What the Research Actually Found
The academic evidence that the FJC misrepresented
Real Research Findings
of parents reported experiencing alienating behaviours that harmed their parent-child relationship
estimated number of UK children who may be alienated from a parent
UK children estimated to have experienced parental alienating behaviours
How the Study Authors Describe Their Findings
The study itself characterises its findings as representing "an urgent and critical public health crisis"
This language stands in stark contrast to the guidance's "rarity" framing.
Direct Statement from the Lead Researcher
"The guidance misrepresents its implications. The report does not claim that alienating behaviours, or behaviours resulting in alienation from a parent, are rare... approximately 110,200 children who may be alienated from a parent—a significant and concerning number (and not rare)."
— Professor Ben Hine, Lead Author of the Cited Study
The lead researcher has directly contradicted the FJC's interpretation of his own work, making it clear that the findings do not support claims of "rarity."
The Methodological Confusion
The FJC has fundamentally misunderstood the difference between two types of research measurements:
✓ What the Research Actually Measured
Frequency ratings on a measurement scale
Where "rarely" indicates low-frequency occurrence within cases being studied. This means the behaviour happens, but not constantly.
✗ What the FJC Claims It Means
Categorical assessment of prevalence
Where "rare" suggests exceptional occurrence across a population. This would mean the behaviour almost never happens.
The Critical Distinction
When parents answered "rarely" to questions about their children's behaviours, they wereconfirming these behaviours do occur—not that they don't exist. "Rarely" is still "yes," not "no."
Access the Original Research
Read the academic study that the FJC cited and see for yourself what it actually concludes:
Hine, B., Harman, J., Leder-Elder, S., and Bates, E.A. "Alienating behaviours in separated mothers and fathers in the UK." The University of West London (2024).
The Evidence Is Clear
The FJC has misrepresented academic research in official guidance affecting vulnerable families. This level of misrepresentation in public policy is unacceptable.