Sussex Law School will today publish a report on research by Emeritus Professor Jane Fortin and Dr Lesley Scanlan, of Sussex University and Joan Hunt, University of Oxford (here). The report is an empirical study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and looks at how the contact arrangements made by separating parents for their children affect children’s long-term relationships with their parents throughout their childhood and then into adulthood. Based on a survey of just under 400 young adults, plus in-depth interviews with 50, it elucidates what features of contact arrangements work and do not work for children – both in the long and short term.
The report’s findings challenge the government’s plans in respect of shared parenting – and do so directly. One of the strongest messages from the research is the importance of tailoring contact arrangements to the needs and wishes of the individual child in the particular circumstances. “The new legislation would commit the family courts to a one-size-fits all solution when dealing with parents’ contact disputes” opines the PR material on the Sussex Law School website, rather inaccurately.
I’ve only had the summary made available to me in the preparation of this blog post, and from that it is evident that it covers an important topic and really interesting and valuable reading. However.
The report surveyed 398 individuals who had experienced parental separation as children post implementation of the Children Act 1989 and who had at least some contact with the non-resident parent thereafter. For me that’s a gap in information base when looking at the conclusions drawn from a pool of respondents who all had some contact, such as the “extreme rarity” of parental alienation.
Similarly, the conclusions drawn appear to take at face value respondents own understanding of the background to arrangements for contact and of why things worked or did not work well. It is axiomatic of course that these adults were at the time of events in question experiencing them without an adult understanding, and perhaps with only partial information. If they were manipulated by parents in one way or another would we expect this to be self evident from their self report? Adults who consider themselves to have been manipulated or let down will say so, but how do we understand whether a portion of those who say contact failed because of a lack of commitment by a non-resident parent are accurate historians? We just don’t.
It may be that the full report would give me some reassurance about these things, and it may be that I am being unfair – I’m fully open to the possibility that I might change my view when I’ve read it. It’s worth recalling that the survey is not a survey of childhood survivors of the litigating population of separated parents – but of the general population of the children of separated parents. The summary does not make clear whether data about court involvement was collected or not.
But those are the questions which scream out to me from the summary and the strength with which the reports conclusions are expressed, and the direct attack on shared parenting policy a subject known to be highly controversial – is inviting this kind of scrutiny. I will not be the only person posing these questions upon launch of this report. The question is whether the full report contains the answers – unfortunately the summary does not even appear to anticipate the question, which leaves the authors of the report open I think to accusations of having “an agenda” (dun DUN DUUUUUN!). I hope that the direct courting of controversy in this way does not lead to those valuable insights into the child’s experience being lost or drowned out in the noise that will follow.
Below are some of what I thought were the highlights of the summary (yes, a summary of a report of some research):
…manipulation was reported, but only extremely rarely and then usually with young children in circumstances where their mothers had good grounds for their own concerns. Our findings suggest that if and when the children resist contact visits, they do so, not as brain washed children, but for reasons of their own, often in response to the non-resident parent’s own behaviour….
…there was overwhelming agreement that there were circumstances, such as an abusive parent / child relationship, where contact should never take place. There was also a strong view that contact should not start or continue if it did not promote the child’s best interest and that no contact was better than bad contact…
…Responsibility for contact not happening at all or not being regularly maintained was very largely attributed to the non-resident parent, and typically explained in terms of that parent’s lack of commitment to the child…
…The foundations of successful contact…are laid down pre-separation…
…Being subjected to adult pursuits or being ignored were taken as indications of their own lack of importance to the no-resident parent. Equally they were quick to pick up subtle signs indicating the strength or absence of that parent’s emotional investment in their relationship together…
…In contrast our findings indicate that structural matters such as the frequency of contact and its format – when, where and how often contact occurs; the inclusion of overnight stays; whether or not there was a contact schedule – were not strongly associated with respondents’ positive experiences of contact or the closeness of their relationship with the non-resident parent…
…Overnight stays did not emerge as a significant factor in explaining respondents’ positive experiences of contact or the closeness of their relationship with the non-resident parent…
…Two key points emerged from the analysis of the structural elements of contact. First, they seemed less important than other factors, such as the continuity of contact, the pre-separation relationship between the child and the non-resident parent, and the quality of contact. Second, and crucially, there is no blueprint for contact which will work for all, or even the majority of children. Indeed one of the central messages of this study is that each child is an individual and that contact arrangements need to be tailored to their unique needs and circumstances…
…One of our clearest findings was how rarely respondents reported that the resident parent had prevented contact or tried to undermine the relationship between the child an the non-resident parent…in contrast a strong and consistent theme…was the extent to which resident parents had encouraged the relationship between their children and non-resident parents, in some cases even when they had themselves suffered from the non-resident parent’s violence and even when the children themselves opposed the contact…
…Our findings suggest that parental alienation is extremely rare in the general population and that when children resist contact with the non-resident parent they often do so for their own independently formed reasons. The courts should therefore be extremely cautious before they extend the use of transfer of residence orders as a sanction when a resident parent is refusing to comply with a contact order on the grounds that the child does not want contact. The courts should also be cautious about increasing the use of shared residence orders, and should take account of the advice of the young adults in this study – viz that such orders should not be made unless : parents live very close to each other; children can attend the same school; parents are on good terms; parents can provide their children with two sets of rooms, clothes and school equipment. Above all the children themselves should be happy with such an arrangement.
