In a troubling case from Ohio, Judge Judith Nicely granted custody of two children—a nine-year-old girl and an eleven-year-old boy—to their father, Larry Johnson. The children reacted by locking themselves in a bathroom, brandishing knives against their own throats and threatening self-harm. Despite their mother, Emily Johnson, actively seeking to regain custody, the judge maintained the ruling, asserting that the children were “alienated” from their father and required a reestablishment of their relationship.
Tragically, the eleven-year-old boy sustained severe injuries when his father pushed him through a plate glass window, necessitating emergency surgery that resulted in lasting damage. Emily revealed that her ex-husband had a history of abusive behavior, both towards her and the children, and was previously incarcerated for possessing child pornography. Court records from 2008 indicate that Johnson was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for downloading numerous obscene materials. Notably, in Ohio, an obscenity conviction does not bar unsupervised visitation rights, which allowed Johnson to regain custody upon his release.
Emily stated, “The court disregarded his criminal history, the abuse, and the children’s desperate pleas for help. Once labeled as an ‘alienator,’ everything I said was viewed with skepticism.” Johnson’s case exemplifies a concerning trend where perpetrators of domestic violence secure custody, often influenced by a gender bias that favors fathers, particularly when abusers claim to be victims of “alienation.”
Research conducted by experts such as Joan Meier and Daniel Saunders, alongside findings from the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence, reveals that gender biases within family courts frequently disadvantage mothers in custody disputes. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force identified significant evidence of bias against mothers, concluding that judges often prioritize the needs of noncustodial fathers over those of custodial mothers and their children.
Claims of “parental alienation” are frequently raised by abusive fathers during custody battles, particularly in high-stakes scenarios involving child safety. This concept, rooted in the discredited Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)—coined by psychiatrist Richard Gardner in the 1980s—serves as a tool to undermine allegations of abuse. PAS posits that a child may reject a parent due to manipulation by the other parent. However, this theory lacks recognition from the American Psychological Association and is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Dr. Paul Fink, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, described PAS as “junk science at its worst.” Despite the widespread condemnation of PAS by legal authorities, its acceptance in family courts remains prevalent. Joan Meier’s research indicates that allegations of parental alienation can taint abuse claims, transforming them into an effective defense for perpetrators. Often, children’s expressions of fear or distress towards the allegedly abusive parent are dismissed by the courts as mere manifestations of “alienation,” rather than valid reactions to trauma.
While the definition of PAS is ostensibly gender-neutral, mothers face a heightened risk of losing custody in cases involving allegations of child abuse or domestic violence. The challenge of proving abuse in court can be perilous, as many victims are intimidated into silence by their abusers. The danger escalates for victims who attempt to report abuse; studies indicate that those who escape abusive relationships are significantly more likely to be murdered by their partners shortly thereafter. Yet, when mothers disclose abuse in court, they are often met with skepticism, and the lack of substantial evidence can lead judges to disregard their claims.
Custody evaluations conducted by appointed psychologists can also exacerbate the situation. If evaluators discount abuse or support alienation claims, they may inadvertently facilitate the abuser’s gain of custody. In the case of Emily, the evaluator dismissed her claims of abuse, labeling her as “an alienator” and “delusional.”
Judges may be misled by these evaluations, as they often rely on the testimony of supposed experts who may not grasp the nuances of domestic violence. This reliance on flawed evaluations can perpetuate the myth that mothers are the primary custodial beneficiaries, as many judges have swung to the opposite extreme, increasingly siding with abusers. The American Judges Association indicates that perpetrators are awarded custody or shared custody in 70% of abuse cases, and in some instances, sexual abusers secured custody 85% of the time. Experts estimate that approximately 58,000 children annually have unsupervised contact with abusive parents.
The consequences of dismissing evidence of abuse can be catastrophic. In a case involving Andrea Cole, when she expressed fear for her son’s safety with his father, Judge Mark Thompson responded dismissively, leading to the tragic murder of her child shortly after custody was awarded. Such incidents are not anomalies; a study indicated that 75 children were murdered by abusive fathers during custody disputes within a short span.
Family court judges often lack the training necessary to identify signs of abuse, and the pervasive influence of PAS, coupled with systemic gender bias, exacerbates the risks faced by mothers and children. Joan Meier emphasizes that family courts are not equipped to handle cases of child abuse, mistakenly believing such matters belong in criminal court or with child protective services—thereby leaving vulnerable children at risk.
Moreover, judges and evaluators function with minimal accountability, creating an environment where poor decisions go unchecked. Unlike criminal courts, where judges face scrutiny for their decisions, family court judges often operate without oversight, resulting in potential harm to families.
Anna White lost custody of her son due to an evaluator’s unfounded conclusions labeling her claims of abuse as “fabricated.” After enduring a protracted legal struggle, she eventually regained custody, only to discover that the evaluator’s conduct remained unmonitored due to confidentiality restrictions of the Office of Professional Discipline.
It is imperative that courts acknowledge their intrinsic biases, adhere to expert recommendations, discard the widely discredited theory of PAS, and actively work to mitigate the ongoing minimization of abuse. The stakes are too high; children’s safety and well-being must take precedence.
Names have been changed to protect the identities of minor children.
For further reading on related topics, visit our blog at Home Insemination Kit. For authoritative resources, check out Make a Mom and Medical News Today.
Summary: Family courts have displayed a concerning trend of favoring abusive parents over protective mothers, largely influenced by gender bias and the controversial concept of parental alienation. Studies reveal that many judges and evaluators dismiss evidence of abuse, often labeling protective mothers as alienators. The implications of these biases are dire, leading to tragic outcomes for children in custody cases.