We tested a set of findings reported by Meier et al. (2019) related to the use of parental alienation as a
legal defense in cases in which there are allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. A total of 967
appellate reports in which PA was found or alleged were sequentially selected from a legal database
search. Nineteen research assistants blind to the study’s hypotheses coded the reports for the variables
used to test six preregistered hypotheses using a series of logistic and linear regression models. We failed
to find any support for the conclusions made by Meier et al. Parents found (vs. alleged) to have alienated
their children, regardless of their gender, had greater odds of losing parenting time, losing custody of their
children, and losing their case. These findings held even when the accusing parent had been found to have
been abusive. Losses or decreases in custody were not found when the (alleged) alienated parent was
found to have been abusive. Results indicate that the majority of courts carefully weigh allegations of all
forms of family violence in their determinations about the best interests of children. These findings, along
with several others, raise concerns that the methodological, analytical, and statistical problems we detail
about Meier’s report that make her conclusions untrustworthy. Discussion focuses on the importance of
using open science practices for transparent and rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses and the dangers
of misusing scientific findings to mislead influential professionals who affect the well-being of millions
of families.
Click to Read More..