[POSTSCRIPT – Don’t shoot the messenger please chaps]
Related
Sussex Law School will today publish a report on research by Emeritus Professor Jane Fortin and Dr Lesley Scanlan, of Sussex University and Joan Hunt, University of Oxford (here). The report is an empirical study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and looks at how the contact arrangements made by separating parents for their children affect children’s long-term relationships with their parents throughout their childhood and then into adulthood. Based on a survey of just under 400 young adults, plus in-depth interviews with 50, it elucidates what features of contact arrangements work and do not work for children – both in the long and short term.
The new legislation commits the family courts to no such thing. I’m surprised you omit to say that.
That immediately raises the question in my mind as to what the underlying agenda of these people at Sussex University actually is. And when I see the notorious Liz Trinder appears to be a regular habituée of their campus, not only do the alarm bells go off, I see the need to call in the engines right away.
This is politically-driven ‘research’, of the worst kind. You’ve already raised some significant points yourself regarding its credibility.
For a more realistic take on the issues, read Amy Baker’s book on adult children of parental alienation syndrome or, if an acceptance of PAS isn’t to your liking, look at some of the neuroscience studies now emerging which details the damage wreaked on children when their upbringing is skewed in such unnatural, unbalanced mothercentric fashion that is too often foisted on them by the courts.
Paul, Read it again. I say ““The new legislation would commit the family courts to a one-size-fits all solution when dealing with parents’ contact disputes” opines the PR material on the Sussex Law School website, rather inaccurately.”
I don’t think Liz Trinder is part of this research.
I’m keeping a reasonably open mind about the research until I’ve actually seen it.
“The new legislation would commit the family courts to a one-size-fits all solution when dealing with parents’ contact disputes” opines the PR material on the Sussex Law School website, rather inaccurately.”
Where do these people get their thinking from?
How can an assumption that shared parenting is best unless proven otherwise AS A START POINT be trying to make a “one size fits all” ethos
Do these people not trust the judiciary to do a sensible job???????? In the best interest of the children?
I think loo is right, maybe they do have a hidden agenda, one that they cannot reveal for risk of ridicule?
That’s very interesting, I’ll also be keen to read the full report when it’s available.
It’s interesting that the authors appear to contradict almost everything that fathers’ groups have been campaigning for. As a scientist I’m of the opinion that where there is evidence that it ought to be listened to so I’ll be very interested in the strength and veracity of that evidence.
The quotes that you have included do lead to a perception of bias, but I’m not sure if that’s because of the quotes that you have selected, an unjustifiable bias in the research methodology (such as problems you have already identified or others) or a conclusion which is is not biased but based on objective facts.
I am particularly interested in the view that “no contact was better than bad contact” without also involving children who had no contact. I would like to know their opinion too.
In your post you wrote “extreme rarity”; was this because you were quoting the report or is there some other reason why this was quoted? There is that statistic about the number of children who lose contact with the non-resident parent within 2 years, which in my experience varies depending on the agenda of the person stating it. I have never seen any objective report in which that statistic is justified and would really like to!
I have a particular concern about one of the quotes that you included which stated that “parental alienation is extremely rare in the general population” (which possibly links with my previous paragraph). It is my understanding that the term parental alienation properly refers to the psychiatric symptoms identified in a child who resists contact with the ‘alienated’ parent. It does not imply that the resident parent is responsible for that alienation. Of course this report didn’t identify that because a) they weren’t looking for it, b) they interviewed only those children who had some contact and therefore by definition were not ‘alienated’.
