The Love & Iron Project – www.loveandiron.com
Note: The reader might find some of the information contained in this article upsetting because it concerns he weaponizing and abuse of children by government and others. Never the less, in order to fix something, we need to understand it, so this post is both candid and a bit longer than usual. If you find yourself stuck in a traumatic family court conflict, are the target of parental alienation, or just want to get involved and help us pursue change and healing for parents and children, please consider registering a free membership with us. We are here to help!
In the course of the fifteen years that I have been involved advocating for family law reform, I have been fortunate to have been approached by custodial parents (CPs) who have expressed different variations of the same basic statement: “I was angry, and I didn’t know. I was just following the advice of my lawyer, family, friends, etc. What can I do to fix things?”
An admission like that accompanied by an ask requires immense courage, and in my mind, reveals a good parent. I LOVE these people, and in my opinion, they should be held up as heroes because they are willing to learn from their mistakes and put the health and well-being of children first.
Sadly, those encounters have been rare ones. In my experience, certain people can be extraordinarily committed to defending and washing away revolting behavior; and within the context of their family court related goals, I suspect most of them will lie to their children and others until their last dying breath and not lose a single second of sleep over any of it.
It is virtually impossible not to personally know; either within family, work, church, or within our neighborhoods a sole custody parent. In fact, usually we know many of them.
To be clear, there are plenty of sole custody parents who did not necessarily choose or desire that path. Perhaps the other parent took off or has shown little interest in their children, maybe they have an issue with substance abuse, or sadly a history of physical abuse or violent behavior.
And then there is the more numerous crowd: those who have harvested the power of the family court to remove the other parent from the lives of their children for selfish reasons, all the while simultaneously claiming both victim and hero status even as they lie about what actually happened.
It is my hope that after reading this brief article, you will come to understand that sole custody parenting and especially those people who have gone to court to limit, minimize, or eliminate the other parent’s relationship with their children is a huge red flag to watch out for; not just for any children involved; but for all of us.
Importantly, these warning signs should not and do not limit themselves to sole custody parents, they also (and especially) include their enablers: family members, friends, politicians, lawyers and agents the family court industry, churches, and government bureaucrats.
Politically, I can tell you that during my time working with the families of non-custodial parents over the last decade and a half, I have literally watched tranches of both men and women move to the populist right solely because of the family court problem and government’s refusal to acknowledge it. People are beyond angry, and any parent who loves their children should be enraged about how parents and children are being exploited by government, the family court industry, and other special interest lobbies.
The purpose of this article to clearly and cleanly expose the big lie about family court custody decisions, why confronting the lie (and the liars) matters so much, and what you can do to stop rewarding or enabling abusive family court behavior that is causing irreparable harm to both children and parents alike.
The Seeds Of Dishonesty: The "Best Interests Of The Child" Doctrine In Family Court
The “best interests of the child” doctrine claims to be the guiding principle in family court custody decisions. It requires judges to make rulings based on what will best serve the child’s physical, emotional, and psychological well-being, rather than the preferences or rights of the parents.
The key factors that judges are expected to evaluate when making custody decisions are:
- Child’s Emotional and Physical Needs: Evaluation of which parent is better equipped to meet the child’s emotional, educational, and physical needs.
- Parent-Child Relationship: The strength and quality of the relationship between the child and each parent are assessed.
- Stability and Continuity: Courts often favor maintaining stability in the child’s life, such as keeping them in the same school, community, or home environment.
- Parental Ability to Provide Care: Consideration of each parent’s ability to provide a safe, nurturing, and supportive environment.
- Child’s Preference: Depending on the child’s age and maturity, their preference may be taken into account, though it is not always determinative.
- Mental and Physical Health of Parents: The mental and physical well-being of each parent is evaluated to ensure they are capable of caring for the child.
- History of Abuse or Neglect: Any history of domestic violence, substance abuse, or neglect by either parent is a critical factor in custody decisions.
- Co-Parenting Ability: The willingness and ability of each parent to foster a positive relationship between the child and the other parent are considered.
- Geographic Proximity: The distance between the parents’ homes and its impact on the child’s routine and access to both parents may be evaluated.
- Cultural and Religious Considerations: The court may consider the cultural or religious upbringing of the child and which parent is better suited to maintain that continuity.
Studies consistently show that shared custody arrangements—where children spend substantial time with both parents—lead to better emotional, academic, and social outcomes compared to sole custody (especially when both parents are fit and cooperative). More specifically, the data shows children enjoy better mental and emotional health, higher academic achievement, stronger parent-child relationships of their own, reduced risky behavior and social issues, and financial stability as adults.
Conversely, clinical research studies consistently show that children who grow up with an absent parent—particularly when the absence is due to abandonment or lack of involvement—face increased risks in emotional, academic, and social areas. The most well-documented adverse effects are: higher rates of depression and anxiety, increased risk of behavioral problems, difficulties in forming secure relationships later in life, often perform worse in school with lower grades, higher dropout rates, and less engagement in extracurricular activities, a higher likelihood of engaging in substance abuse, early sexual activity, criminal behavior, and incarceration, and, higher divorce rates and relationship stability in adulthood.
In recent years, there has been a slight shift toward shared custody arrangements, where both parents share legal and physical custody, however despite that, US census data shows that mothers are significantly more likely to have full custody of their children compared to fathers. The most recent data from the U.S. Census: Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Child Support report (2018) shows that mothers are awarded custody 80-85% percent of the time and while fathers are awarded custody less than twenty percent of the time.
So, if the clinical and academic research in child psychology and psychiatry clearly supports shared parenting as the best parenting model for children, we need to take a moment to understand why so many parents fight for sole custody and why family court judges so often grant it.
The Evolution Of Family Law:
In this section, I will focus on the evolution of family law within the U.S., both because it is what I am most familiar with, and, because it generally tracks in a broad sense the same evolution in other nations. So while the facts and structures may differ from where you live, the basic patterns present in the U.S. will likely align pretty well with your government.
Child support laws have evolved over centuries, reflecting changes in societal norms, economic structures, and legal systems. While specifics vary by country and region, in the West, the roots of modern child support laws can be traced back to English common law. By the 16th century, English courts recognized the duty of fathers to support their children financially. This principle was further solidified in legal treatises and court decisions over time.
The Industrial Revolution brought significant social and economic changes, leading to urbanization and the breakdown of traditional family structures. As a result, concerns about child welfare and support became more pronounced, and by the early 19th and 20th centuries, many Western countries began to enact laws aimed at protecting the welfare of children and ensuring that parents fulfilled their financial obligations. These laws typically focused on enforcing paternal responsibility and providing assistance to single mothers.
The 20th century saw significant developments in child support laws, driven by changes in family dynamics, women’s rights movements, and social welfare policies. Many countries established government agencies tasked with enforcing child support orders and ensuring that children received adequate financial support from non-custodial parents.
In 1973, the United States began installing the Uniform Parentage Act to provide a framework for establishing parent-child relationships and determining child support obligations. While the Uniform Parentage Act served as a model for state legislatures, adoption of its provisions was not mandatory. States were given the freedom to enact the UPA in whole or in part, or develop their own laws addressing parentage and related its issues. As a result, there were variations in parentage laws from one state to another, although the UPA aimed to promote consistency and clarity in this area of law.
However, in 1975, Title IV-D was added to the Social Security Act as part of the Social Services Amendments of 1974, and the legislation was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.
Title IV-D established the federal Child Support Enforcement Program, providing funding to states to develop and operate their individual child support enforcement programs. Section 457 of Title IV-D outlines the requirements that states must meet in order to receive federal funding for their child support enforcement programs. These requirements include establishing and maintaining a state plan for child and spousal support enforcement, which must comply with federal regulations and guidelines.
