Every day, protective parents—most often mothers who have survived abuse—work tirelessly to help their children heal from trauma and to prevent cycles of violence from repeating. They offer stability, warmth, and the chance for their children to build healthier futures. Yet, instead of receiving support, many face accusations of “parental alienation” simply for teaching their children about safety and healthy relationships.

These accusations do more than dismiss the lived realities of abuse; they can lead to devastating custody outcomes where children are placed back into unsafe environments. Survivors who seek to shield their children often find themselves recast in court as manipulators, while the original abuse is minimized, ignored, or reframed (Meier, 2017).

Research Validates Protective Parenting

Studies consistently show that survivor mothers demonstrate similar or even stronger parenting capacities than those in non-violent homes (Lapierre, 2008; Tailor et al., 2015). Maternal warmth and strong mother–child communication can buffer and mediate the harm of violence exposure (Haight et al., 2007; Skopp et al., 2007).

Despite this evidence, courts frequently silence protective parents. When survivors bring forward disclosures of abuse or help their children process trauma, they are at risk of losing custody under the guise of alienation. This forces parents into an impossible choice: support their children emotionally, or stay silent to avoid punishment.

How Courts Misuse “Parental Alienation”

The theory of parental alienation—widely discredited in research and practice—has become a weapon for abusers. It reframes a child’s fear of an abusive parent as the product of manipulation by the other parent (Bruch, 2001). In practice, this shifts attention away from allegations of abuse and onto the protective parent’s credibility.

Courts often rely on evaluators who lack specialized training in domestic violence. Many claim safety is their top priority, yet their reports focus disproportionately on alienation. Alienation, unlike risk assessment, has no evidence-based connection to child safety. It functions as a distraction tactic that works to the advantage of abusers (Meier, 2017).

Why Safety Must Come First

If safety were truly prioritized, courts would require risk assessments performed by qualified domestic violence experts—not generalized evaluations by professionals untrained in abuse dynamics. Risk assessments would focus on well-documented danger indicators such as:

• Sexual violence, strangulation, or abuse during pregnancy

• Harm to animals

• Violations of laws or protective orders

• Threats of homicide, suicide, or kidnapping

• A belief that a partner has no right to leave

• Seeking custody as punishment or coercion

Domestic violence advocates are trained in these assessments. Family court evaluators rarely are. Without this knowledge, they cannot effectively identify danger (Campbell, 2004).

The Five Areas of Expertise Courts Need

1. Lethality Risk Indicators: Recognizing patterns that predict serious harm or homicide (Campbell, 2004).

2. Understanding Abuse Dynamics: Seeing abuse as a pattern of entitlement and control, not as anger or substance misuse (Stark, 2007).

3. Recognizing Coercive Control: Identifying behaviors like economic abuse, litigation abuse, stalking, and isolation (Stark, 2007).

4. Impact on Children: Acknowledging the long-term harm of exposure, from developmental disruption to increased risk of self-harm (Evans et al., 2008).

5. Batterer Narratives: Understanding the manipulative tactics abusers use to appear credible while minimizing or denying abuse (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).

Without this expertise, evaluators often dismiss valid abuse claims, misinterpret survivor behaviors, and mislabel protective parents as unstable or alienating.

Primary Attachment and Children’s Needs

Children rely heavily on their primary caregiver—often the mother in the early years. Research shows separating children from their primary attachment figure increases the risk of depression, low self-esteem, and even suicide later in life (Bowlby, 1988). Courts tend to minimize this significance, especially in contested custody cases. If safety was prioritized, professionals would have to weigh this attachment carefully before disrupting it.

The Need for Reform and Accountability

To protect children, courts must put safety above all else. That requires retraining judges, evaluators, and legal professionals. Too often, professionals dismiss domestic violence training because they believe they already understand the subject, despite research showing otherwise.

Accountability is another barrier. Judges are largely immune from lawsuits, oversight committees are underfunded, and appeals courts defer heavily to trial judges. The result is that systemic failures persist unchecked, leaving families vulnerable.

A Path Forward

• Legislative Reform: Make child safety the first legal priority in custody cases.

• Mandatory Training: Require retraining in domestic violence dynamics and risk assessment for all family court professionals.

• Accountability Structures: Strengthen oversight, require transparency, and ensure survivors’ voices are central in evaluations.

• Shift in Standards: Courts must resolve safety risks before considering alienation claims.

Closing Reflection

Protective parents do some of the hardest work imaginable: helping children heal from trauma while keeping them safe from further harm. Research affirms their capacity. Their children benefit from their warmth, communication, and resilience. Yet, far too often, these same parents are punished for the very actions that prevent cycles of abuse.

Reform is urgent. Children deserve courts that put safety above appearances of cooperation, that see through abuser tactics, and that honor the caregiving bond of protective parents. Until safety comes first, too many families will continue to be punished for protection.

24/7 Confidential Support:

• National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233 (TTY 1-800-787-3224)

• Text: START to 88788

• Chat: TheHotline.org

References

Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Sage.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Bruch, C. S. (2001). Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong in child custody cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35(3), 527–552.

Campbell, J. C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464–1477.

Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(2), 131–140.

Haight, W., Shim, W. S., Linn, L., & Swinford, L. (2007). Mother–child interaction as a mediator of trauma symptoms in maltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(5), 495–511.

Lapierre, S. (2008). Mothering in the context of domestic violence: The pervasiveness of a deficit model of mothering. Child & Family Social Work, 13(4), 454–463.

Meier, J. S. (2017). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(1), 7–29.

Skopp, N. A., McDonald, R., Manke, B., & Jouriles, E. N. (2007). Siblings in domestically violent families: Experiences of interparent conflict and adjustment problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 252–260.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

Tailor, K., Letherby, G., Williams, A., & Yeadon‐Lee, T. (2015). Domestic violence and the paradox of post-separation mothering. Child & Family Social Work, 20(4), 458–467.