Psychological Dynamics in Child Custody Disputes
Understanding the Impact of Coercive Control and Abuse on Family Court Decisions and What Judges and Legal Professionals Should Be Looking For
Child custody decisions have undergone significant changes over the years, with courts shifting from one doctrine to another to determine the best course of action for families in turmoil.
Initially, the “tender years” doctrine prevailed, asserting that mothers were the most suitable caretakers for young children. This approach eventually gave way to the “psychological parent” concept and then the “best interest of the child” doctrine.
In recent years, the “shared parenting”, “friendly parent” or “failure to cooperate” standard has gained traction, with many family courts advocating for co-parenting arrangements.
This theoretically allows children to bond with both parents while preventing either parent from feeling as if they have “lost.”
However, by prioritising “shared care” or the “friendly parent doctrine”, family court professionals may inadvertently overlook abuse.
This approach is not grounded in empirical evidence but rather in accepted doctrine and prejudice.
In cases involving coercive and controlling abuse, the need for empirical analysis is particularly crucial, as this type of abuse is often concealed by deception and lacks physical evidence.
Child custody disputes also tend to involve posturing, bullying, and intimidation tactics that reflect adversarial cultures in family court systems, which is not at all conducive to what family courts say they are actually seeking to achieve.
That is particularly problematic in the context of survivors needing protection from an abuser, where the family court may itself also end up acting as a perpetrator, and thus re-victimising the survivor seeking support.
The Complexity of Child Custody Disputes
Child custody disputes are often fraught with emotions, leading to a myriad of complications and challenges for the parties involved and the professionals tasked with making decisions.
One prevalent issue is the use of posturing, bullying, and intimidating tactics by litigants and their lawyers as they seek to gain an advantage in the proceedings.
These behaviours not only exacerbate the conflict but also make it difficult for family court professionals to discern the truth and make well-informed decisions (topics I have talked about frequently on here).
Where there is coercive and controlling behaviour or abuse by one of the parties, this further complicates child custody disputes, as it can be challenging to detect — yet to understand and meet the “best interests of the child” is absolutely crucial to detect.
This type of abuse often lacks physical evidence, and the abusers are typically skilled at deception, presenting themselves as highly functioning individuals, especially in public settings.
This makes it difficult for court professionals to identify the abuse and take it into account when making custody decisions.
Victims of coercive and controlling behaviour or abuse may also struggle to provide a clear and coherent account of their experiences, as the abuse can result in anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)— further complicating how family courts evaluate their evidence.
Related to these challenges are the psychological defence mechanisms of projective identification and dissociation (relevant to both victims and abusers, as I will explain shortly), which individuals may have used to cope with the stress, anxiety, or other emotional challenges related to their situation.
These defences can distort perceptions and create confusion, with conflicting accounts of events and behaviours resulting; making it challenging for family court professionals to determine the facts and best interests of the child(ren) involved.
Projective Identification
Projective identification is a complex, unconscious defence mechanism in which an individual projects their own unwanted or unacceptable feelings, thoughts, or impulses onto another person.
This process often involves the individual attributing their own negative qualities or emotions to the other person, causing them to feel that the other person is the source of these emotions or thoughts.
In some cases, the person onto whom these emotions are projected may unconsciously start to identify with the projected feelings and exhibit the corresponding behaviours, thereby validating the projector’s belief.
For example, if a person feels intense anger but cannot accept or acknowledge this emotion within themselves, they may attribute the anger to someone else, like a partner, and believe that the other person is angry with them.
This can lead to the other person becoming angry in response, confirming the projector’s belief in their anger.
Dissociation
Dissociation is a defence mechanism in which a person disconnects from their thoughts, feelings, memories, or sense of identity to cope with overwhelming or traumatic experiences.
This disconnection can occur on a continuum, ranging from mild daydreaming or zoning out to more severe forms, such as dissociative disorders.
In its milder forms, dissociation can be seen as a temporary escape from reality, allowing the individual to cope with stressful situations by detaching from their emotions or thoughts.
In more severe cases, dissociation may involve amnesia, identity disturbances, or the development of separate identity states (as seen in Dissociative Identity Disorder).
Both projective identification and dissociation are ways in which individuals protect themselves from emotional pain or distress.
However, these defence mechanisms can become maladaptive when they interfere with the person’s ability to function effectively and in their relationships.