Much of current custody and child support law was inspired by sociologist Dr. Lenore Weitzman (a professor of women’s studies). Weitzman’s 1985 study, “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America”, sparked significant debate and controversy, particularly her claim that women experienced a 73% decline in their standard of living after divorce, while men experienced a 42% increase. This became popularly known as the “Weitzman Gap,” which suggested that after divorce, women’s standard of living typically declined sharply, while men’s standard of living often increased. Weitzman argued that this disparity was largely due to the inadequacies of the child support system and the economic disadvantages faced by women, particularly mothers, post-divorce. While her work was highly influential at the time (and in fact, remains so), several studies in sociology and economics have challenged or refuted her findings, pointing to glaring methodological flaws, overgeneralizations, and a gross lack of controlling for and accounting for more nuanced outcomes. In short, the math in that report was later exposed by economists and other sociologists to be grossly inaccurate, and yet in 1987, Congress and President Ronald Reagan began signing into law even stricter child support enforcement regimes.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton further modified Title IVD by adding financial incentives for states to improve their child support enforcement efforts. Under Clinton’s administration, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was signed into law. This legislation overhauled the welfare system and included provisions to strengthen the enforcement of child support obligations. PRWORA amended Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and introduced performance-based incentives for states to improve their child support enforcement programs. These incentives were tied to specific performance measures, such as the percentage of cases with paternity established, the percentage of child support orders established, and the percentage of child support payments collected. States that met or exceeded these performance measures were eligible for federal incentive payments.
A key component of the Clinton enhancements was the ability for states to retain child support payments to offset the cost of TANF and other welfare benefits, rather than passing the funds directly to the custodial parent. This creates a direct financial incentive for states to recover welfare funds through child support enforcement, but also provides a source of motivation for judges to issue unaffordable child support orders relative to non-custodial parent (NCP) income.
Socio-economic policy refers to the set of measures, actions, and strategies implemented by governments or other governing bodies to address social and economic issues within a society. These policies aim to promote equitable distribution of resources, reduce poverty and inequality, stimulate economic growth, and improve overall well-being; and include such components as income distribution, housing, employment, healthcare, poverty and social welfare, and education.
The short story version here is that the socioeconomic components driving evolving family law and it’s enforcement are:
(1) Deciding who gets custody (most often the mother).
(2) Ensuring child support orders are issued, enforced, and paid.
There is no doubt that the evolution in family law was intended to address poverty issues stemming from the societal conventions that awarded custody to mothers as the regular and default custody arrangement that existed 80 years ago.
However, even as government was working to impose stricter and more punitive child support enforcement measures on non-custodial parents, the times were changing for both mothers and fathers.
The trend of fathers taking a more active role in parenting began to accelerate in the late 20th century, particularly from the 1970s onward. This shift was driven by a combination of social, economic, and cultural changes that redefined traditional gender roles and encouraged greater involvement of fathers in childcare and household responsibilities.
The feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s also challenged traditional gender roles and advocated for women’s equality in the workplace and at home. As more women entered the workforce, the expectation that mothers should be the sole or primary caregivers began to shift, creating space for fathers to take on a more active parenting role. The rise of dual-income households made it necessary for both parents to share childcare responsibilities, and economic pressures, such as stagnant wages and the rising cost of living, required fathers to be more involved at home while mothers contributed to household income.
The 1980’s and 1990’s saw culture began to reflect and promote the idea of the “involved father.” Television shows, movies, and advertising increasingly depicted fathers as nurturing and hands-on caregivers, and all this was taking place because it was a reflection of the real underlying trends within families. The concept of the “new father” emerged, emphasizing emotional involvement, caregiving, and active participation in children’s lives, rather than just being a breadwinner.
Academic studies also highlighted the importance of fathers in child development, showing that children benefit emotionally, socially, and academically from having an involved father. This research helped to challenge the stereotype of fathers as secondary or peripheral figures in parenting.
Today, millennial fathers, who came of age in the 2000s and 2010s, have been more likely to prioritize work-life balance and actively participate in parenting. Social media and online communities have also played a role in normalizing and celebrating involved fatherhood, with platforms like Instagram and YouTube showcasing fathers who are deeply engaged in their children’s lives.
Socio-economic changes leading fathers taking on a more active role in parenting have been steadily accelerating since the 1970s, driven by social, economic, and cultural changes. Today, involved fatherhood is increasingly seen as the norm, with fathers playing a central role in their children’s lives and sharing caregiving responsibilities more equally with mothers. This shift has had profound implications for families, workplaces, and society as a whole, promoting greater gender equality and improving outcomes for children.
If you have been paying attention to the story about the evolution of family law, you will have noticed that all along the focus has been entirely on harvesting money for the custodial parent, noting that even with greater respect for the right of women to divorce and enjoy greater independence during the 1970’s and thereafter, at no time was any attention given to ensuring that both parents remained in the lives of their children. So while government responded to evolving attitudes toward independence for women, it ignored a similarly evolving role fathers with respect to parenting children.
Sadly, government’s refusal to acknowledge and adapt to modern family parenting and changing socio-economic roles and responsibilities has had a disastrous impact on the health and well-being of children, fathers, and mothers.
Attachment theory, developed by psychologist John Bowlby, emphasizes the importance of early emotional bonds between children and their caregivers in shaping long-term emotional and psychological development.
According to this theory, secure attachments in childhood lead to healthier relationships, greater emotional resilience, and better mental health outcomes later in life. In the context of family law and post-divorce parenting, attachment theory underscores the critical role of both parents—including fathers—in maintaining stable, nurturing relationships with their children. Losing a parent—whether through death, divorce, estrangement, or parental alienation—can have profound psychological and developmental consequences. The effects depend on the child’s attachment style, the circumstances of the loss, and the level of support they receive afterward. When both parents are actively involved, children benefit from a balanced approach to parenting, which can enhance their emotional resilience and adaptability.
When noncustodial parents are marginalized by family courts, it can have profound negative impacts on their emotional, psychological, social, and financial well-being of their children. This marginalization often stems from judicial biases, restrictive custody arrangements, and systemic barriers that limit their involvement in their children’s lives. The marginalization of NCPs by family courts can have severe emotional, psychological, financial, and social consequences. When courts limit or deny a parent’s role in their child’s life—often disproportionately affecting fathers—the effects can be devastating.
It is important to note that this fixation on money-harvesting over parental involvement is not intended, here at least, to be a women’s rights versus father’s rights issue because the consequences for either parent can be disastrous, and savvy fathers are also finding ways to exploit pathological family law to abuse the power of the family court for personal gain. And in any case the bottom line is this: regardless of whether the parent being targeted is a mother or a father, if the child has developed an attachment bond with that parent, then abruptly severing that relationship and systematically marginalizing them is abusive to both the child and the targeted parent (providing the parent is loving parent and caretaker).
When states are financially incentivized to maximize the child support pools they administer, then minimizing the amount time and parental authority a non-custodial parent enjoys with their children as a strategy becomes socioeconomic policy because child support orders are determined by BOTH income differentials AND overnights.
Family court problems are an entangled, enmeshed, institutionalized pathology, and if we are going to improve things, we need to isolate the individual components so we can create the best plan to deal with them.
In fact, consider what the data says about sole custody mother vs. shared custody mothers – studies show that shared parenting or joint custody provides significant economic benefits to mothers compared to sole custody arrangements. These benefits stem from increased financial support, reduced caregiving burden, and better long-term career prospects.
An April 27, 2017 article in the influential magazine The Economist titled, “The Case For Shared Parenting” argued for the economic and social benefits of shared parenting (50/50 custody) for both parents and children, particularly highlighting how equal parenting time can improve the financial stability and career prospects of mothers.
