Last reviewed: June 10, 2026. Author: Alex Buckles (PAC Founder).
Every page on Parental Alienation Center passes a documented editorial review before it publishes: every clinical and legal claim cited to a primary source, balance checked against both sides of the scientific debate, and reader-safety requirements verified. The next step in that system is an independent expert review board of licensed clinicians, family-law attorneys, and lived-experience contributors, which we will appoint once the site is live. This page documents the scrutiny every page gets today, what the board will do, who will be eligible to serve, and how we hold transparency on credentials and conflicts of interest. We will never claim a page has had expert review it has not had; each page states its review status plainly.
The scrutiny every page gets today
Before any page appears on this site, it goes through a pipeline that is documented in public at Methodology and Editorial Standards:
- Stance-labeled sourcing. Pages are drafted against a research corpus in which every source is labeled by its position in the scientific debate (affirming, centrist, or critical), so contested questions are built with the counter-position in view rather than discovered later.
- Primary citations on every claim. No clinical or legal fact is asserted without an inline citation to a source the reader can check, per the hierarchy at Citations & Sources.
- Balance review. Contested questions must present the strongest version of the counter-position. Pages on the scientific debate carry both the supporting evidence and the published critiques.
- Safety review. Pages that touch abuse, estrangement, or crisis carry the domestic-violence caveat and crisis resources, and no page is written to give either parent in a custody dispute a tactical edge.
- Validation. A pre-publish validation pass checks the citations, the balance requirements, readability, and the safety blocks before a page is approved, and every page carries a visible last-reviewed date.
Errors found after publish are corrected and logged publicly at the Corrections Log.
What the review board will do
Once appointed, the board will review every long-form page in the Learn, Signs, Help, Court, Recover, and For Professionals sections, on a defined cadence, and again on each scheduled refresh.
A reviewer’s job is concrete. They check that every clinical or legal claim is tied to a primary source the reader can verify, per our Citations & Sources standard. They flag claims that overreach the evidence. They flag framing that could be read as weaponization against one parent in a custody dispute. They confirm that the DV and abuse caveat is present where the topic requires it. They confirm that the last-reviewed date is current. When they sign off, their name, credentials, and the date will appear at the top of the page they reviewed.
A reviewer is not a co-author. Reviewers do not write the body. They check the body against their area of authority and either sign off, request edits, or decline to review. Their feedback is binding.
Who will be eligible to serve
The board has three roles, each with a clear standard.
Clinical reviewers
Licensed mental-health professionals in clinical psychology, psychiatry, marriage and family therapy, or clinical social work, in active good standing with their state licensing board, with documented experience in family conflict, child psychology, or parental-alienation-relevant clinical practice. License numbers will be listed in the reviewer bio and a link to the relevant licensure registry provided where one exists publicly. Public registries such as the ASPPB Psychology Licensure Lookup make this verifiable for psychologists; equivalent state boards cover the other clinical disciplines.
Family-law attorney reviewers
Licensed attorneys in active good standing with their state bar, practicing family law, with documented experience in custody disputes that involve allegations of alienation. Bar numbers will be listed in the reviewer bio and a link to the relevant state-bar verification system provided. The American Bar Association’s lawyer-lookup hub routes to each state bar’s verification system.
We will not list a state in front of “family-law attorney.” Family law is state-specific, and a reviewer’s authority is bounded by the state in which they practice. The site’s editorial content is jurisdiction-neutral; a reviewer signs off only on the legal accuracy of the general framework, not on the law of any specific state.
Lived-experience contributors
Adult children of alienation or targeted parents whose contribution is to flag where the site’s framing may pathologize, over-promise, or under-serve readers in the lived experience. Lived-experience contributors will be named with their consent and their contribution disclosed. They do not sign off on clinical or legal accuracy. They sign off that the page reads as fair to a reader who has lived through what the page describes.
How the review process will run
The cadence is set by the page’s EEAT tier. High-tier pages are reviewed every 90 days. Medium-tier pages are reviewed every 180 days. Low-tier pages are reviewed annually. A reviewer signs off when the page is fit to publish or to remain live; they request edits or decline to sign off when it is not.
What gets checked on each review:
- Every cited source is still live and still primary.
- Every clinical or legal claim is anchored to a primary source named inline.
- The framing does not give one parent a tactical edge in a custody dispute.
- The DV and abuse caveat is present where the topic requires it.
- The last-reviewed date is current.
- The page is consistent with the rest of the site (no orphaned terminology, no superseded definitions).
Sign-off will appear at the top of every page the reviewer covers as a “Reviewed by [Name], [Credentials], [Date]” block.
How we hold transparency
Three commitments hold the system honest.
First, verifiable credentials. Each reviewer’s bar number or license number will be displayed, with a link to the relevant state bar or licensure registry where one exists publicly. A reader can verify in under a minute. Reviewer bios will also be marked up as Schema.org Person objects so search engines and AI answer engines can validate the credentials.
Second, conflict-of-interest disclosure. Each reviewer’s commercial roles will be disclosed in their bio: the clinic they own or work for, the training program they teach for, the expert-witness work they accept, the books they sell, the named programs they have a relationship with. The disclosure sits at the top of the reviewer’s bio, not buried.
Third, honest review status on every page. Every long-form page shows the date of the most recent review at the top, and states what kind of review it has had. Until the board is seated, that line reads as editorial review against the standards above; once a board member signs off on a page, the line carries their name and credentials. We will never describe editorial review as expert review.
Current status
The board has not yet been appointed. Appointment begins once the site is live, against the eligibility criteria above, which are binding. Until then, every page is held to the editorial review documented on this page and at Editorial Standards, authored and published accountably by Alex Buckles, PAC Founder, with public corrections.
If you are a qualified clinician, attorney, or lived-experience contributor and you are interested in serving, see the application section below.
Areas of authority and scope
A reviewer signs off only on what they are qualified to sign off on. A clinical reviewer signs off on clinical accuracy and on whether the page is consistent with current peer-reviewed evidence. An attorney reviewer signs off on whether the legal framework described on the page is accurate as a general matter. A lived-experience contributor signs off on whether the page reads as fair from inside the experience.
No reviewer signs off on whether a specific reader’s situation is parental alienation. No reviewer provides clinical or legal advice to readers through this site.
How to apply or nominate
If you are a licensed clinician or attorney interested in serving, or if you would like to nominate someone, email board@parentalalienationcenter.com or use the Contact form. Lived-experience contributors are welcome to apply through the same channels. Applications are reviewed by the editorial team and a decision is communicated within ten business days.
Not legal or clinical advice
The review board’s role is to keep the editorial content accurate and fair. It is not to provide clinical or legal advice to readers. Readers in active legal proceedings should consult a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction. Readers who need clinical support should consult a licensed mental-health professional. The site is a general educational resource.
A final note
The job of an expert review board is to keep the editorial promises a site has made. The promises here are stated on our Editorial Standards, Citations & Sources, and Funding & Independence Disclosure pages. The scrutiny documented on this page is how those promises hold today; the board is how they get stronger once the site is live.
