The Politics of Alienation and Implications for Advocacy: The Public, Political and Real Reasons Behind Kayden's, Picqui's, Kyra's Laws and Australian 2024 Family Law Reforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the beginning in the 1980s, parental alienation was a clinical presentation. Its strongest detractors began in the 1960s-70s gendered violence movement, which was and remains a political concept. Following these different pathways, proponents of parental alienation theory continue the evidence-based campaign for recognition as a form of non-gendered coercive controlling family violence and assessable mental health conditions. Yet, its extreme detractors use political means to successfully advocate for structural changes, policies and legislation that defeat the concept and prevent remediations. Is a pivot required to orient the parental alienation field towards public policy?Australia and the USA achieved the same political outcome of undermining the family and family relationships using different means. Australia's 2024 Family Law reforms annul the significance of a child's relationship with both parents. In the USA and Canada, Kayden's, Picqui's, and Kyra's Laws "ban the solution, rather than the problem", prohibiting remediation of alienated parent-child relationships on allegations alone. These changes prioritise child safety above the children's families.The changes in the USA and Australia used targeted political and public campaigns to construct a dominant social dialogue about violence against women and children. They disguise the real purpose to radically dismantle and alter the nature and structure of families and the State's role in children's lives. Parental alienating behaviours exploit power and relationships and are a political tool to fulfil this purpose.This presentation discusses how parental alienation theory and practice counters such covert strategies and how policy advocacy can achieve family-oriented political outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".