Here are some key findings of the research summarized by the article:
- Fathers in shared custody arrangements are more likely to pay child support fully and on time compared to non-custodial fathers in sole custody cases. Studies show that non-custodial fathers in sole custody cases pay child support less consistently and often contribute less over time. Specifically, A U.S. Census Bureau report found that fathers in joint custody arrangements were more likely to pay child support in full (over 90%), compared to only 44% of fathers with no custody rights.
- Shared custody means that mothers do not have to bear 100% of childcare responsibilities, reducing costs for babysitters, daycare, or after-school programs. A Journal of Family Issues study found that mothers with joint custody saved significantly on childcare costs compared to those with sole custody.
- With shared custody, mothers have more flexibility to work full-time, pursue higher education, or advance in their careers. This leads to higher long-term earnings and less financial dependence on government aid or extended family. A study published in Demography found that mothers with shared custody had higher employment rates and earned more compared to those with sole custody, who were more likely to work fewer hours due to caregiving demands.
- Single mothers with sole custody are at higher risk of financial instability and poverty due to the burden of raising children alone. Shared custody helps distribute costs more evenly, leading to a higher standard of living for both mothers and children. U.S. Census data consistently shows that single mothers in sole custody arrangements have higher poverty rates compared to those in joint custody situations.
- Shared custody allows for more equitable financial contributions from both parents, reducing the likelihood of mothers falling into long-term financial struggles. Children raised in joint custody households are less likely to require government assistance in adulthood. Research in Social Science Research found that children raised in joint custody households had higher future earnings and economic stability than those raised in sole custody homes.
The Economist article was significant because it highlighted the economic and social advantages of shared parenting, challenging the traditional assumption that mothers should be the primary caregivers. By advocating for 50/50 custody, the article emphasized the importance of gender equality in parenting and the need for legal systems to adapt to modern family dynamics.
Other Important Studies:
- Linda Neilson, a Professor of Adolescent and Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University has emphasized that shared custody can lead to better financial outcomes for mothers by allowing them to maintain careers and reduce reliance on child support.
- Research in Sweden, where shared custody is common, has shown that mothers in shared custody arrangements experience lower rates of poverty and greater financial independence compared to those with sole custody.
- Studies based on U.S. Census data have found that mothers in shared custody arrangements are more likely to be employed and have higher incomes than those with sole custody.
So, what do the clinical research, academic studies, and government census reports reveal about socio-economic policy that incentivizes sole custody parenting with a focus on child support harvesting? It reveals that traditional family law as policy is remarkably dumb IF your goal is better outcomes for children and families; including mothers.
Conversely, one can utilize a different perspective and ask the rather obvious question: who, exactly, came up with the brilliant idea to target and exploit non-custodial parents and expected anything good to come out of it?
We can look at the problem from both sides and wonder why this absolutely terrible socio-economic policy codified into family law remains when the research says it should be otherwise.
Well, there is a rather sad and straight-forward answer: raw greed.
Family Court Pathology Described With A Picture:
What this graph describes is a simple visual representation of the psychophysics of gains and losses. As you can see:
(1) Gains and losses are experienced relative to an internal reference point (for example, the $100 discussed above). Reference points can be either the status quo or a goal. In other words, people are highly sensitive to positive and negative changes from this internal reference point.
(2) Note the differences in slope of curves describing losses and gains. In our running example, losing $100 hurts twice as much as gaining $100 feels good. This means the curve for losses is steeper than the curve for gains.
(3) The shape (or convexity of the gains curve and concavity of the loss curve) describes what is known as diminishing marginal sensitivity. Do not worry if you are not a math person, because you are not going to have to learn any algebra or calculus in order to understand the story this graph is telling us. All you need to understand is the intuition of what the curve describes: an incremental gain of a thing produces a bit less pleasure than the previous unit of gain, and that an incremental loss of a thing produces a bit less pain than a previous unit of loss.
For example, if I gave you ten dollars, that would feel good. If I then gave you another ten bucks, it would still feel good, but not quite as good as the first ten bucks I gave you. The same relationship holds true for losses. That’s what this graph is describing.
Now consider a graph that describes the frame of reference for a non-custodial parent awarded 60 days a custody per year, and ask yourself if this graph feels like it makes intuitive sense:
Psychophysics Of Loss:
Non-Custodial Parent
Now, consider the following example of two parents litigating permanent order custody goals after temporary orders where the NCP is awarded roughly every other weekend:
Custodial Parent Frame:
Non-Custodial Parent Frame:
Lastly, consider a comparison of framing perspectives from the point of view of the non-custodial parent and any children involved:
Child Frame:
Of course, at the heart of the psychological principle of loss aversion is that in order to experience pain or pleasure in response to losses and gains, one must care about the subject of the reference point.
For example, would a parent spend years in court, fighting an uphill battle, and draining their savings and even perhaps bankrupting themselves to remain in the lives of their children if they did not care about them?
Unlikely, and perhaps you can now see how the family court industry exploits loss-aversive behavior from both parents to enrich itself. In divorce, parents may fight aggressively to avoid losing time with their children, even if it means prolonged conflict and legal expenses, and the fear of losing custody or significant parenting time can lead to irrational decisions or refusal to settle. Lastly, loss-aversion can make co-parents resistant to compromise if they fear losing control or influence over their child’s upbringing.
Losing a child, losing a parent…hurts, and unfortunately prospect theory predicts that because of the unequal weighting of gains and losses, people tend to exhibit risk aversion when faced with potential gains and risk seeking behavior when faced with potential losses. In other words, individuals are more willing to take risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains of the same magnitude, and this is how the family court industry exploits “loss-aversion” on the part of parents, and how it keeps them at each others throats.
As a practical matter, there are no permanent orders where children are concerned, so for lawyers, family investigators, guardian ad litems, private investigators, supervised parenting providers, child therapists, re-unification therapists, parenting coordinators….(the list of sleazy family court industry bottom-feeders goes on)….family conflict, parental alienation, and false allegations are a lucrative source of extra business.
Despite all the bluster, hand wringing, and seemingly exasperated public cries for parental cooperation and parent-child involvement from politicians, judges, attorneys, and family investigators, the truth is the family court environment has little actual concern for the welfare of children and their parents.
What we actually have is a legal system mindfully engineered to produce conflict over children and marginalize or eliminate one parent because that’s how the money is made; not just for custodial parents, but for a whole collection of self-interested players exploiting parent-child relationships for their own personal gain; and this pathology born of greed continues to impose catastrophic damage on both children and non-custodial parents alike.
It should be no surprise then, that a predictable phenomenon happens whenever an equal shared parenting bill makes it way to legislative committees: the American Bar Association and a whole host of family court industry insiders, feminist groups, and anti-domestic violence advocates send in a small army of lobbyists to start pressuring lawmakers against reform.
Consider:
- The total estimated revenue of the Family Court industry exceeds $100B annually.
- Divorce and custody litigation alone is estimated to exceed $50 billion annually.
- Average divorce costs range from $15,000 to $30,000 per case, but custody disputes can drive up costs, with high-conflict cases exceeding $100,000 per parent.
- There are over 50,000 family law attorneys practicing in the U.S., with hourly rates typically ranging from $150 to $500 per hour.
- The federal government spends around $5 billion annually on child support enforcement and related services.
- Family court fees, filing costs, mediation, and administrative expenses are estimated to exceed $10B annually.
- Court-ordered therapy, custody evaluations, supervised visitations, and parenting coordinators harvest in excess of $5B a year, with custody evaluations alone can costing between $5,000 and $40,000 per case.
- According to the Administration for Children and Families, the bonus and incentives pool for states under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act for maximizing the child support pools states administer for the fiscal year 2025 is $735,530,084.
Preserving and adversarial family court environment that incentives and rewards conflict over child custody is lucrative: for states, and for the family court industry.