The Influence of Projective Identification & Dissociation In Relation To Abusers
Projective identification and dissociation, play a significant role in shaping the behaviour and self-perception of abusers in coercive and controlling relationships.
These psychological defences contribute to a distorted reality, in which abusers see themselves as victims and believe they are entitled to their abusive behaviour.
One of the consequences of this is that abusers may have difficulty maintaining healthy, mutually respectful relationships.
They often struggle to empathise or take the perspective of another person in a transformative way, making it challenging for them to engage in genuine, supportive partnerships.
This inability to form healthy relationships can perpetuate a cycle of abuse, as abusers continue to seek control and validation through their actions.
Another significant influence of psychological defences on abusers is their difficulty in acknowledging and accepting responsibility for their abusive behaviour.
Due to the presence of projective identification and dissociation, abusers may genuinely believe that their victims are responsible for the disputes and that their abusive actions are justified.
In some cases, abusers may even deny the existence of documented evidence of their abusive behaviour, as it contradicts their self-perception and personal moral code.
The influence of these psychological defences can also make it challenging for abusers to recognise the need for treatment and change — as they often perceive themselves as victims, they may be resistant to acknowledging the harm they have caused and the necessity for intervention.
This resistance to treatment can further exacerbate the cycle of abuse and create additional challenges in resolving child custody disputes.
Projective Identification & Dissociation For Victims Facing Abuse
The presence of psychological defences, such as projective identification and dissociation, can have severe consequences for victims of coercive and controlling abuse as well.
These defences can profoundly impact the victim’s mental health and well-being, leading to the development of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and PTSD.
These psychological symptoms can not only affect the victim’s daily life but can then also have significant implications for their credibility and behaviour in court.
Victims suffering from anxiety and depression may struggle to communicate their experiences effectively during custody disputes, which can result in their accounts being perceived as less credible by family court professionals.
Additionally, the presence of PTSD may cause memory loss or impaired mental functioning, further complicating the victim’s ability to provide a clear and coherent account of their experiences.
Low self-esteem can also impact a victim’s behaviour in court, making them appear less confident or assertive in their claims.
This may lead court professionals to question the veracity of their allegations, even in cases where abuse has occurred.
The “frozen” state often experienced by victims of coercive and controlling abuse can also make them appear outwardly irresponsible or destructive, further damaging their credibility in court.
My Own Case
I know all about the difficulties of communicating my experiences effectively in the family court setting.
I have been diagnosed with PTSD and suffered mental health difficulties as a consequence of traumatic experiences at the hands of both my ex partner and the family court.
My own courtroom behaviour was affected by my history of childhood trauma and then that which I had experienced within and following my relationship.
Despite being a lawyer by the time I made it into court (and putting on a brave performance), I was wholly ill equipped to deal with family court proceedings and what the family court then also inflicted.
I also did not have the financial means for making the best shot at gaining the protection I needed (I had been a single teenage mum prior to my relationship beginning and walked away from any relationship property settlement in my early 20s, because of the abuse) — a point that family courts give little to no credence.
As a white, then early 40s, professional, my ex partner also comes across (most often) as charming, rational and educated.
He is a narcissist though.
He has a distorted sense of reality, that includes denial of abusive behaviour, even when recorded, because it contradicts his purported “moral code”.
He has never acknowledged or accepted responsibility for his abusive behaviour.
We separated more than 14 years ago and I’ve now been remarried for almost 10, but he still sees me as his property — which is the core reason why I remain fearful of his knowing where I am, to this day.
And he does genuinely seem to believe he is the victim in all things, with his abusive actions towards me justified. (I have discussed some of the details of this in a previous article).
The family court, far from protecting me from years of stalking and abuse, instead minimised or denied what he was doing, and effectively enabled his continued abuse.
In many respects, what I experienced in the family court was also worse than what my ex partner inflicted.
I did not understand the psychological issues at play at the time, but I would have expected the so-called “experts” in the family court to have understood these things.
Facing betrayal from a system that is said to be intended to protect women and children in the position that my children and I found ourselves, was highly distressing.
As a lawyer, I of course also once had faith in these systems.
The coercive, oppressive, and wholly ignorant imposition of authority that I experienced, was heart breaking.
For the longest time, I also felt shame over my failure to adequately demonstrate to the judge why I needed protection from my ex partner, even as she made findings of domestic violence.