Even if you were to take their use of parental alienation (as a verb), their research methodology guaranteed that they would not commonly identify it because of only speaking to children who did have contact. Perhaps a more accurate sentence would have been “unsuccessful parental alienation is extremely rare in the general population.”
Hopefully some of these points will be addressed in the full report. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I’ll be reading with great interest.
P.S. None of those points are criticisms of your post, or even criticisms of the main report. They’re just my perceptions after reading what you have written!
matw2 – I did link to the summary doc in the original blog post if you want to see how representative my selected quotes are. They are only intended to be a selection of the bits that grabbed me.
“Extreme rarity” is a reference to the assertion in the research summary as to the proposition that “parental alienation is extremely rare in the general population” . It’s not clear from the summary quite how they are defining parental alienation, but my impression was they were using a sort of popular meaning rather than a medical / psychological one.
Full report here: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/law/documents/nuffield-foundation-final-report-16nov2012.pdf
Just about to read – if I can stomach it.
Funded by the nuffield foundation…are people still not aware that they have an overriding feminist agenda? google “nuffield foundation sexism”..
They were behind the oxford research as well and most definitely liz trinder would be tinkering behind the scenes.
Its the usual suspects and someone really ought to put a stop to this nonsense just the same as the oxford research was discarded. It should be publicly exposed for what it is. A political campaign with a sexist agenda. I just feel badly for people who are taken in by this, only to vote labour and ruin another few generations financially, socially and morally.
I’m aware that there are people who associate the Nuffield with sexism. However I’m not planning to write off every piece of research they fund just because of those views. I will read the report in full and see what I think – I have read a bit of it since my original post and what I have read is pretty compelling, but I’m still only a little way through.
Dear familoo, I appreciate your stance. you should be objective and that is sensible. But are you aware that this research is already being sensationalised as how the govt. have got things wrong?!! Blogs have started reporting it without consideration to the very good points you and others have made already addressing the possibility of inherent bias and gaping holes in this research. Unfortunately the common voter does not have the same approach as you to such important issues and only tends to look at headlines.
The new feminist movement happens to thrive on such strategy, it has gained significant power by seeping in non sourced, biased, manipulative work in order to gain acceptance of its double standards into institutions. Feminism was needed at one point but its redundant now. We are talking about a macro problem and whilst there are exceptions, it is irresponsible and fraudulent to present work like this as evidence against shared presumptions. And for the record I am a “humanist” – i.e. everyone in the species should have the same rights and laws and opportunities open to them including children. If feminism is about equality why is it trying to stop it from manifesting??
The research shows clearly that the outdated RP/NRP arrangement is bad. It makes the parents react badly – especially where one is given control and the other is made to feel demoted – it demonstrates how the views of children change towards to NRP and how critical they can become of them. It demonstrates how manipulative some RPs can be in enlisting their children in defending their positions. Children defending the person who has had a vast amount of contact and care of them…it doesn’t come as a shock.
How do you not see all this? Can a telephone interview determine if someone is lying or not? Can it determine if the RP is sitting in front of the respondent when the questions are being asked. What exactly is compelling about a study in which a small proportion of respondents had parents who HAD any legal proceedings between them? What grounds do the “researchers” have for not seeking out respondents whose backgrounds were actually relevant to the legal presumption of shared care i.e. those who actually went to court? The shared presumption is NOT for those people who amicably agree. It is for those that need court action to address their concerns about their child having a right to a relationship with them. Courts need to stand up for childrens rights to have a good relationship with BOTH parents = Shared presumption. Shared presumption does not mean equal residence does it? That is what is being implied in this study. I find it really creepy.
And I am not writing of an age old institution on the basis that they provide funding for social projects. Its just a pattern of an organisation that tends to have, amongst other policies, a very poor selection criteria for whom it provides funding to. This research should be written off because its just bad. It has to be compelling…its has an agenda. Can you even tell me whether this is a qualitative study or a quantitative one? Because it cant be both. It starts of with emotional examples which ofcourse are hand picked to give far more attention to the negative aspects of the study. Why not use a respondent talked about how much they loved their dad? How when things god nuts at home they could depend on their NRP.
I just dont want you or anyone else to be manipulated into believing something. Actually im not concerned with you – you seem capable. Its the thousands that read about this report and dont have the faculties to be critical of this work.
singledad1, i haven’t had time to look at much coverage of this to be honest but i’ve no doubt it is being sensationalised, inaccurately summarised and used to promote particular agendas. Isn’t everything? Its endemic in the press on a variety of issues and this particular issue (by which I mean shared parenting) is such a politically sensitive one – and in my view there are proponents of both / all sides of this debate who are prone to soundbites, selective quotation, hyperbole and misrepresentation. I don’t think it is the exclusive preserve of “feminists”, women or anti-share parenting bods (not sure that those three are identical although from the level of public debate one might think so).
