1 week ago
27
Lara Feigel highlights the impact of “win/lose” adjudication in the adversarial court system, a system tailor-made to produce the worst possible outcomes for separating families (I was warned my children would be ripped in half when we divorced. But I had no idea just how brutal custody cases can be, 18 January). In heightening conflict between parents, this system destroys the potential of a negotiated co-parental agreement determined by parents themselves. The best laws are those which limit judicial discretion, including in family law, where children are caught squarely in the middle of the conflict.
There is a viable alternative to the dominant litigation model for couples in conflict: a legal presumption of equal parenting, rebuttable in family violence cases, a model that reduces the harms of adversarial resolution. Shared parenting maintains children’s relationships with each parent and their extended family, reduces inter-parental conflict, and prevents first-time violence. What is missing, however, is the political will to enact legislative reform based on reliable scientific evidence on the benefits of shared parenting and a child-focused and collaborative approach. Despite family courts’ invocation of the “best interests of the child”, meaningful law reform remains elusive in the UK and beyond.
The adversarial system provides a forum for the weaponisation of parental alienation and family violence allegations on the one hand, and minimisation and denial of actual violence on the other, rather than protecting those who are actually victimised. Family violence is a criminal matter and should be taken seriously by criminal courts, rather than abrogating responsibility to family courts which determine who is innocent and guilty, who is the winner and who the loser.
The need for dialogue among activists in the fields of shared parenting and family violence is vital, given that ideological polarisation thwarts family-related law reform efforts. When it comes to post-separation parenting, the interests of mothers and fathers overlap. As Ms Feigel demonstrates, this is a life-and-death issue, and the cruelty of the child custody system is squarely to blame. The time has come for a long-needed alliance toward reform in the right direction.
Edward Kruk
President, International Council on Shared Parenting
Your extract from Lara Feigel’s book powerfully describes the emotional strain of family court proceedings, but it risks turning a painful personal outcome into a wholesale critique of the system. I am currently protecting my son from a high-conflict situation with my partner and understand how difficult it is. However, family courts are not designed to validate adults’ narratives but to make difficult decisions in circumstances already shaped by parental choices.
Tragic custody outcomes do not in themselves demonstrate institutional bias. Courts are often forced to choose between imperfect options, prioritising stability over parental preference. The parents themselves create the conditions in which the court must operate. To interpret an adverse judgment primarily as misogyny or systemic failure sidesteps personal responsibility and obscures the central question of children’s long-term welfare.
A public discourse that frames family courts as inherently unjust may ultimately be counterproductive, encouraging grievance rather than reflection in situations where cooperation and accountability matter most.
Name and address supplied
It is concerning to read in your article that the term “alienation” is still in use in custody family court contexts. Children are labelled (by self-appointed “experts”) as “alienated” as a weapon that effectively silences their voices and experiences, but also their choices. “Parental alienation” labels (and any descriptive variations) usually aim to continue controlling behaviours by one controlling (or otherwise abusive) parent.
The 2018 guidelines published by the European Association for Psychotherapy clarify how unscientific “parental alienation” conceptions may facilitate further victimisation, pathologisation, or even violence towards vulnerable people. We can only hope that more family courts will act to improve the protection of the most vulnerable parties, and particularly the children, trapped in such custody cases.
Tom Warnecke
General secretary, European Association for Psychotherapy