The fact is that since loss-aversion is such an important feature of both family court pathology and also the cure for it, it makes sense that we should take a moment to specifically process how the legal principle of “presumption” and loss-aversion interact to produce predictable behavior with respect to a presumption of a sole custody parent versus the presumption of joint custody.
The legal concept of presumption in family court refers to a legal assumption or default position that courts use to guide their decisions in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. It serves as a starting point in legal proceedings, shifting the burden of proof to the party who wants to challenge or rebut the presumption.
Legal presumptions play a critical role in shaping custody, child support, and parental rights decisions. A parent seeking to overcome a presumption (e.g., proving that shared custody is in the child’s best interest) bears the burden of presenting substantial and overwhelming evidence to persuade a judge to abandon the default judgment prescribed by presumption.
Under the sole custody model, a parent seeking shared custody bears the legal burden of showing why they SHOULD have it, while a rebuttable presumption of shared custody requires the parent CONTESTING the presumption of 50/50 bear the legal burden of showing why the other parent SHOULD NOT have full custody.
Now, consider how loss-aversive choices and behaviors come into play. In both cases, one parent challenges presumption, and the other argues against that challenge.
Under the sole custody presumption, the parent awarded sole custody (either at temporary orders or thereafter) will be motivated to avoid losing the substantial benefits of sole the custody order, and need only show enough evidence to frustrate or undermine the the contesting parent’s difficult burden of overcoming presumption. As a result, the parent defending a sole custody position has an incentive to be uncooperative with the other parent, utilize stalling and delay tactics to drag things out for years, and work to undermine the fair evaluation of the other parent’s fitness or the child’s perception of the other parent. Meanwhile, the parent contesting sole custody is obviously defending against losses of time and parenting experience, parental rights and decision-making authority, and the love of their children. They must present evidence strong enough for a judge to be persuaded to overcome the presumption of sole custody. This engineered loss-avoidant conflict between parents works to dramatically increase the costs of litigation and thus enrich the family court industry agents assigned to the case, and does so even if the contesting parent’s chances of obtaining a shared custody order are remote (which is generally the case). Recall our earlier discussion of risk-seeking behavior in response to the threat of potential losses, and the reasons for non-custodial parents bankrupting themselves in a family court conflict they have little chance of succeeding with become clearer.
Conversely, now consider the case of a rebuttable presumption of shared custody where a shared custody order is granted at temporary orders or thereafter. Now the parent seeking sole custody must overcome legal presumption to show why the other parent SHOULD NOT have shared custody; meaning they bear the burden of the legal and financial risks of challenging presumption and failing to overcome it.
Recall that in general, people are twice as motivated to avoid the unpleasantness of losses than they are to pursue the pleasure associated with gains, so do you see how this works? A rebuttable presumption of 50/50 custody incentivizes cooperation by resetting the reference point in an equitable way and punishing frivolous litigation and uncooperative behavior.
THIS is why the family court industry, feminist groups, and anti-domestic violence advocates oppose shared parenting.
There is nothing that is in the “best interests of the child” or in the best interests of families in any of this. Not only are systems like this psychologically unhealthy and destructive, but, the $100B that the family court industry takes in comes directly from the income and savings of the families involved.
Consider that $50k from each parent (on the low end for a high conflict case) is a well-funded college saving account, and then ask yourself, “whose interests are really being served here”?
Also, and if you really test your understanding of how loss-aversion and custody presumptions interplay, and given that child support orders are a function of overnights, what do you predict about state government behavior with respect to changing presumption to 50/50?
The Negative Impacts Of Family Court Pathology On Children:
Family court proceedings, particularly in high-conflict custody disputes, can have significant negative effects on child attachment and overall emotional well-being.
Returning to attachment theory, recall that it is a psychological framework that describes the dynamics of long-term interpersonal relationships, particularly between caregivers and children. The theory is widely accepted by clinical psychologists as a framework to understand, diagnose, and treat emotional and behavioral issues in children.
The adversarial nature of the family court, combined with the stress and instability they create, can disrupt a child’s sense of security and their ability to form healthy attachment bonds, and separation from a parent due to court-ordered custody arrangements may limit the child’s time with one or both parents an disrupting established attachment bonds. For example, a child may be separated from a primary caregiver, either mother or father, leading to feelings of abandonment or loss.
Furthermore, inconsistent contact with a parent can weaken the child’s attachment to that parent, especially if the relationship is not nurtured during visitation, and the stress and instability of family court can contribute to the development of insecure attachment styles, such as anxious, avoidant, or disorganized attachment. Children who experience high-conflict custody battles may struggle with trust and intimacy in future relationships, as they may view relationships as unstable or unsafe. These patterns can persist into adulthood, affecting the child’s ability to form healthy relationships.
Family court decisions—especially in high-conflict custody battles—often lead to a child losing meaningful contact with one parent, either temporarily or permanently. This loss can have serious emotional, psychological, and developmental consequences, affecting their attachment, mental health, and future relationships.
Losing a parent due to a court ruling, parental alienation, or relocation can feel like a death to a child, resulting in a wide range of immediate and long term issues, including: emotional distress, insecure attachment styles, increased risk of depression and anxiety, trust issues and relationship problems, and academic and cognitive decline. The trauma experienced by children as a result of the court-ordered creation of an absent parent often leads to above average representation of populations suffering mental health disorders, cycles of family conflict and legal problems, and struggles with parental identity and their own functioning as a parents.
Family court decisions can be devastating for a child, affecting their emotional well-being, development, and relationships for life. Courts must handle custody decisions with extreme caution, ensuring that children maintain healthy relationships with both parents whenever possible, but that is generally not what happens. In nearly all situations, temporary orders are established near the start of the conflict that assigns one parent primary custody, and either due to the pervasive status quo bias present within courts, or the years long litigation process, most permanent custody orders do not deviate much, if at all, from the temporary orders.
An Environment That Rewards Abusive Behavior:
Government’s brilliant solution to child custody problems is to pit parents against each other in an adversarial family court environment that has been engineered to marginalize and sideline one parent, while stripping the targeted parent of any meaningful and substantive involvement in the child’s life outside of a strictly enforced child support order.
Genius.
In general, abuse refers to the improper, harmful, or unjust treatment of someone or something. It can take many forms, including physical, emotional, verbal, sexual, or systemic mistreatment.
Psychologists and medical professionals define abusive behavior as any action or pattern of actions that cause harm, distress, or exploitation to another individual. Abuse can manifest in various forms, including physical, emotional, sexual, financial, or psychological harm. Professionals often categorize abusive behavior based on its nature and context.
The American Psychological Association (APA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) describe abuse as: “A repetitive pattern of behaviors that cause physical, emotional, or psychological harm to another person, often involving coercion, control, intimidation, or violence.”
Professionals often look for the following patterns when identifying abusive behavior:
- Power & Control – Abusers seek dominance over their victims.
- Intentional Harm: The behavior is deliberate and aimed at causing harm or maintaining control.
- Power Imbalance: Abuse often occurs in relationships where one person has more power or control over the other.
- Repetition: Abusive behavior is typically a pattern, not a one-time incident.
- Impact on the Victim: The behavior causes physical, emotional, or psychological harm to the victim.
- Learned Helplessness – Victims may feel trapped, unable to leave due to manipulation or fear.
Once we understand that losses actually do produce pain, and that because of that, people are motivated to avoid them, we can see the pathology of the sole custody model and predatory power of the family court environment.
In family court, temporary orders where one parent is awarded sole custody during litigation substantively becomes a get out of jail free card that not only immunizes the CP from punishment for bad behavior, but absurdly, rewards them for it.