As to whether this research – as opposed to the summary or the press release – is biased, misleading or unhelpful : I don’t know. My blog post was about the summary and the impression it gave. Whether the research will bear out my anxieties having read the summary I don’t know. The limited bits I’ve read, focussing on the PAS points, have given me some reassurance (in fairness very quick keyword search whilst in doctors surgery this morning).
I’d be pretty doubtful that many of those who are so quick to comment have read the 300+ page long report just yet. I haven’t and have been up front about it. I’d bet my bottom dollar most of the “oh god it’s liz trinder and her cronies” crew got no further than the word “Nuffield” before reaching their conclusions. That is a shame, because even if this research has limitations it undoubtedly contains some important information and the voices of hundreds of (now adult) children, whose stories and views we should respect.
Project Advisory Group – LIZ TINDER – its there in black and white…
And Gingerbread and One plus One..
OMG so creepy..
And we thought that politicians were blind, inept or morally perverted?
The so-called academics seem to take the prize on this one. (And all the more so because they still enjoy the image of being “free” and “disinterested” – perhaps the greatest myth ever perpetuated by capitalist democracies).
Academics have been sentenced to prison for much more innocent things, such as failing to predict earthquakes.
However, I don’t think academics should ever be imprisoned for stating their views – and I assume the recent european example is not one you think should be repeated.
sorry to hear you had to go to the doctor. Hope you are ok.
Yes many of the peoples experiences were difficult for them to relate and we must appreciate them for doing so. I will read this entire report and most comments above were based on the summary and a glance over the methodology. It does state that it believes itself to be BOTH a qualitative and quantitative study but i can already see problems with that methodology and sample size selection. I considered their excuses absolutely unacceptable for sample selection and more very significantly they site “time constraints” as to why they did not call over 100 people of the telephone respondents whom they had no address off to get their addresses and send them a leaflet regarding the research(!) That would take me about a day to do! Maybe 3 at the most if people were not at home, etc. That means the sample size that is of any consideration for a proper qualitative study is JUST 50! The numbers have been bolstered with telephone interviews.. This is just unscientific and is certainly not a quantitative study of any significance.
Before you read it, take the perspective of a scientist trying to conduct and independent study and it just will not add up. I think there are way too many alternate explanations and interpretations that would just not support the conclusion that alot of those people WANT to manifest. Anyways, will keep reading..
take care of yourself and thanks for your time and consideration.
singledad1 yes, just routine appt thanks.
do you agree with this!
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed105262
information crucial for policy makers??
I don’t know yet – still haven’t had time to read it!
It makes no difference whether I’m for fraudulence being punished with prison sentences or not.
All I was saying is that, in our culture, people are routinely given prison sentences for far lesser misdemeanors.
They aren’t routinely given prison sentences for far lesser misdemeanours – your example was a one off from a different country and one which has been widely condemned. What’s the point in referring to it if not in order to suggest it should be applied to academics in this jurisdiction?
By far lesser misdemeanors, I was actually referring to any number of things.
[edited for legal reasons – tone it down pls]
This report has been the subject of discussion in various family law groups and almost universally is being viewed as a backlash against current family law review proposals.
The report flies in the face of the overwhelming amount research that says shared parenting has the most beneficial outcomes
http://sharedparentingresearch.info/
Frankly research with a socio-political agenda should be widely condemned, especially ones that have gender prejudice at their core, its not good for kids in fact it is destructive to them.
Frankly the report seems to contain much nonsense, so much so I would question how the 400 were sourced and chosen.
No judge should have the power to exclude parents from their own children’s lives unless they have committed a crime against those children or other children.I have several parents( mostly mothers) forbidden to contact their offspring face to face ,by email, by letter or by phone even though they have never been charged or convicted of hurting children.The only one I can mention by name without being sent to jail is Vicky Haigh since she has already been reported in the public domain thanks to John Hemming MP.
3 YEARS JAIL for speaking to her daughter when meeting her by chance at a petrol station, in defiance of a cruel court order forbidding her to do so.The judge was the one that should have been jailed.
Forced adoption, didn’t Vicky Haigh get 3 years for breach of a non-mol prohibiting contact with her daughter? If so the court must have found beyond reasonable doubt that she was in breach of that order.
