Protection Is Not Alienation
We are in a family court system that permits judges to sit on the bench with little to no training in the basics of domestic abuse, let alone the more complex issues that surround child custody cases. These cases are not simple disagreements between two reasonable parents. They often involve domestic abuse, post separation abuse, child abuse, legal abuse, and calculated patterns of manipulation. Without specialized training and a clear understanding of these dynamics, judges default to assumptions that do not match the reality families are living.
Some judges are simply uneducated. Others are lazy, calloused, or desensitized. The most troubling are those who appear to be colluding or outright corrupt. Whatever the category, the result is the same: children are placed at risk and protective parents are punished for trying to keep them safe.
When a parent raises an allegation of abuse, the court places the burden of proof on their shoulders. Proving abuse in a custody setting is incredibly difficult. Most abuse allegations are dismissed for lack of proof. A child’s disclosure is rarely taken seriously; it is brushed off as hearsay.
On the other hand, when one parent accuses the other of coaching or “alienation,” the dynamic shifts entirely. That claim is not treated with the same skepticism. Instead, it takes on a life of its own. Once the idea is planted, it is almost impossible to eradicate. The accusing parent’s word is given enormous weight, even without evidence.
This is the backwards reality of family court. Accused abusers are often given the benefit of the doubt, while protective parents are treated with suspicion. In many cases, the parent trying to shield a child from harm ends up on trial themselves.
I was once a child in the family court system and I am a mother who fought fiercely to protect my children in the family court system.
I was raised by my father, and I am grateful for that because he was the healthier of my two parents. What I experienced during my mother’s parenting time was, in hindsight, horrifying. I should have never been with her unsupervised.
When my own custody battle began, I did not fully understand how unhealthy my ex-husband was. At first, part of me was relieved he would finally be forced to spend time with our children. One of our biggest arguments had been his absence, and I wanted my daughters to have a relationship with both parents. When I was a child, my father was my hero. I wanted that same safety and bond for our little girls.
It was only when my daughters began sharing what happened during visits, being physically hurt, squeezed, pinched, and terrorized, that I brought these things before the court. When he began taking them around his older brother, I sounded every alarm. During our marriage, we had both agreed that our children would never be around his brother. As soon as we separated, he retaliated by exposing them to someone we both knew was dangerous. Years later, my worst fears were validated when his brother was arrested for abusing children and sentenced to nearly 300-years in prison.
The topic of parental alienation is deeply personal for me because I was accused of it throughout my entire court case. It was confusing to be accused of something that had no bearing on our circumstances. For almost 15 years I have watched the same story play out in the survivor community: raise an allegation of abuse and you will be met with the number one legal strategy of abusive parents…you will be accused of “parental alienation.”
My story is not unique. Countless protective parents enter the courtroom with the same hope I carried, that the court will see what is happening and prioritize the safety of the children. Instead, many discover that raising concerns places them under suspicion. In too many cases, protective parents lose custody altogether once this legal strategy is deployed.
This is the devastating reality. The system punishes the parent who sounds the alarm and rewards the parent who caused the harm. Family courts operate under the assumption that children benefit from contact with both parents, even when there are allegations of domestic abuse. Is a parent’s right to access more important than a child’s safety? When safety is in question, we must err on the side of caution.
This imbalance has created fertile ground for an entire industry to flourish. The pseudo theory of parental alienation has become the foundation for a network of self proclaimed experts and programs that profit by selling costly and unproven interventions. Children who resist contact with a parent are pushed into reunification therapies, reintegration plans, and even intensive reunification programs or reunification camps that claim to repair parent-child relationships.
These programs are marketed as solutions, but they are experimental at best and abusive at worst. Even those who work within this industry admit their treatments are “experimental.” The research that supposedly supports them is flawed at best, and created by those who are financially invested in their success. It is a self-sustaining business model that preys on families in crisis. Instead of protecting children, it re-traumatizes them and bankrupts parents who are already in survival mode.
Here is where I want to find common ground:
I do not deny that children can be turned against a healthy parent. I have dear friends who are living this nightmare, and I will never dismiss their pain. That reality exists. But the “solutions” being sold are snake oil. The alienation industry is built on a discredited theory and has grown into a multi-billion dollar machine that traumatizes children and destroys families in the process.
Protection is not alienation.
There are cases where a child is turned against a healthy parent, and I will never dismiss the pain of those who have lived that reality. Those cases are far less common than one would believe while sitting inside the industrial complex of family court. What happens far more often is that an accusation of “alienation” is made with no proof required. Once that word is spoken, the vultures from the alienation industry begin to circle. They are not interested in the dynamics of the case or what is truly in the best interest of children. They see revenue streams.
We can all agree that when a child is turned against a parent by a vindictive parent, it is devastating but we must also agree that the so-called solutions being peddled are nothing more than a multilevel marketing scheme. Reunification camps, reintegration programs, and “therapies” marketed by profiteers in the alienation industry retraumatize children and bankrupt families. Even those inside the industry admit their treatments are experimental, and we know that the current research has been created by those financially incentivized by the treatments and programs.
This is why both sides of this argument need to come together. Whether you believe alienation is a pseudo theory or have lived through the pain of a child rejecting you unfairly, we can link arms in rejecting the fraudulent “cures” being sold. Until that happens, children will continue to be harmed, protective parents will continue to be punished, and parents whose children have been turned against them will continue to be exploited by profiteers who offer false hope.