Narcissistic Abuse:
Narcissistic abuse is a form of emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical abuse perpetrated by someone with narcissistic traits or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). This type of abuse is characterized by manipulation, control, and exploitation, often leaving the victim feeling confused, devalued, and emotionally drained.
Narcissistic abuse can manifest in family court in various ways, as individuals with narcissistic traits or Narcissistic Personality Disorder often use the legal system as a tool to control, manipulate, and punish their former partners. This type of abuse can be particularly damaging because it not only affects the targeted parent but also has long-term consequences for the children involved.
Common examples of narcissistic abuse include utilizing children as weapons of manipulation (“If you do “X”, I may let you see the kids”), or as weapons of emotional violence (contact denial used for the purposes vengeance or retribution).
CPs are often rewarded for this behavior because while courts are happy to take-up the failure to pay child support on time or entertain an increase t a child support order, they are loath to hear complaints for custody order violations or modifications. To disincentivize these complaints, the common practice is to bury it in expensive litigation that most times, do not result in any punishments against the CP or changes to the custody orders.
Legal Abuse:
Legal abuse refers to the misuse or manipulation of the legal system to harass, control, or harm another person. It often occurs in contexts such as family law, civil disputes, or even criminal cases, where one party exploits legal processes to gain an advantage, prolong conflict, or inflict emotional or financial damage on the other party. Legal abuse can be intentional or unintentional, but it typically involves tactics that are excessive, unnecessary, or designed to create undue burden.
Legal abuses in family court are common, and more frequent and destructive with high conflict custody disputes. Tactics include:
- Frivolous or Excessive Litigation
- False Allegations
- Manipulation of Protective Orders
- Delay Tactics
- Creating a Climate of Fear
- Exhausting Financial Resources
- Character Assassination And Reputation Smearing
- Intimidation and Bullying in Court
What is particularly insidious about misuse of the the legal system within family court is the exploitation of laws and court remedies intended to protect legitimate victims of abuse and violence.
In the U.S., The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) significantly impacts family court proceedings, particularly in cases involving domestic violence, child custody, and support issues. Originally enacted in 1994, VAWA has been reauthorized several times to enhance protections against domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. The most recent reauthorization occurred in 2022, known as the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022.
One key aspect of VAWA is that in seeking a restraining order, one need not have any actual evidence of abuse or the threat of violence to be granted a restraining order.
A claim of “feeling fear” is all that is required to obtain court intervention, and it is a significant aspect of the Violence Against Women Act as it underpins many of the protections and legal considerations outlined in the legislation, including providing accusers with a safe harbor against punishment or judicial prejudice by the court in the event any allegations are ruled or deemed unfounded. In any event, it is impossible to prove that a false accuser did not actually “feel fear”.
This means that as long as false accusers are properly coached on how to bring any allegations, they will suffer no repercussions or prejudice in court for making false allegations of abuse or obtaining fraudulent restraining orders; and false accusations are a rather common go-to move within a parental alienation strategy. There is literally no downside for leveling false allegations in family court and the results are catastrophic for the accused, both in terms of their custody goals and their reputation. Because one cannot prove something “didn’t happen”, once an allegation is made, the cloud of suspicion will never truly disappear from the falsely accused.
Furthermore, and as previously noted, fraudulent allegations made in family court tie up resources of both the court and law enforcement that are needed to help legitimate victims. By utilizing this tactic, false accusers selfishly consume resources intended to serve real victims.
The impact on the falsely accused is also devastating. From the very moment allegations are made, the targeted parent will be treated by the legal system as if they are guilty of the alleged crimes and permitted only supervised visitation with their children. From that point forward, he or she is immediately put on the defensive, changing the court battle from one of fighting to be in the lives of his or her children, to one of fighting for his or her very life. They are a powerful game changer for the false accuser.
Consider the tragic story of John Mast.
After years of fighting parental alienation and fraudulent allegations of sexually abusing his children, John was finally awarded unsupervised custody. This was the text he sent his PA counselor the very day his order was granted:
However, later that night when John showed up at the agreed public parking lot for the exchange, he was shot and murdered by his ex-father-in-law.
A good father’s life was taken right in front of his children, and all because of a vile family court lie.
The story of John Mast is deplorable, and it’s not by any means unique.
Many others have suffered a similar experience, and I am not going to sugarcoat things here: the fact is life becomes DANGEROUS for the falsely accused because of these kinds of allegations.
However, as vile as false allegations against the targeted parent are, it is important to point out that the destructive effects on any children involved are also just as evil, if not more so.
False allegations of abuse in family court or custody disputes can have profound and long-lasting negative effects on children. These allegations, whether made intentionally or unintentionally, can create emotional, psychological, and social turmoil for the child, as well as damage their relationships with both parents. The psychological effects on children include, but are not limited to:
- Confusion & Emotional Conflict – Children may feel torn between parents, struggling to understand what is true.
- Anxiety & Depression – Being involved in a high-conflict custody case with false allegations can cause extreme stress, fear, and sadness.
- Guilt & Shame – If a child is pressured to lie about abuse, they may experience guilt for betraying a parent.
- Trauma from Legal Involvement – Repeated questioning by lawyers, judges, or child protective services can make a child feel overwhelmed and unsafe.
- Trust Issues – False allegations can damage the child’s ability to trust authority figures, especially if they feel manipulated by one parent.
False allegations are a remarkably ruthless legal abuse tactic, and because there is no downside to making them in family court, and because the court’s reaction serves both to reinforce parental alienation goals while inflicting permanent reputational damage and emotional violence on the falsely accused, those parents absent any sort of moral compass outside of their own self-interests will utilize them without a second thought, causing irreparable harm to the both the targeted parent and any children involved (you can learn more about the vicious practice of family court enabled false allegations here).
Parental Alienation Abuse:
Parental Alienation Abuse refers to a situation in which one parent (often the custodial parent) systematically manipulates, influences, or conditions a child to reject, fear, or despise the other parent (the noncustodial parent) without valid justification. This behavior is considered a form of emotional and psychological abuse because it can severely damage the child’s relationship with the targeted parent, leading to long-term emotional and psychological harm.
Impacts of Parental Alienation Abuse On The Child:
- Psychological Damage: Increased risk of depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem.
- Identity Issues: Alienation can distort a child’s sense of identity and self-worth, particularly if they are pressured to reject a loving parent.
- Attachment Issues: Difficulty forming healthy relationships later in life.
- Emotional Instability: Higher risk of substance abuse, self-harm, and difficulty trusting others.
Impacts Of Parental Alienation Abuse On The Targeted Parent:
- Parental Grief: The loss of a living child is emotionally devastating.
- Depression & Anxiety: Many alienated parents suffer severe emotional distress.
- Financial Strain: Legal battles to address parental alienation can be costly and emotionally draining. Some spend years in court trying to regain contact.
- Social Isolation: The targeted parent may feel isolated and unsupported, particularly if friends or family are influenced by the alienating parent’s narrative.
- Erosion of Relationships: Parental alienation can permanently damage the relationship between the child and the targeted parent, as well as relationships with extended family members.
- Prolonged Conflict: Alienation often leads to ongoing conflict between the parents, creating a toxic environment for the child.
- Suicidal Thoughts: Some alienated parents experience suicidal ideation due to extreme emotional pain.
“Erase and Replace” in family court refers to a form of parental alienation where one parent (often the custodial parent) systematically erases the other parent from the child’s life and replaces them with a new parental figure—such as a step-parent, grandparent, or even the custodial parent’s new romantic partner. This tactic is a severe form of psychological manipulation and emotional abuse, often used to sever the child’s bond with the noncustodial parent.
How “Erase and Replace” Works:
- Erasure of the Noncustodial Parent: The alienating parent minimizes, restricts, or completely cuts off the child’s contact with the other parent. They may withhold visitation, block communication, or fabricate reasons to prevent the child from seeing the erased parent. In extreme cases, the erased parent’s name is removed from school, medical, and legal records.
