Harman and Lorandos’ false critique of Meier et al.’s family court study

Abstract

Jennifer Harman and Demosthenes Lorandos purport to have identified numerous methodological flaws in our 2019 study of family court outcomes in cases involving abuse and alienation allegations (“FCO study”; Meier et al., 2019). At least half of the supposed flaws they itemized relate to one claim - that they were unable to access our methods and data. They treat the claimed lack of public access as evidence that our study is unreliable, while speculating about other potential flaws. Yet we note - and they acknowledge - that most of the methodological information they sought was in fact available before publication of their article. This article responds to and refutes Harman and Lorandos’ exaggerated and unfounded condemnation of our study. In addition to pointing out that the claimed lack of information would not be a methodological flaw even if true, we explain that their other criticisms are speculative, incorrect, or insignificant. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify that the important findings of the FCO study are valid and should be taken seriously by the courts and those interested in the fairness and safety of custody decisions when there are allegations of abuse and alienation.