Research Proposal: Recognition and Remediation of Parental Alienation in Indian Custody Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Description / Abstract This research proposal examines the escalating crisis of parental alienation in Indian custody disputes, a phenomenon where one parent psychologically manipulates a child to reject the other without justification. The study critically addresses the question: How can Indian courts recognize and remedy parental alienation? Through a multidisciplinary approach that integrates doctrinal legal analysis, comparative jurisprudence, and psychological research, the paper identifies systemic failures in diagnosis and enforcement within India’s welfare-centric family law framework. The proposal argues that the absence of standardized recognition protocols and enforceable remedies perpetuates emotional abuse and long-term developmental harm to children. It highlights judicial trends, evidentiary challenges, and procedural gaps, while drawing parallels with international models from jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. An integrated reform model is proposed, featuring: A standardized recognition protocol with multidisciplinary input Mandatory parenting plans and pre-divorce mediation Robust enforcement mechanisms, including cost penalties and dedicated enforcement officers Specialized tribunals and fast-track proceedings for alienation cases This work aims to shift parental alienation from a peripheral concern to a central factor in custody adjudication, equipping courts to protect children’s right to meaningful relationships with both parents and transforming the “welfare of the child” principle from judicial abstraction into enforceable reality. Keywords Parental Alienation, Child Custody, Indian Family Law, Guardians and Wards Act, Welfare of the Child, Enforcement Mechanisms, Judicial Reform, Family Courts, Child Psychology, Visitation Rights
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".