Bridging Science and Law in Family Court

Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos, Ph.D., J.D., boasts an impressive background spanning five decades. With a foundation in science from the New School for Social Research and legal training from the University of Detroit, including studies with the Jesuits, he has excelled as a psychologist and litigator. Licensed in multiple states and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, he has authored key works in forensic medicine, psychiatry, and psychology, earning recognition as a Thomson-Reuters WEST "Key Author" and executive editor.
In Canada and the United States, dealing with issues related to parental alienation and reunification therapy faces significant challenges in the court system. Judges, often lacking a scientific background, struggle to interpret and apply scientific evidence correctly. This gap between legal and scientific understanding complicates the process of making informed decisions in family courts.
Efforts have been made to bridge this gap, including Lorandos own work in publishing with Thomson Reuters West. Despite progress, there is still significant resistance from those opposed to concepts like reunification therapy and parental alienation. This resistance is often fueled by misinformation and entrenched biases, reminiscent of historical examples from the tobacco and oil industries.
Judges need support and accurate information to navigate these complex issues. An ideal solution would involve alternative forms of justice, such as arbitration by skilled arbitrators and behavioral scientists, to make decisions in the best interest of children. However, the current legal framework often forces families into expensive and protracted court battles.
In the face of misinformation, it's crucial for scientists and therapists to speak out and correct false narratives to protect children. Implementing early, strict court orders and closely monitoring compliance can help mitigate parental alienation. Evaluators must base their assessments on solid scientific evidence to assist the court in making reliable decisions about the best interests of the children involved.
------------
The interview was filmed on the location at the 5th PASG (Parental Alienation Study Group) International Conference on Parental Alienation in Fort Collins, Colorado in June 2023.
Other interviews from this conference:
Randy Flood - Five Common Dilemmas - and Mistakes - alienated parents make: • Five Common Dilemmas -...
Catherine MacWillie - Law Enforcement’s Role in Escalating Family Law Disputes: • Law Enforcement's Role...
DSM-5 and ICD-11 in Parental Alienation: • DSM-5 and ICD-11 in Pa...
Devyn Mullis - Relational Tensions Experienced by Alienated Parents during Reconnection: • Relational Tensions Ex...
Andrew Doyle - Parental Alienation Case Law Analysis…: • Parental Alienation Ca...
Yvonne Parnell - How the Reunification Program Family Bridges Works: • Video
Victoria Flowerday - Reconnecting with Targeted Parent through Family Bridges: • Reconnecting with Targ...
Jason Flowerday - Reconnecting through Reunification - A Father’s Journey: • Reconnecting through R...
Shawn Wygan - Forensic Evaluations in Parental Alienation Cases: • Forensic Evaluations i...
Vesta Spivakovsky - Chandler - Overcoming Parental Alienation - A Journey of Resilience: • Overcoming Parental Al...
John Wehrle - Unravelling the Neuroscientific Underpinnings of Parental Alienation: • Unravelling the Neuros...
Mark Roseman - Supervised Visitation - a Court Ordered Intervention: • Supervised Visitation ...
Fatalities in Parental Alienation Cases: • Fatalities in Parental...
Misinformation and Science Denial of Parental Alienation Theory: • Misinformation and Sci...
Kevin Hickey - The John Mast Case: • The John Mast Case
Heleen Koppejan-Luitze - Researching PA as a Guardian ad Litem in the Netherlands: • Researching PA as a Gu...
--------------
Produced by Equal Parenting Iceland, Foreldrajafnrétti.
All rights reserved
Music: Dream Lagoon by Chris Haugen
NOTE: Inappropriate comments to this video will be deleted.

[@ultimate8550]

Looks like Joan Meier already addressed this directly, here is the abstract from her refutation:
"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."