EVERY TIME I TYPE SOMETHING IT IS BLOCKED
Forced Adoption, It’s not blocked. Moderation is switched on as it usually is. It is applied equally to all commenters.
You cannot be in favour of establishing human rights and then choose to censor freedom of speech which is a basic human right….so I agree with familoo on that point lest we become as bad as the perpetrators.
However it should be condemned and exposed. The question is how to condemn it. Should there not be a scientific body responsible for exposing such studies? Such as an advertising watchdog designed to expunge misleading media? It is after all a much more potent form of biased advertising designed with “selling” a negative concept.
If there exists such organisations for regulating the health sector, consumer protection, etc – why not one for social research? If someone wants to make a noise let them, but their research must be tested and if found to be false or biased, should be condemned publicly in even louder fashion. No need to take away anyones rights…just their credibility…forever.
Familoo, there were no legal reasons why my post should have been edited. Nor was there anything controversial about it, except insofar as one might find the truth controversial.
However, that’s for me to judge. I’m the one who gets sued for inadvertently defamatory material (or criticised if material is published in breach of orders).
I’m flabbergasted that the hatred and violence toward men and fathers (as manifest in law and the media) are condoned in our culture whilst the theft of a loaf of bread by some desperate soul is punishable with a prison sentence.
Joan Hunt has been anti shared parenting/residence forever.
Is anyone really surprised that she trots out the same bull…. again, after all her credibility would be shot to pieces….
What a waste of money and time this report is….
I read in detail about the Victoria Haigh case because I’m going through some of the things that she put her ex through. The last judgment is in the public domain because at some point it is going to be needed to convince the poor child that she was not abused by her father when she googles her own name in later life.
[Matw2 – I’ve edited you in the interests of posting your comment without further delay. Unsure if your comments are drawn from the judgment or not and don’t have time to check accuracy due to pressure of work. Soz.]
Hi
Hows the reading of the report coming along?
I do think that alot of drama when bringing a point across is distracting and not necessary, but it seems to work for some. What has stealing bread got to do with lack of human rights for fathers and children? Are you arguing that the theft of bread should be made legal based on the comparison…lets just try to make the bad laws better and stick to the point. Suggest everyone read this piece of crap report and then co-operatively list the billions of things that are wrong with it – so that everyone who reads this blog can get the important bits down and expose what a fraud this bunch of feminist mass children abusers are. That would be far more productive.
I dont know what the utter nonsense that Forced Adoption has posted has anything to do with this subject matter, personally Vicky Haigh was in breach of an order. Again i think its massively stupid to advocate that anyone should have a problem with the fact that the court makes it a point to enforce its orders…if no one bothers to adhere to them what’s the point in making any orders?
Vicky Haigh should get far worse if she continues to breach court orders which are there for a reason and talking dramatic rubbish about how the punishment a repeat offending criminal got was too severe by a few months is such a waste of time. She did commit a crime. She got punished. If anything 3 years seems more suitable than ever considering when she was due to be released after her reduced sentence she went out an breached another order. Am quite glad she is not this country or her abused ex and daughters problem for the next two years.
I dont want anyone to forget she made some disgusting false allegations and got punished for it, courts should take this approach to those who dare to lie and manipulate the law. I just wish they would not let someone off a crime because of custody reasons. If a person engages in criminal activity such as false allegations, defamation and breach of orders, they obviously are not fit to be around kids and should be in prison..till they learn the boundaries of society and what is and is not acceptable…kids need to be raised by grown ups, not tantrum throwing adult kids.
Singledad1, Reading of report is going slooooooowly due to a mountain of work, and individual clients have to take priority I’m afraid. I am reading a bit more every time I get 5 mins. Read a bit at court this morning whilst waiting for hearing to begin (no client, at court 9am, not on till 2.45)…I’m not sure what the bread reference relates to…
I’m not sure from memory if the breach of non-mol was dealt with under the criminal law or under the family courts jurisdiction and don’t have time to check. It is still possible for a person in breach of a non-mol to be sent to prison for contempt of court, but this is a civil offence not a crime. In any event she was found beyond reasonable doubt to have breached the order.
The full bread reference was censored.
I admit it was a bit rhetorical to question why theft of food out of desperation was more severely punished that pre-meditated crimes that are intended to hurt people, such as the abuse of academic research to promote hate.
It’s not that rhetoric works “for some.” If that were the case, then politicians would not bother to become so well-versed in its strategies.
Sorry – bread reference was something that “However” posted.
