPE have failed to respond in a professional manner.
With this said, since three of the book’s authors have joined this discussion, it would be helpful to its readers if the authors could provide some transparency and answer directly some of the questions that have been raised in this blog.
Do the authors have any explanation for the seemingly gross errors that the Bernet/Harman review raises? Again, readers aren’t interested in the science of parental alienation or the DSM, we want to know about the false citations, plagiarism etc. I have looked at the examples in their report and checked them out myself in your book. Harman and Bernet did not make this up, the errors are there in black and white for everyone to see. How do you respond to this?
The publisher claims that the book was reviewed by experts. Who were these experts and what comments did they make to improve the prior to publication book?
Dr. Mercer writes in this blog that the Harman/Bernet report was removed from Researhgate because it was defamatory. Dr. Mercer herself is well aware of what constitutes defamation from her own personal experience when she successfully fought defamation charges that were brought against her in Federici vs. Mercer (http://childmyths.blogspot.com/2010/12/federici-v-mercer-story-behind-lawsuit.html?m=1).
Please detail for the readers what exactly is defamatory about the report. Of course, any serious critique of this nature looks bad for the recipient, but if the report is accurate it cannot be considered defamatory. Dr. Mercer does write on 4/23 that the Harman/Bernet review states that the chapter authors “intentionally misled the public” and “lied about their experiences”. The review does imply that the authors intentionally misled the public, but this is within the context of the gross errors in the book and the failure to acknowledge any research that does not support the book’s theme. If the errors in the book are really so numerous, it is not defamation to say the authors misled the public.
Please identify where it says in the review that the authors “lied about their experiences.” I cannot find such a statement in the review.
Mercer also writes that the “only reason for saying that our books contains misinformation is in the simple fact that we disagree on many points with PA proponents”. Please clarify how misquoting someone or making claims about PA that no PA experts has made is a disagreement about PA. For example, what is a source for claiming that “Parental Alienation Theory Assumes That All Children Who Manifest Contact Refusal Were Influenced to Do So by the Alienating Activities of the Favored Parent” ? The Bernet review seems to document that this is a straw man argument. If it is truly an integral part of PA theory, please provide your source for this.
Mercer writes that “I hope Harman and her colleagues will consider doing serious research on these issues rather than spending their time on book bans”. Likewise, Meier wrote on 4/24:
“Read the critiques of Harman & Lorandos’s attack on Meier et al’s empirical findings, and then judge for yourself who is interested in true science. In fact, read the chapter on scientific support or lack thereof by Meier in the book (Challenging Parental Alienation) if you are genuinely open to learning where science actually lands in this debate. I think it should be apparent to many objective readers of this thread that the folks defending the Harman et al attack on the book are, purely and simply, ideologues. Bernet’s statements above, are also not factually correct – more ideology”.
These comments are mere smokescreens that sidestep the issues at hand. Readers of this blog cannot accept such a flippant dismissal of their research track record. While I and other readers on this blog may not agree or accept all of the conclusions that Harman, Bernet and other PA researchers come to in their research, their research is consistently published in top rated peer reviewed journals. The critics of PA cannot say so about their own research. As far as Joan Meier’s “empirical” study about US courts, it was peculiarly never published in any American peer reviewed journal and her responses to its critique which she urges us to read only mustered an article in The Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development.
I took Meier’s suggestion and read her chapter in the book. I also read the Bernet/Harman review and saw the many errors and misrepresentations that it found in that chapter. As Meier said, when read together, the two documents do seem to indicate who is practicing science and who is engaged in ideology. The readers of Retraction Watch are waiting for the authors of Challenging Parental Alienation to directly address the above concerns without any other rhetoric. In the absence of a transparent response to these inquiries, it would seem that the authors silence is an admission to the validity of the claims in the Bernet/Harman review.
Well laid out, The Daily Bomb, good pointed questions as well.
It may be that these very same questions have been asked, numerous times, with the same outcome as I expect here. Meaning, it’s likely this discussion is at an end, at least so far as Dr. Mercer, Dr. Drew and Taylor & Francis will comment.
Seems there is no defence of the problematic publication.
Daily Bomb, if people are taking the opportunity to debate the science of parental alienation here, I would say that Retraction Watch could be many things for many people including a forum for participants to debate whatever comes up in the discussion. You and might minded others can discuss what you wish to discuss while others will discuss what they want to discuss. This can be a rich vertical discussion that expands beyond the unwritten rules you might adhere to.
It’s not normal scholarly practice to demand that authors defend their publications against the spurious claims of random realtors, veterinarians, or retired psycholgists on a blog that is supposed to be about academic misconduct. Researchers certainly are not obliged to do so and this is not how science works.
As Kelley Bacon points out, this blog is supposed to be about academic misconduct. The Harman/Bernet review is about misconduct such as misinformation, citation fraud, plagiarism and more. The authors themselves willingly entered the discussion and claimed that defamatory claims were made against them. They then tried to defend themselves by engaging in rhetoric about the legitimacy of PA without addressing the real issues of the review which is academic misconduct. In consideration of this, they should explain why the review is defamatory instead of making vague accusations without support. It is therefore appropriate to make this request and ask them to answer the claims of this review. If they have good answers, why won’t they share them with the public? This is how science works.
That is how your version of science works or That is how your version of science works from your personal point of view? And that is what all discussion on this page must strictly adhere to according to you? Ok. Noted.
To you , John Smith, as well as to Kelly Bacon.
I’m not referring to the alienation issues per se here. The questions I am interested in have to do with the original post here. Why have serious scholars gotten no substantive response to their serious questions about the claim to hard science that has been inappropriately used in the supposedly peer reviewed book “Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents”, which was edited by Jean Mercer and Margaret Drew?
There has been zero explanation (defence) by either the publisher nor the editors.
That is and should be, very concerning to anyone who believes peer reviewed publications are different than Twitter.
“Harman declined comment, citing medical issues. She declined to respond to a list of detailed questions emailed to her. “Please do not contact me again,” she emailed back, adding that her work is “scientifically supported.””
https://denvergazette.com/colorado-watch/httpsparental-alienation-theory-roils-colorado/article_05bd10da-15de-11ee-aa7f-07f8d2130a0c.html?fbclid=IwAR12ywA6PBcV7CdKW4MQk-32JXuRDh8lkXKHiul-u9lNvN5k8NXU3Ncmylo
After staying up way too late and reading more of these materials than I really wanted or needed to, I have to conclude that the pro-PA crowd is basically engaging in something like the disinformation tactic of “censorship by noise”. The 126-page report is ridiculous and unprofessional. They quote the book authors raising substantive concerns about their field’s key assumptions, but instead of defending those assumptions at all they rather nitpick (incorrectly) what page number the book authors give for their citations. How exhausting for the book authors.
That said, the CORE probably did mess up by allowing this to drag on for so long without a resolution. They should have just said — Thanks, Harman et al, for your efforts to engage with us, but we find that your objections to the book do not have merit. … I can only guess that some staffer was simply feeling avoidant about having that awkward conversation.
The results of reunification camp need to be told from the perspective of the people that have gone through it. There is no academic institution where the results that the parental alienation advocates have submitted the data for scrutiny, therefore the media reports are what is relevant.
https://www.insider.com/how-parents-force-their-children-into-experimental-therapy-2023-11