Family Court Is Getting More Dangerous — What Newcomers Need to Understand
While we can all agree that family court reform is desperately needed, it is currently moving in a concerning direction. It is actively being reshaped, and those changes are not neutral nor are they child centric. Across the country, new legislation and the growing influence of special interest groups are altering custody outcomes in ways that increasingly place children and protective parents at risk.
One of the most significant drivers of this shift is the expansion of the fathers’ rights movement, now rebranded as the shared parenting community. Framed as fairness and equality, this movement is actively influencing legislation that prioritizes parental access over child safety, often ignoring domestic violence, coercive control, and post separation abuse.
These laws limit judicial discretion by imposing presumptions that courts are expected to follow unless a high evidentiary threshold is met. Instead of beginning with the question, “what arrangement is in the child’s best interest,” judges are often required to start from an assumption of shared access and then determine whether a parent has proven enough to overcome it. This shifts the burden onto protective parents and raises the bar so high that children are placed in dangerous and abusive situations.
In practice, this means abuse must be severe, well documented, and often repeated before it is even considered relevant. Forms of harm that are harder to quantify, such as coercive control, psychological abuse, or patterns of intimidation, are frequently discounted. Even when judges recognize risk, these laws can constrain their ability to act without fear of reversal on appeal.
The result is a system where danger can be visible but legally sidelined, and where parental rights are treated as presumptive while child safety becomes conditional.
At the same time, family court professionals have become increasingly entrenched in systems that reward compliance over protection. Evaluators, therapists, reunification providers, and custody experts often operate within overlapping financial ecosystems. Recommendations frequently align with maintaining parental access rather than assessing risk. Once a narrative is established, it is rarely revisited, even when new evidence emerges.
This is not simply a matter of overwhelmed courts or limited resources. Family courts are increasingly looking to push complex, high conflict cases onto outside professionals who claim to have solutions. When an evaluator, therapist, or program presents itself as an expert intervention, that recommendation is often accepted with little scrutiny, allowing the court to offload responsibility for outcomes.
The problem is that many of those offering solutions are financially incentivized by the very recommendations they make. Reunification programs, evaluators, and treatment providers frequently profit from prolonged involvement, repeated referrals, and ongoing conflict. The more severe the alleged problem, the more intensive and lucrative the intervention becomes.
Too often, these purported solutions are not supported by independent science and are actively traumatizing to children. Children are removed from safe parents, silenced when they disclose abuse, and subjected to coercive interventions designed to force compliance rather than protect wellbeing. A case may appear resolved on paper, but the harm is simply displaced onto the child.
For parents divorcing a narcissist or navigating a high conflict child custody case, this environment is especially dangerous. Abusive parents who are confident, persistent, and legally aggressive often thrive. Protective parents who raise concerns are more likely to be labeled emotional, difficult, obstructive, or worse, “alienators.” Children who speak out may be viewed as coached or influenced rather than harmed.
For parents new to family court, understanding these realities early matters. Many people are harmed not because they did something wrong, but because they did not understand how the system actually works. By the time the danger becomes clear, labels have been applied, narratives have hardened, and options have narrowed.
If you are a parent new to family court and are looking for resources, we invite you to start here:
Founded in 2011, One Mom’s Battle has witnessed this shift firsthand. Over time, the risks have increased, not decreased. Strategy is no longer a secondary consideration. It is essential. Education is not about becoming cynical. It is about staying grounded in a system that often does not protect.
Family court is becoming more dangerous for those who are unprepared. Being educated and informed is not fear based. It is protection.
The fine print:
I am not an attorney and I am not qualified to provide legal advice. Everything I share is based on personal experience and over a decade of work supporting others through high conflict custody battles. It is essential to consult with your attorney before making any legal decisions or implementing strategies discussed here. Your attorney is your legal voice and your advocate in the courtroom. They can help you understand the law in your jurisdiction, evaluate potential risks, and determine the best approach for your unique situation.
About me:
My name is Tina Swithin. I am a survivor, a mom, and someone who understands this battle firsthand. I acted as my own attorney and successfully protected my children in a system that I can only describe as inhumane. I am also a blogger, a certified divorce coach, a best selling author, and a fierce advocate for reform in the family court system. I divorced a narcissist and I prevailed. You can read more about me here. If you would like to know my full story, you can read Divorcing a Narcissist: One Mom’s Battle.