Later, before another judge, I felt shame around the credibility findings he made against me —judgements made from a place of judgement against women, without my ever actually providing physical evidence before him.
It was only later, after I had undertaken more postgraduate education — studying the sociological and psychological underpinnings of the issues we see in family courts — that I came to understand these were not my shames to carry.
These are shames that family courts should be acknowledging to the thousands of women and children they are currently failing, when they prove incompetent to the task of understanding the underlying psychological dynamics of the litigants coming before them.
The Challenges Faced by Family Court Professionals
To be fair, family court professionals do face numerous challenges when dealing with complex child custody disputes, particularly in cases involving coercive and controlling abuse.
Family courts must accurately assess the behaviours of both victims and abusers to be able to make informed decisions — and I absolutely accept that the psychological defences and symptoms discussed above, can make this task difficult.
Victims may appear anxious, depressed, or disoriented, which can lead to misinterpretations of their credibility and capacity as parents.
Conversely, abusers may present themselves as responsible, caring, and composed, creating a false image that obscures their abusive behavior.
These misinterpretations can have significant consequences for the outcome of child custody disputes, potentially leading to decisions that are not in the best interest of the children involved.
To avoid these pitfalls, family court professionals must be aware of the complexities of psychological defences and the ways in which they can impact both victims’ and abusers’ behaviours.
Coercive Control & Gaslighting From Family Courts Themselves
In some cases, the behaviour of family court judges and legal professionals may also mimic the actions of abusers within the home.
The imposition of unreasonable demands or conditions, the use of intimidation or threats by judges and lawyers, and the manipulation of information, are all coercive acts that I saw frequently in practice, with appalling consequences for (predominantly) mothers and their children.
For example, judges and lawyers may pressure victims to agree to shared custody arrangements against their wishes or make decisions based on biased or incomplete information.
Legal professionals may also manipulate the narrative of the case in favour of the abuser or fail to adequately represent the victim’s interests (because of their ignorance around the psychological dynamics at play and/or personal prejudices), further contributing to the coercive dynamic.
This phenomenon can further complicate and exacerbate the challenges faced by victims of coercive and controlling abuse within / after their relationship, with the family court essentially acting as another abuser.
Gaslighting by family court professionals
Gaslighting, a form of psychological manipulation aimed at making the victim doubt their own perceptions and experiences, can also occur within these contexts.
Judges or legal professionals often dismiss or minimise the victim’s claims of abuse, question their credibility, or suggest that they are exaggerating or fabricating their experiences.
This behaviour can leave victims feeling disoriented, unsupported, and even more vulnerable to the control of their abusers.
I have heard this story told over and over again by women I have met who have personally experienced this, or from the professionals (outside of the family court) involved in supporting them.
As earlier described, I also personally experienced this in my own family court proceedings.
Implications for victims and their children
When the family court system engages in coercive control and gaslighting, it can have devastating consequences for victims and their children.
Victims may feel retraumatised and further isolated, leading to increased anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms.
Children can end up being placed in potentially harmful situations due to the court’s failure to recognise or adequatel yaddress the abuse.
I have talked about this in a number of my articles including:
- Why Don’t We Believe Women? Family Court Cases and the Importance of Judicial Knowledge
- Parental Alienation vs. Family Violence
Recommendations for Family Court Professionals
To improve the handling of child custody disputes where there is coercive and controlling abuse and behaviours, I suggest the following recommendations.
#1 — Family court professionals must receive ongoing training and education on the complexities of coercive control and abuse, as well as psychological defences, and how to recognise them.
Specifically, they need to better understand how coercive control and abuse work, and the interplay of projective identification and dissociation on litigants behaviours.
Alongside this, family court professionals also need ongoing assessment and evaluation with respect to how their personal prejudices may be interfering in their assessments of credibility.
Understanding these concepts can help professionals recognise the signs of coercive and controlling abuse and make better informed decisions.
#2 — Judges should also not be relying solely on what lawyers and litigant’s are telling them when assessing credibility and parenting abilities.
Instead, if family courts are going to operate as they’re intended to, we should be seeing judges making active directions and inquiries around psychological assessments of litigants at any hint of their being coercive or controlling behaviours.
If there is not appropriate systems in places or levels of funding and expertise to support this, then active steps need to be taken to change these facts.
#3 — Home visits by judges and/or psychologists and/or social workers, over a period of time, are something that should also be considered to gain a comprehensive understanding of these situations when necessary.
