Complete correspondence and supporting materials
The original research study that the FJC cited and misrepresented:
Authors: Hine, B., Harman, J., Leder-Elder, S., and Bates, E.A.
Publisher: The University of West London (2024)
The complete record of correspondence between concerned parents and the Family Justice Council:
29 January 2025 • 84 signatories
Joint letter from 84 parents raising concerns about research misrepresentation in the FJC guidance on alienating behaviours.
📄 View Document →20 March 2025
The Family Justice Council's first response defending their interpretation of the research findings.
📄 View Document →7 April 2025
Comprehensive point-by-point response showing fundamental misinterpretation of methodology, including statement from Professor Hine.
📄 View Document →11 September 2025
The FJC's disappointing final response claiming prevalence "is not the focus" and avoiding core issues.
📄 View Document →Additional materials that support the case for research misrepresentation:
Direct statement from the lead researcher contradicting the FJC's interpretation of his own study findings.
📄 View Statement →Evidence of how the misrepresentation affects training and early intervention in local authorities.
📄 View Evidence →Detailed explanation of the difference between frequency ratings and prevalence assessment.
📄 View Analysis →Download all correspondence and supporting materials in one convenient package.
⬇️ Download Complete ArchiveIncludes all letters, responses, research papers, and supporting evidence
These documents are provided for transparency and public accountability purposes. Please respect privacy and use responsibly. Direct quotes should be attributed appropriately.