- Rewriting History: The alienating parent tells false or distorted stories about the erased parent to make the child believe they were neglectful, abusive, or unloving. The child may be manipulated into forgetting positive memories of the erased parent.
- Replacing the Erased Parent with a New Figure: The alienating parent introduces a new partner, step-parent, or family member and encourages the child to see them as their new mother or father. The child may be pressured to call the new person “Mom” or “Dad”, while the erased parent is referred to negatively or ignored. Sometimes, the erased parent’s last name is changed, further severing the child’s connection to them.
- Legal & Institutional Support for Erasure: Some courts, unknowingly or due to bias, favor the alienating parent and grant sole custody, limiting the erased parent’s legal rights. The alienating parent may file false abuse allegations to justify erasure. In extreme cases, adoption by a step-parent is pursued to legally sever the erased parent’s connection.
Losing a parent hurts, and since selfish or self-absorbed custodial parents need someone to pin the blame on, and, since the non-custodial parent is made relatively helpless to counter this behavior, the systematic psychological manipulation of children by the custodial parent to assign blame to the NCP for their absence becomes a key parental alienation strategy; often resulting in the permanent estrangement of the child and the NCP.
Parental brainwashing, often linked to parental alienation, occurs when a custodial parent deliberately manipulates a child’s thoughts, emotions, and perceptions to turn them against the noncustodial parent.
Brainwashing is a psychological manipulation technique used to alter a person’s thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions through coercion, repetition, and emotional control. It often involves breaking down a person’s independent thinking and replacing it with new ideas that serve the manipulator’s agenda.
Also known as coercive persuasion or thought reform, it is a process by which individuals are systematically subjected to psychological manipulation to alter their beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. This process often involves isolating the individual, controlling their environment, and using techniques such as repetition, fear, and guilt to break down their existing beliefs and replace them with new ones. Brainwashing is commonly associated with cults, totalitarian regimes, and abusive relationships, but it can also occur in other contexts, such as parental alienation in family court cases.
When a custodial parent engages in brainwashing or psychological manipulation, it can lead to long-term emotional, psychological, and relational harm for the child. This often occurs in high-conflict custody battles where one parent attempts to undermine the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent.
Psychologist and clinical researcher Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D. summarizes the narcissistic process of parental alienation as a three part message to children:
- I am the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself.
- The other parent is dangerous and unavailable.
- Pursuing a relationship with the other parent jeopardizes your relationship with me.
She further notes there are seventeen primary and clinically-validated parental alienation strategies employed by toxic parents that fall into five broad categories:
- Poisonous messages to the child about the targeted parent in which he or she is portrayed as unloving, unsafe, and unavailable.
- Limiting contact and communication between the child and the targeted parent.
- Erasing and replacing the targeted parent in the heart and mind of the child.
- Encouraging the child to betray the targeted parent’s trust.
- Undermining the authority of the targeted parent
Key Characteristics of Brainwashing:
- Control Over Information – Restricting access to different viewpoints or facts.
- Repetition of False Narratives – Constantly reinforcing distorted or misleading beliefs.
- Fear & Guilt Tactics – Making the person afraid of questioning or disobeying the manipulator.
- Isolation from Others – Cutting off relationships that might challenge the manipulation.
- Emotional Manipulation – Using guilt, shame, or rewards to enforce compliance.
Effects of Brainwashing
- Loss of Critical Thinking – The person becomes unable to analyze situations logically.
- Emotional Distress – High levels of fear, anxiety, and confusion.
- False Memories – Victims may believe distorted or entirely false events.
- Dependency on the Manipulator – The target becomes emotionally or psychologically reliant on the person controlling them.
Parental brainwashing strategies utilize:
- False narratives – Telling the child the other parent is dangerous, unloving, or doesn’t care about them.
- Emotional conditioning – Rewarding rejection of the other parent and punishing affection toward them.
- Gaslighting – Making the child doubt their own experiences and memories with the noncustodial parent.
- Restricting contact – Limiting or blocking communication, making it easier to control the child’s perceptions.
The long-term consequences of parental brainwashing on children are severe; including: permanent parental estrangement, higher risk of mental health disorders, and higher order cycles of alienation.
Brainwashing is a form of psychological manipulation that can have devastating effects on children, particularly in the context of parental alienation. By recognizing the signs of brainwashing and taking proactive steps to address it, parents, courts, and mental health professionals can help protect children’s well-being and preserve their relationships with both parents.
Parental alienation abuse is a serious form of psychological and emotional abuse that can have devastating lifelong consequences for both children and parents.
Sadly, one of the common complaints you will often hear from alienating parents and their enablers is a projective argument where the presence of abuse symptoms on children is assigned to the non-custodial parent when it is actually the alienating parent who is committing the abuse, all the while justifying their alienation behavior by the presence of the abuse symptoms they themselves are responsible for creating.
Courts, mental health professionals, and families need to recognize and address it to protect children from unnecessary harm.
Note: Those who wish to discredit parental alienation abuse will often use the terms “parental alienation syndrome” and “parental alienation abuse” interchangeably. They are NOT the same thing. To learn more about parental alienation abuse – click here, and to learn about the vast differences between parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation abuse, please click here.
Adverse Effects Of Family Court Pathology On Non-Custodial Parents:
Family court custody decisions can have serious emotional, financial, and psychological consequences for non-custodial parents. Losing primary custody can lead to parental grief, financial strain, mental health struggles, and strained relationships with their child.
Losing custody feels like the loss of a child, similar to bereavement. Non-custodial parents may experience intense sadness, guilt, and helplessness due to limited time with their child, and many non-custodial parents experience depression and anxiety due to Feelings of rejection from their child, court orders that restrict their parental rights, fear of being erased from their child’s life. Parental alienation often leads permanent estrangement and psychological damage for both the parent and the child.
In addition, the financial stress imposed on non-custodial parents can be extraordinary. While the custodial parent is free to use child support and alimony income to hire resources to target the other parent, non-custodial parents must not foot those bills, but also their own legal and relocation expenses.
Family court judges enjoy broad and nearly unlimited discretion with respect to family court orders, even including the ability to impute a higher income to the NCP should they decide to do so. For a variety of reasons, many non-custodial parents are required to pay substantial child support, sometimes well beyond their financial means. Furthermore, courts often prioritize financial contributions over the NCPs ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with their child. In other words, if given the choice between accepting a lower child support order in favor of more parenting time with the custodial parent, courts have historically shown a bias toward preserving child support orders at the expense of custody time.
Furthermore, should a non-custodial parent fall behind on child support payments, the custodial parent can seek legal assistance from state attorneys for little to no cost, while if a custodial parent ignores child custody orders, the NCP must hire a private attorney to pursue expensive and time consuming litigation. The stress of child support obligations, legal fees, and potential job loss due to court hearings can lead to financial ruin, bankruptcy, or homelessness in extreme cases.
Many non-custodial parents are given restricted visitation schedules, sometimes only a few days per month, and this often disrupts the natural parent-child bond, leading to emotional distance and strained relationships. Non-custodial parents often lose decision-making rights regarding their child’s education, healthcare, and daily life; which can make them feel powerless and excluded from their child’s upbringing.
False allegations in high-conflict custody disputes are a significant concern, with studies indicating varying prevalence rates. Research suggests that the frequency of false allegations across all custody disputes ranges from approximately 2% to as high as 36% depending on jurisdiction, however those disputes classified as “high conflict” produce false allegations some studies suggest are in the range 36% to 55%.
The mental, emotional, and financial strain on non-custodial parents is immense, and often overwhelming.
