What the evidence supports
Research by Baker, Harman, Bernet, Kelly and Johnston, Fidler and others has contributed observable descriptions of alienating behaviors, child-parent contact resistance, family violence framing, and assessment models. Measurement matters because labels alone cannot show what occurred.
What remains contested
The field disagrees about terminology, causal claims, diagnostic status, and how much weight to place on the Five-Factor Model. Published critiques emphasize risks of misuse, gendered application, and failure to distinguish alienating behavior from justified rejection. Those critiques are part of the evidence base, not an inconvenience to hide.
How to read a claim carefully
- Is the claim about an observable behavior, a relationship pattern, or a cause?
- Does the source measure both parents’ behavior?
- Are safety concerns and alternative explanations addressed?
- Is the evidence a controlled study, a survey, a clinical model, or an expert opinion?
Our position
Reunify Science uses behavior-first language, cites the limits of the evidence, and treats ACT/RFT as an applied framework with a broader evidence base—not as a proven treatment for alienation or contact resistance. The goal is better observation and safer professional conversations.
Common questions
Is parental alienation a diagnosis?
This site does not present it as a diagnosis. The content uses behavior-first descriptions and acknowledges disagreement about terminology, causal claims, and assessment models.
Does the research support one explanation for every rejected-parent case?
No. The literature and professional debate require attention to safety, direct relationship history, adult behavior, development, and alternative explanations.
What can Reunify Science tools establish?
They can organize observations, dates, and questions. They cannot establish motive, causation, diagnosis, custody, or a legal conclusion.