Oh – sorry also. I’ve completely lost the thread now! It’s been a long weekend! 🙂
Where did the preposterous nonsense statement that shared residence represents a “one size fits all” approach come from?
What we have at the moment is a widespread presumption that mum gets residence and dad gets contact. That is the “one size fits all” approach as currently implemented by Judges throughout the land.
Well said Jimbo.
The only way forward here seems to be to keep on exposing the hypocrisy at every single ridiculous turn.
Power thrives on using language as a means of control, but that language can be taken apart easily enough if one just thinks about it for a single second.
I’m sorry – I just had to post this. Same Nuffield people funding this. Also 2 women researchers who are surprisingly….from the school of law.
http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Hampshire/Portsmouth/PO6/News/Local-News/238008-Shared-Parenting-Under-Spotlight-In-Portsmouth
210 cases over 6 months – well that’s totally representative enough to inform and change the course of family law practices….especially if you focus on all those people that make a living from the current justice system – at the expense of non resident parents …
Hmmm, I wonder whether the outcome of this research will yield that a presumption of shared parenting is not in the best interests of the mother…oops I mean child.
Anyways – ofcourse it is not sensible to write off something that has not happened yet…but should’nt someone perhaps give them some pointers as to whether a piece of research is that useful to guide government legislation if its basically going to be a regurgitation of the views ok “stakeholders” whose views are the most well represented and well heard in the field? – I did not notice anything about interviewing non resident parents….its a bit strange that no one getting nuffield research grants really wants to hear what NRPs have to say.
Anyways – i leave it to you to make of this what you will.
Singledad1 The fact that the researchers are woman is wholly irrelevant. And I’m not even sure that the source of funding really makes much odds, notwithstanding the unpopularity of Nuffield in fathers rights circles. I like to think that academic researchers have certain standards and ethics and although Nuffield may direct their funding at proposed research that covers areas of interest that match theirs we simply don’t know what the outcome of this research will be. Fathers rights campaigners have been complaining for years about the lack of evidence base behind assertions about what courts do and don’t do so I would have thought that this research project, albeit from a necessarily smallish sample, would at least begin to address that problem. Its not clear from the article if the “stakeholders” referred to includes parents themselves, but I would hope it does. Its difficult to work out quite what the methodology will be for the research, I can think of a number of practical barriers to including parents in such a project.
Not including the appropriate demographic of parents would make it a bit of a nonsense would it not?
Paul R-J,
Possibly, I think it depends on how the research is structured and exactly what it is trying to assess. Difficult to tell from article – checked Portsmouth website but nothing there at all so who knows? Will wait and see….
Dear Familoo
As someone with a scientific background I do share some common ground with you. Things “should” be done professionally. This is precisely my gripe with these preposterous studies. They are not doing things professionally and then using their wayward conclusions to influence others and as a basis for legislation. The very idea that the construct of this study is relevant to the legislation it wants to influence is flawed.
What if there is a feminist agenda here, then the majority involvement of certain women and certain professions and certain funding organisations is relevant. The evidence for the existence of said agenda could explain why shared residence was not implemented as parliament intended for so long. Why did Nicholas Wall take so long to reverse his position on the matter? Why did Butler Sloss do a U turn on her own judgement? Why the delay? Perhaps the prevalence of these tainted studies that take years to disprove?
What if the academics involved DO NOT uphold the ethics and standards which are in fact your impression of the field. Your evidence of the existence of academic standards is as lacking as that for my claim that these standards are NOT being upheld. How is this different from car companies polluting our atmosphere when clean fuels already exist – using “studies” to disprove the prevalence of the green house effect or ozone depletion? How are these different to the weapons of mass destruction report??
This is unfortunately the real world in which we live in and money is more often than not allocated to an agenda. Do you agree that there is a real possibility that the above theory is strongly possible and entirely relevant. If not why are there so many conflicting studies on the subject? Who asked Nuffield to do anything? Certainly not the government! Why their persistent impetus? Who is their client?
By the way – Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/empty-days-lonely-nights-20140428-37e3e.html
Dear Familoo
Please see the link to article above. Sorry to return to this old post but i JUST COULD NOT resist the opportunity to say “i was right.” This kind of intellectual corruption IS happening. People are making money at the expense of the abuse of children. What sentences are these disgustingly morally bankrupt pseudo academics facing? How many children have been turned into criminals due to having their fathers removed from their lives? The damage done by her and the family courts is so vast that its effectively UNQUANTIFIABLE! This is the same disgusting …. that was quoted in the Norgrove report. Its outrageous!