While specific data on suicide rates among non-custodial parents in general is limited, research indicates that divorced men, who often become non-custodial parents, face a significantly higher risk of suicide. Studies have found that divorced men are more than twice as likely to die by suicide compared to married men. This increased risk is attributed to factors such as social isolation, depression, and the emotional distress associated with losing regular contact with one’s children.
- A 2012 study published in the Journal of Men’s Health found that non-custodial fathers are 350% more likely to commit suicide than custodial fathers.
- Research from the American Journal of Men’s Health (2015) also found that divorced or separated men are 240% more likely to die by suicide than married men, with non-custodial fathers being particularly vulnerable.
- A study in the British Medical Journal (2003) found that suicide rates among divorced men were 250% times higher than among married men, with non-custodial fathers being particularly vulnerable.
The data clearly indicates that non-custodial parents, especially fathers, are at a significantly higher risk of suicide compared to the general population. This increased risk is driven by factors such as the loss of parental role, social isolation, financial strain, and the mental health challenges born of family court pathology and conflict.
A Gas Lighting Operation On Steroids:
The idea that a noncustodial parent is a dispensable parent is not backed by the clinical and academic research in child psychology.
In 2018, the State of Kentucky reformed its family law architecture away from the primary custody model and into a system that assumes a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 custody and equal shared parenting.
Data harvested after Kentucky’s equal shared parenting law has shown dramatic and positive effects for families and children:
- A 2021 study found that family court cases in Kentucky dropped by 11% after the law was enacted.
- Early data suggests that children in Kentucky are benefiting from maintaining strong, meaningful relationships with both parents, which is associated with better emotional and psychological well-being.
- By encouraging cooperation and shared responsibility, the law has helped reduce conflict between parents, which is a key factor in positive outcomes for children and has been correlated at significant reduction in domestic violence complaints during and after divorce.
- Lawyers and judges report less adversarial custody disputes compared to before the law.
- More fathers are now actively involved in parenting, leading to better child development outcomes.
- Fathers report higher engagement in daily caregiving, school involvement, and emotional bonding.
- Early post-law assessments show that children in shared custody settings have better school performance and fewer behavioral problems.
- Surveys indicate higher satisfaction rates among both mothers and fathers under the new system.
- A Kentucky Policy Review report found that shared custody arrangements reduced financial stress on single mothers compared to sole custody cases.
- The presumption of equal shared parenting has helped address historical biases in family courts that often favored mothers in custody disputes, leading to more equitable outcomes.
- Fathers who are actively involved in their children’s lives are more likely to stay engaged in the workforce and meet their financial obligations. The State has documented significant reductions in child support delinquencies since implementing the reforms.
- High Public Approval: Surveys indicate strong public support for the law, with many Kentuckians viewing shared parenting as a fair and beneficial arrangement for children and families.
But despite these findings, significant resistance to reforming family law amongst other states and in other countries to model Kentucky’s presumption of equal shared parenting, and those of us who have fought through the family court environment as non-custodial parents through to the delivery of permanent orders have assuredly had the conversation with our attorneys where we are essentially blamed for an adverse set of permanent orders (where the key aspects of the “best interests doctrine” defined at the beginning of this post are explained to us), when in truth the outcome is the one the system was engineered to produce in the first place, and where any instability or stress on our part was created by the family court system itself and its bias toward creating conflict and enabling abusive and uncooperative behavior on the part of custodial parents, and, that actually rewards CPs for doing it. The system creates stress and instability for NPCs, and then blames them for it.
Members of the family court industry, including judges, attorneys, child support agencies, and custody evaluators, often gaslights noncustodial parents (NCPs) by denying systemic biases, shifting blame, and manipulating narratives to maintain a profitable system that thrives on prolonged litigation and child support enforcement.
In other words, the system sets non-custodial parents up to fail, and then gaslights them and society at large into believing that it was their fault.
Aside from the family court industry, attempts to reform family law are often opposed by feminist groups who claim 50/50-seeking fathers are only interested in joint custody because they want lower child support payments, and by domestic violence advocates who seem to take the position that men are prone to being abusive, so a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting puts children at risk.
Of course, both of these arguments are nonsense, and fly directly in the face of the clinical research, observations of clinical psychologists, and data from those states who have moved forward with shared parenting law. They are not arguments based on fact, they are dishonest, hysterical arguments intended smear fathers for the purposes of manipulating public perception to engender support for their sole custody parent goals.
Lastly, the government also plays a big role in gaslighting noncustodial parents by denying systemic bias, shifting blame onto them, and maintaining a system that profits from their struggles.
Through family courts, child support agencies, and social policies, the government manipulates NCPs into believing that the system is fair—while in reality, it marginalizes them, exploits them financially, and undermines their role as parents.
Consider the US Government website fatherhood.gov. The website runs PSA’s with the AD Council under the direction of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services that focuses on promoting responsible fatherhood. The site provides resources, information, and tools to help fathers become more involved in their children’s lives. It claims to support fathers in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities, whether they are married, single, divorced, or separated, and the initiative also claims to emphasize the importance of fathers in the emotional, social, and financial well-being of their children and address barriers that may prevent fathers from being actively involved in their children’s lives.
You may have seen ads like this one from time to time:
Okay, that’s all well enough, the site appears to support the active presence of fathers in the lives of their children, a noble goal.
However, click on the home page link titled: “Child Support, Custody, and Visitation”, and here is what dads are presented with:
Notice anything missing?
Yep, there is not a word about custody or visitation on the entire page, let alone assistance with it.
The entire presentation is concerned with child support payments, an being exception being the link “Making Visitation Work” which directs you to a “Fathers For Equal Rights” page, written by a lawyer, that has a list of absurd consequences for visitation denial that anyone who has been through the family court process knows will not be enforced. I suppose the point of the page is to allow the the father to copy the material onto a letter to be given to the custodial parent? That’s the extent of the help dads get for denial of visitation from this website, and nowhere is there a single bit information for dads who are not under a child support order.
So while over the last fifty years fathers have become more involved with day to day, care, raising, and involvement with children and have come to love the experience of doing it, and despite all the government messaging about the benefits of father involvement, once divorce happens, parental involvement is re-framed ONLY in terms of a father’s child support responsibilities.
The government is trying to have it both ways. They rightly want to encourage father involvement with children while the parents are together, and as noted, that HAS been the socio-economic norm over the last fifty years. But as soon as a divorce happens, the importance of fathers is suddenly transformed into a child support role with a few days of visitation.
In the eyes of government, post divorce or family separation, NCPs are no longer parents, they are “visitors” with a child support order, and the messaging that is constantly reinforced is that responsible parenting for fathers or any NCP is to accept this offensive, barbaric, and dehumanizing treatment.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where one person or group causes another to doubt their own reality, memory, or perceptions. It is commonly used in abusive relationships, high-conflict divorces, and parental alienation to gain control over a victim.
The term “gaslighting” originates from the 1938 play Gas Light (and its subsequent film adaptations), in which a husband manipulates his wife into believing she is going insane by dimming the gas lights in their home and denying that the lights are changing when she notices.
Key Signs Of Gaslighting:
- Denial of Reality: The gaslighter insists something never happened, even if there is proof.
- Twisting The Facts: They distort events to make themselves look innocent.
- Blaming the Victim: hey make you feel responsible for their bad behavior.
- Minimizing Feelings: They dismiss your emotions as irrational or overreacting.
- Projecting Their Own Behavior: They accuse you of things they are actually doing.
- Creating Confusion: hey constantly change their story, making it hard for you to trust your memory.
- Isolating the Victim: They turn friends or family against you, making you feel alone.
Common Examples Of Gaslighting Tactics On Non-Custodial Parents:
- Family Court Bias Is Denied Or Minimized: Despite the legal principle of best interests of the child, many family courts still disproportionately favor mothers in custody decisions, treating fathers as secondary caregivers rather than equal parents. Noncustodial parents are made to feel like they are imagining discrimination, even when statistics show mothers receive primary custody in 80%+ of cases.
