The trouble with Harman and Lorandos’s attempted refutation of the Meier et al. Family court study

Harman and Lorandos assert that they have produced a study analyzing custody cases involving alienation allegations, which “disconfirms” the findings from our study of family court out- comes in cases involving abuse and alienation. In addition to pointing out the authors’ misrepresentation and mis-reporting of some of their findings, this Response details a series of profound flaws in their study’s design, dataset construction and variable coding, interpretations and analytic approach, as well as a series of statistical errors. The statistical analyses demonstrate that Harman and Lorandos’s five findings of a gender bias in favor of fathers are not supported by their data; the only statistically significant findings that persist after re-analysis of the correct data are consistent with the Meier et al. study. These pervasive design and methodological errors undermine both the appearance and assertion of rigor in their approach; these problems and the foundational differences in their dataset from our own disqualify their study from serving as any kind of credible test or disconfirmation of our study

Harman and Lorandos’ False Critique of Meier et al.’s Family Court Study

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

Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations

Arguably the most troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts\u27 failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive. Family courts\u27 errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented. A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA). Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father, they are doing so illegitimately, to alienate the child from the father. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women\u27s and children\u27s reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited. The term parental alienation – while treated as distinct - is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. Nonetheless, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court. The first goal of this project was to ascertain whether empirical evidence indicates that parental alienation is, like PAS, gender-biased in practice and outcome. Second, the study sought to explore outcomes in custody/abuse litigation by gender and by differing types of abuse. Analysis of over 2000 court opinions confirms that courts are skeptical of mothers’ claims of abuse by fathers; this skepticism is greatest when mothers claim child abuse. The findings also confirm that fathers’ cross-claims of parental alienation increase (virtually doubling) courts’ rejection of mothers’ abuse claims, and mothers’ losses of custody to the father accused of abuse. In comparing court responses when fathers accuse mothers of abuse, a significant gender difference is identified. Finally, the findings indicate that where Guardians Ad Litem or custody evaluators are appointed, unfavorable outcomes for mothers and gender differences are increased. The study relies solely on electronically available published opinions in child custody cases. It has produced an invaluable database identifying 10 years of published cases involving alienation, abuse and custody, while coding parties’ claims and defenses, outcomes, and other key factors by gender and parental status

Diving into the vertical dimension of elasmobranch movement ecology

Knowledge of the three-dimensional movement patterns of elasmobranchs is vital to understand their ecological roles and exposure to anthropogenic pressures. To date, comparative studies among species at global scales have mostly focused on horizontal movements. Our study addresses the knowledge gap of vertical movements by compiling the first global synthesis of vertical habitat use by elasmobranchs from data obtained by deployment of 989 biotelemetry tags on 38 elasmobranch species. Elasmobranchs displayed high intra- and interspecific variability in vertical movement patterns. Substantial vertical overlap was observed for many epipelagic elasmobranchs, indicating an increased likelihood to display spatial overlap, biologically interact, and share similar risk to anthropogenic threats that vary on a vertical gradient. We highlight the critical next steps toward incorporating vertical movement into global management and monitoring strategies for elasmobranchs, emphasizing the need to address geographic and taxonomic biases in deployments and to concurrently consider both horizontal and vertical movements

Measuring the Neutrino Cross Section Using 8 years of Upgoing Muon Neutrinos Observed with IceCube

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory detects neutrinos at energies orders of magnitude higher than those available to current accelerators. Above 40 TeV, neutrinos traveling through the Earth will be absorbed as they interact via charged current interactions with nuclei, creating a deficit of Earth-crossing neutrinos detected at IceCube. The previous published results showed the cross section to be consistent with Standard Model predictions for 1 year of IceCube data. We present a new analysis that uses 8 years of IceCube data to fit the ν$_{μ}$ absorption in the Earth, with statistics an order of magnitude better than previous analyses, and with an improved treatment of systematic uncertainties. It will measure the cross section in three energy bins that span the range 1 TeV to 100 PeV. We will present Monte Carlo studies that demonstrate its sensitivity