Parent–child contact problems (PCCP) are among the most vexing and intractable matters encountered in contemporary divorce and post‐divorce litigation. These complex and incendiary family dynamics can confound even the most experienced evaluators, investigators, and jurists, fueling opposing confirmational biases, and sparking a destructive tug‐of‐war between the aligned parent's allegations of abuse and the rejected parent's allegations of alienation. This article describes all such either/or binary arguments as misleading, contrary to the science, and harmful to children. Rather than cast alienation and estrangement as mutually exclusive alternatives, the systemically‐informed professional must consider more than a dozen mutually compatible practical exigencies and relationship dynamics which can converge to cause a child to align with one parent and resist or refuse contact with the other. Together, these variables are described as constituting an ecological model of the conflicted family system. A rubric is proposed to standardize evaluation across time, children, families, and jurisdictions, minimize bias, avoid premature closure, facilitate more comprehensive evaluations, optimize the efficacy of associated interventions, and invite more rigorous future research.

中文翻译：

---

用于评估可能导致亲子接触问题的许多系统变量的结构化评估标准（PCCP）

亲子接触问题（PCCP）是当代离婚和离婚后诉讼中遇到的最令人烦恼和棘手的问题之一。这些复杂且煽动性的家庭动态甚至可能让最有经验的评估者、调查员和法学家感到困惑，助长对立的确认偏见，并在一致父母的虐待指控和被拒绝的父母的疏远指控之间引发破坏性的拉锯战。本文将所有此类非此即彼的二元论点描述为误导性的、违反科学的、对儿童有害的。系统性的专业人士不应将疏远和隔阂视为相互排斥的选择，而必须考虑十多种相互兼容的实际紧急情况和关系动态，这些紧急情况和关系动态可以汇聚在一起，导致孩子与父母一方结盟，并抵制或拒绝与另一方接触。这些变量一起被描述为构成冲突家庭系统的生态模型。提出了一个标题，以标准化跨时间、儿童、家庭和司法管辖区的评估，最大限度地减少偏见，避免过早结束，促进更全面的评估，优化相关干预措施的功效，并邀请更严格的未来研究。