The topic “studied” was “Parental Alienation.” An article in the American Psychological Association’s Psychology Bulletin defined this “a parental figure engaging in the long-term use of a variety of aggressive behaviors to harm the relationship between their child and another parental figure.” It results in “a child’s reluctance or refusal to have a relationship with a parent...for illogical, untrue, or exaggerated reasons.”
Some misrepresent psychologists’ debate over Parental Alienation in an effort to exclude its consideration by the legal system. Scientific psychology doesn’t dispute that some parents “alienate” children from another parent. Debate concerns whether children’s “alienation” meets the strict criteria for a mental health disorder. That question impacts how—not if—courts should take account of parents’ “alienating” behavior.
What drives attempts to exclude Parental Alienation is “the feminist narrative of virtuous women and villainous men.” George Washington University's Professor Joan Meier, for example, wants family court to take a lead from the MeToo movement which “shifted the balance of credibility...toward [self-professed] victims and away from alleged perpetrators.” One Newsweek article by a female rape victim called this “a dangerous force.” Starting with “guilty until proven innocent” it ended with calls to treat an accusation as definitive proof.
Such bias permeates Meier’s article. It bemoans that “courts reject 81% of mothers’ allegations of child sexual abuse, 79% of their allegations of child physical abuse, and 57% of their allegations of partner abuse.” Meier doesn’t ask if courts might be wrong. She presumes the truth of allegations—then looks for “reasons” why courts are “wrong.” Her “explanation” is “pro-male bias.” Parental Alienation claims served as her chief villain.
This same Joan Meier was the “Principal Investigator” in the $500,000 project funded by the NIJ. One of her four “consultants” was the feminist Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Another, Chris O’Sullivan, worked for a feminist institute euphemistically named the National Organization for Men Against Sexism. Objectivity couldn’t be expected.
The NIJ’s “Description of original award” suggests objectivity wasn’t the goal. This description:
- Referred to “custody courts' failure to protect children when mothers allege [not prove] the father is abusive.” But courts do not dismiss such allegations out of hand. They dismiss them when unsubstantiated.
- Stated that the theory of Parental Alienation “was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers.” This is the precise opposite of the truth. It can only be based in ignorance or bias.
- Aimed “to ascertain whether...parental alienation is also gender-biased in practice and outcome.” This would be legitimate for objective scholars. Feminist ideologues routinely assume “gender bias” must exist whenever “outcomes” do not match the requirements of feminist ideology.
Three problems exemplify Meier’s bias and dishonesty: 1) “A data-dredging technique known as ‘p-hacking,’ which occurs when someone manipulates their analyses until they get the statistically significant results that they want.” 2) Failure to make data and statistical models public or provide them to scholars upon request. 3) Inability to replicate Meier’s conclusions on the basis of available data.
In August 2021 the National Parents Organization and 20 other activist groups presented an account of Meier’s dishonest methods to the NIJ. The NIJ’s response merely stated that: “Scientific knowledge is developed through an incremental process involving research, testing, dispute and resolution. This study addressed an important issue as it relates to child custody, and has sparked debate in the scientific community.”
For the research agency of the Department of Justice to fund and defend Meier’s propaganda puts children at risk, undermines justice and wastes public money. The research projects funded by the NIJ must be investigated.