Home visits offer a unique opportunity to observe the living conditions, family dynamics, and overall environment in which a person or family lives.
This can help professionals better understand the context in which any issues or concerns have arisen and identify potential risk factors or sources of support.
Meeting individuals and families in their own environment can also help to build trust and rapport between the professional and the people involved.
This can facilitate more open and honest communication, particularly for victims of abuse, enabling a more accurate assessment of the situation.
If our family court systems and funding need to be reworked to support this, then this should happen, otherwise what is the point of what family courts are doing currently, if not to protect children and survivors from these kinds of behaviours?
The goal of this kind of thorough analysis would be to help professionals identify inconsistencies, uncover hidden patterns of abuse, and make more accurate evaluations than what is currently occurring.
Addressing poor behaviours on the part of family court professionals
To mitigate the harmful effects of behaviours by family court professionals specifically, I also recommend the following.
#1 — Training & education
Again, judges and legal professionals should receive ongoing training on the dynamics of coercive control and gaslighting and their potential impact on victims and their children.
But this training should also include strategies for identifying and addressing these behaviours within themselves as well, including how their own behaviour can affect and perpetuate trauma for victims.
This should include case studies, role-playing exercises, and other interactive learning experiences to facilitate a deeper understanding of these complex behaviours.
Legal professionals (particularly judges) also need specific education on how to set appropriate boundaries, how to use trauma-informed questioning techniques, and being mindful of the potential impact of their decisions on victims and their children.
Training sessions need to include a focus on self-awareness and empathy, enabling family court professionals to better understand their own behaviours, potential biases and prejudices (understanding myths around “impartiality and objectivity are part of this), and the ways in which they may inadvertently contribute to or perpetuate trauma for victims.
This could include exercises designed to promote self-reflection and emotional intelligence.
Better systems for providing ongoing training, education, and support to family court professionals, ensuring that they stay up-to-date with the latest research and best practices in the field, are also needed.
#2 — Psychological evaluation & support
Ongoing psychological evaluation and support for family court professionals (particularly judges) also needs to be part of this.
Like all people, judges and lawyers are vulnerable to the prejudices that have been imparted to them.
They need to be better aware of these, and need better support to ensure that there is constant self reflection and awareness around how their personal lives may be impacting their professional ones.
Legal professionals are also handling sensitive and emotionally challenging cases, and need better appropriate and ongoing psychological support in this respect — whether they currently recognise the need for this or not.
#3 — Trauma-informed practices
Family court professionals should adopt a trauma-informed approach when working with victims of coercive control and gaslighting.
This includes understanding the unique needs and experiences of these individuals, providing appropriate support, and making decisions that prioritise the safety and well-being of both the victims and their children.
Again, education on the principles of trauma-informed practice and how to apply these principles in the context of family court proceedings is needed.
This should include guidance on creating a safe and supportive environment for victims, understanding the potential triggers for trauma, and considering the psychological well-being of all parties involved.
It is my experience that most family court professionals and judges have little or no real understanding of what a trauma informed approach is.
#4 — Accountability and oversight
Much better measures need to be put in place to hold family court professionals accountable for their actions and ensure that they are not engaging in coercive control or gaslighting behaviours.
This may include regular evaluations, feedback mechanisms, and the implementation of much better formal complaint processes.
Again, this is something I have written on in greater depth previously, and is something that is currently unrecognised within family courts.
Summing Up
The complexities of child custody disputes, especially those involving coercive control and abuse, demand a nuanced understanding of the psychological dynamics at play.
Family court professionals must be equipped with the knowledge of these intricacies to effectively navigate these challenging cases.
By considering the impact of psychological defences and thoroughly examining all available information, professionals can make better-informed decisions that prioritise the well-being of the children involved.
As we continue to develop our understanding of the psychological factors in child custody disputes, it is essential to remain open to new insights and approaches.
This will enable family courts and family court professionals to adapt and refine their methods, fostering a more empathetic and informed legal environment for those grappling with these difficult situations.
Ultimately, the goal has to be that we create more supportive and just systems that ensures the best possible outcome for the children and families involved.
Enjoyed this story and wish to back its creator? Contemplate becoming a Medium member. By registering through my referral link, I’ll get a small commission without any additional cost to you! In return, you’ll unlock unlimited access to all stories on Medium.
