Article by Veronica York
A delusion is a fixed, false belief that persists despite clear and contradictory evidence. In family courts across America, there exists such a delusion: the firm belief that children are not adversely affected by a father’s domestic violence (DV) and child abuse, and that protecting a father’s role in a child’s life must take precedence, at any cost. Mental health experts and court professionals frequently miss, minimize, or misunderstand how DV impacts children.
I was recently testifying as a DV expert in a Texas custody case when I began writing this article in real time. As I watched the trial commence, the pattern repeated itself. There is a deeply embedded ideology within family court that children must have both parents in their lives, regardless of abuse. Judges and court-appointed professionals often claim they are acting in the “best interest of the child,” yet their decision-making frequently reflects confirmation bias rather than scientific evidence. When abuse is present, insisting on continued access can amount to court-ordered failure to protect. Common sense tells us that a parent who is abusive should not be allowed to continue harming a child. Yet family courts often require protective mothers to facilitate communication and co-parenting with their abuser. Who would advise a victim of DV to maintain regular contact with the person who harmed them? Yet this is routine in custody cases.
The ACE (adverse childhood experiences) Studies are the best tool for understanding the full risk posed to children in DV custody cases. Unlike the ideological approaches from unscientific alienation theories, high conflict approaches, and shared parenting, ACE is peer-reviewed medical research from the CDC. It is often compared to the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report because it could similarly be used to dramatically reduce DV and child abuse and thus save millions of lives and trillions of dollars. ACE tells the courts the full harm they are risking—if only they would listen. Children exposed to DV and child abuse will live shorter and less healthy lives. Most of the harm comes from the fear and stress abusers’ cause. This means the ideological demand to keep abusive fathers in children’s lives will take many years from their lives. I have never heard a judge articulate the benefit that justifies this loss, I have only witnessed them ignore or disbelieve true reports of abuse. This happens when they rely on the wrong experts, just as in this case in Texas.
There is a clear pattern in DV child custody cases that during the relationship, abusive fathers often avoid childcare responsibilities or limit themselves to the fun activities. They have strict beliefs that keeping house and caregiving is “women’s work.” But once their victim leaves and reports his abuse, the same father frequently seeks custody. He claims, “parental alienation”. He alleges the mother is “crazy” (pointing to her reaction and likely PTSD from his abuse). He portrays himself as the reasonable, loving parent who “just wants more time”. These narratives are persuasive because they seemingly confirm the delusion that mothers who are trying to protect their children are vindictive women, who want to gain a financial advantage, or simply keep the father out of the child’s life. Abusive fathers are often charismatic, articulate, and socially respected. They may hold high-level jobs and have influence in their communities. Part of effectively screening for DV requires professionals to avoid using non-probative factors to disbelieve true reports of abuse. One of the most common examples of that is to assume the father’s public persona reflects their private behavior. Yet courts habitually make that mistake. Abusive fathers in court often present as calm and reasonable. They deflect questions, avoid direct answers, or conveniently forget critical details. Yet they are granted immediate credibility. Protective mothers, on the other hand, are scrutinized intensely. Trauma responses such as anxiety, depression, or hypervigilance, natural consequences of abuse, are reframed as instability. Much of this delusion stems from outdated and unscientific “parental alienation” theories propagated by Dr. Richard Gardner, whose work has been widely criticized and debunked. These theories shift focus away from the father’s abusive behavior and instead blame the protective mother for the child’s fear, resistance, behavioral issues, or trauma responses. Instead of asking what has been done to the child, courts often ask who influenced the child to feel that way, so they can blame the mother for the consequences to the child from the father’s abuse.
I have been accused of bias because most of my clients are mothers. My testimony is based on objective opinions from highly credible scientific research, but judges are missing the actual bias that is part of standard court practices. DV is a gendered crime; women represent the vast majority of victims. There was a long history of husbands being allowed to control, discipline and assault their wives to maintain control. There is no equivalent history when wives were encouraged to control their husbands. Abuse is not caused by mental illness or substance abuse. It is driven by entitlement and the desire for power and control. Abusive fathers believe they are entitled to authority and, if denied, entitled to punish. Custody becomes another tactic of control. Litigation is often used to maintain contact with the victim, monitor her whereabouts, and exert ongoing influence. Meanwhile, accountability is rare. Courts frequently fail to sanction fathers for violations of court orders, harassment, failure to pay support, or frivolous filings.
I once heard a judge state that protecting the mother is not the court’s job. But how can we protect a child without protecting the child’s primary attachment figure? The health, safety, and wellbeing of children are inseparable from the safety of the non-abusive parent. There certainly is a benefit for children to enjoy a relationship with both parents. The problem is that abusers cause far more harm than good. Courts could force abusive fathers to change their behavior if they want a relationship. This would be a win-win relationship for everyone. Too often, judges instead find it easier to force mothers and children to accommodate the father’s abuse.
Imagine a court system that believed women and children when they report abuse. Imagine courts were trained to recognize manipulation tactics, coercive control, and trauma responses. We could prevent countless adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). We could fulfill the court’s true mandate: protecting children. Even judges who receive DV training frequently default to a narrative that children need their fathers at all costs. When credible research contradicts that narrative, it is often ignored. Confirmation bias prevails.
Shared parenting models (equal decision-making and equal possession) are often treated as a universal ideal. But in cases involving DV, 50/50 arrangements expose children to continued harm. Health and safety must be the foundation of any custody determination. Without them, nothing else matters. Courts frequently blame mothers for the consequences of abuse. If a child regresses developmentally, exhibits aggression, or displays sexualized behaviors, the explanation is likely due to their exposure to the father’s abuse. Yet the mother is often accused of influencing the child or damaging the father-child relationship. Attorneys representing abusive fathers often use aggressive and intimidating tactics, focusing on discrediting the mother rather than addressing safety concerns. Amicus attorneys, attorneys for the child, guardians ad litem, and court-appointed therapists, lack specialized DV training, yet they play decisive roles in shaping outcomes. When their training emphasizes shared parenting without applying coercive control dynamics to the correct parent, confirmation bias becomes inevitable. Abusers are specialists at decontextualizing events. They highlight isolated positive moments, photos, messages, small acts of involvement, to construct a narrative of devoted fatherhood. Meanwhile, mothers are held to an impossible standard of perfection. A mother reacting to abuse loses credibility; a father demonstrating minimal involvement receives praise. The result is a system that too often protects the appearance of fairness rather than the reality of safety.
Family court was designed to be a place of child protection. Instead, when DV is dismissed or reframed as a “conflict between parents,” it becomes one of the most dangerous situations for children. Courts must shift from ideology to evidence. They must prioritize accountability for abusers over shared parenting ideology. They must understand that DV is about power and control, not anger, not mutual conflict, not mental illness. Children deserve more than a legal theory about equal parenting. They deserve to be believed, protected, and not forced into access that causes them the continued stress and fear likely to ruin their lives. Until family courts confront this delusion, they cannot claim we are acting in the best interest of children.