Check the claim.
Show the limits.

Before publication.

These are the checks required for future professional submissions and research summaries. A pending check means the material remains unpublished; this page does not imply that a professional review team is already in place.

1. Verify identity and relevant expertise

   For clinical credentials, check the appropriate regulator, license status and available disciplinary records. For researchers, verify affiliation and relevant publications. Describe the person’s actual role and subject expertise accurately. Credentials start the review; they do not settle the claim.

2. Read the original material

   Review the full article, study or interview and the cited sources. Check dates, publication status, corrections and retractions. An abstract, promotional clip or screenshot is not sufficient for approving a research summary. If the full source cannot be assessed, hold the summary.

3. Match the claims to the evidence

   Distinguish research findings, professional opinions, clinical observations and personal experiences. Check study design, sample, recruitment, measures, limitations and applicability. Do not turn an association into a causal claim, or a finding about a group into a conclusion about an individual family. Peer review is one quality signal, not proof that every claim is correct.

4. Consider alternatives and child safety

   Require clear definitions of alienation, gatekeeping and other terms used. Examine relevant alternative explanations for contact difficulties, including safety concerns, abuse, conflict, developmental factors and the behavior of each parent. Avoid assuming motive from a missed contact or a child’s reluctance. Do not diagnose identifiable people or publish instructions that pressure a child to take sides.

5. Disclose relevant interests

   Ask about treatment programs, expert-witness work, courses, books, referrals, sponsorship and other relevant financial or professional interests. Disclose applicable relationships and assess supporting evidence independently. Payment or affiliation does not buy editorial approval.

6. Confirm rights and privacy

   Before reproducing third-party work, document the permission, applicable license or other assessed basis for that specific use. Check the rights holder, permitted edits, images, attribution and social reuse. Credit alone is not permission. Protect private family information and do not publish identifiable client or child case material without the necessary rights and privacy review. Prefer fictional examples.

7. Obtain the right review

   Hold clinical or treatment claims pending review by a suitably qualified clinician with relevant expertise. Hold legal claims pending review by a qualified lawyer for the relevant jurisdiction. Record what was reviewed and which version. Identify material conflicts and seek an independent reviewer when needed.

8. Label, approve and maintain

   Record the final decision, evidence checked, reviewer and version, limitations, rights basis, disclosures, publication date and review date. Publish only after required checks are complete. Apply the same standards to the title, illustration, social caption and excerpts. Reassess substantive corrections, withdrawn evidence and significant new findings.

What the labels mean.

DAD/NPG editorial guidance

Practical suggestions written or edited by DAD/NPG. This label does not mean professional clinical or legal review.

Research summary

An account of identified research, with methods, findings, limitations and publication details. It is not a diagnosis or a finding about your family.

Professional perspective

An identified contributor’s interpretation or experience. Their credentials and relevant interests are disclosed. Their perspective is not automatically a scientific consensus.

Official reference

A link to a named court, regulator or other official body, labeled by location and scope. The link does not imply endorsement of DAD/NPG.

Clinically reviewed / Legally reviewed

Used only after an identified, appropriately qualified reviewer has reviewed the specified version within their relevant expertise or jurisdiction. The page must show the reviewer, review date and scope. Such review does not guarantee an outcome.

Corrections stay visible.

Report a concern to hello@dadnpg.com with the page link, the claim in question and supporting sources. Please leave private case files and children’s identifying details out of the message.

When a material issue is identified, assess whether to add a notice, correct the article or temporarily withdraw it while checking. Record substantive changes with the date and explanation. Withdraw or revise related social content where appropriate. A changed source or a valid criticism can require a new review.

Review each educational article at least annually and sooner when a significant correction, retraction or relevant development is identified. A review date describes the work completed on that version; it is not a promise that external information cannot change.