- Child Support Is Framed As Fair: The child support system often fails to account for financial hardships, job loss, or a noncustodial parent’s efforts to be actively involved in their child’s life. Even when NCPs provide direct financial support (buying clothes, school supplies, etc.), these contributions are not counted, leading to legal penalties. NCPs who struggle financially are shamed and treated as unwilling to support their children, even when they are making every effort.
Promoting the Myth That Child Support = Parental Responsibility: Family courts equate financial contributions with parenting, while ignoring the importance of equal time and emotional involvement. Custodial parents can refuse visitation with little to no consequence, while NCPs who miss child support payments face wage garnishment, loss of licenses, and even jail. NCPs feel like they are seen as nothing more than a wallet, while their role as an involved parent is systematically undermined.
- Failing to Enforce Custody Orders While Aggressively Enforcing Child Support: Courts and enforcement agencies aggressively pursue noncustodial parents for child support, but do not hold custodial parents accountable for violating custody orders. A custodial parent can deny visitation for years with no real legal consequences, while an NCP who falls behind on child support risks license suspensions, job loss, and jail time. NCPs feel powerless, as their parental rights are treated as optional, while their financial obligations are mandatory.
- Parental Alienation Is Ignored Or Downplayed: Parental alienation is real and widespread, yet courts and social services often dismiss it. Courts rarely recognize parental alienation as a form of child abuse, allowing the custodial parent to manipulate the child into rejecting the NCP. Even when alienation is proven, courts often fail to enforce visitation orders or hold the alienating parent accountable. NCPs are blamed for their own alienation, instead of recognizing the role of the alienating parent and the court’s failure to enforce custody orders.
- Trapping NCPs in Endless Litigation: The legal system profits from custody disputes, with attorneys, evaluators, and courts financially benefiting from prolonged litigation. Many NCPs go broke fighting for more time, only to have courts repeatedly favor the custodial parent or refuse to enforce previous rulings. NCPs are led to believe that justice is possible if they just keep fighting, when in reality, the system is structured to keep them in court and financially drained.
- Noncustodial Parents Are Treated as Less Important: NCPs feel devalued and are often pressured to accept a secondary role in their child’s life, despite research supporting equal shared parenting.
- The System Punishes NCPs for Fighting for Their Rights: When NCPs challenge unfair custody or child support rulings, they are often labeled as bitter, controlling, or uncooperative. Fathers who advocate for their parental rights may even face false accusations of abuse as a legal strategy by the custodial parent. Many NCPs give up the legal fight because the system punishes them for speaking out, reinforcing their sense of helplessness.
- Society Frames Fathers as Optional & Replaceable: While single-parent homes can be loving, research consistently shows that children benefit from having both parents involved. Society, however, often treats fathers as replaceable, particularly when a stepfather enters the picture. Fathers are marginalized and made to feel like their absence is normal or even beneficial, rather than recognizing the harm caused by their exclusion.
- Pretending That the System Cares About Fatherhood While Undermining It: While society acknowledges the importance of fatherhood, the family court system actively marginalizes fathers by making them noncustodial parents, limiting their parenting time, and treating them primarily as financial providers. NCPs, especially fathers, feel disposable and powerless, as they are given minimal time with their child but maximum financial responsibility.
- Creating a Narrative That NCPs “Abandon” Their Children: Many NCPs do not walk away—they are pushed out by biased court rulings, financial strain, and parental alienation. The system sets them up to fail, then blames them for the outcome. NCPs face social stigma, making it harder for them to advocate for their rights without being labeled as bitter or irresponsible.
- Promoting the “Deadbeat” Stereotype While Ignoring Systemic Failures: The “deadbeat” narrative ignores (1) Parents who want 50/50 custody but are denied, (2) Fathers bankrupted by legal fees and child support, (3) Fathers alienated by the custodial parent and ignored by the courts. Meanwhile, the government profits from child support enforcement, receiving federal incentives under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
- Utilizing Vague Language Around “Best Interests of the Child”: The phrase “best interests of the child” is often used to justify decisions that may not actually align with research or the individual circumstances of the family. Judges can make broad, vague statements that do not consider the specific needs of the child in each case. CPs feel as if their concerns for their child’s well-being are minimized and dismissed, leaving them feeling frustrated and unheard.
Family court gaslighting can have significant health effects on noncustodial parents. The emotional and psychological toll of being gaslighted in a family court context can lead to a range of mental and physical health issues:
- Constant questioning of their worth as parents and the feeling of being dismissed can lead to high levels of anxiety. This stress can manifest physically, contributing to headaches, digestive issues, and other stress-related health problems.
- NCPs may experience feelings of helplessness, sadness, and isolation due to being marginalized in custody decisions. This can lead to clinical depression, which may require treatment or therapy.
- Continuous gaslighting can erode a person’s self-worth, leading to low self-esteem. This can affect their personal and professional relationships and contribute to feelings of inadequacy as a parent.
- The stress and confusion from gaslighting can lead to difficulty managing emotions, resulting in mood swings, irritability, and frustration. This emotional instability can strain relationships and impact overall well-being.
- For some NCPs, the experiences in family court and the feelings of being victimized can lead to PTSD symptoms, including flashbacks, severe anxiety, and emotional numbness.
- To cope with the emotional pain and stress, some NCPs may turn to alcohol or drugs as a form of escapism, leading to potential substance abuse problems.
- Anxiety and emotional turmoil can disrupt sleep patterns, leading to insomnia or poor-quality sleep, which in turn affects physical health and cognitive function.
- Chronic stress and anxiety can lead to various physical health problems, including high blood pressure, cardiovascular issues, and weakened immune response, making NCPs more susceptible to illness.
- The emotional burden of gaslighting can lead NCPs to withdraw from social interactions, leading to loneliness and isolation, which further exacerbates mental health issues.
- The stress and mental health struggles can affect an NCP’s ability to engage positively with their children, leading to negative outcomes for both the parent and child.
Summary Of The Story:
I don’t usually summarize public articles, but there is a lot digest in this one so taking a moment to organize the key points seems like a good thing to do:
- The Best Interests of the Child Doctrine is a legal standard used in family courts to guide decisions involving children, such as custody, visitation, education, and welfare. Family court judges have broad discretion when applying this doctrine, and their decisions are based on the specific circumstances of each case. The “best interests” standard is intentionally flexible, allowing judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case. However, this flexibility can also lead to subjective decisions. Critics argue that the doctrine can be too subjective and may lead to inconsistent rulings. Others believe it can be influenced by personal biases of judges or experts. Despite these concerns, the doctrine remains a cornerstone of family law, claiming to emphasize the child’s welfare as the paramount concern.
- The primary custody model in family court refers to a custody arrangement where one parent is designated as the primary custodial parent, meaning the child lives with them most of the time, while the other parent typically has visitation rights or parenting time. This model is often used when one parent is deemed better suited to provide the day-to-day care and stability for the child, while the other parent maintains a meaningful but less frequent relationship with the child. The primary custody model is the default custody order in nearly all jurisdictions, and is generally issued at the start of court-involvement with temporary orders during the litigation process. According to US Census Data, and depending on jurisdiction, mothers are awarded primary custody in the range of 80-85% of the time.
- The single most determinative factor for judges granting shared custody is parental cooperation. However, it only takes one parent to be uncooperative, and once a parent is awarded custody at temporary orders, they have an incentive to remain uncooperative and exploit the process with delay tactics and other forms of legal abuse, weaponize access to the children with narcissistic abuse, and inflict damage to the relationship NCPs have with their children with parental alienation abuse because the family court tends to reward these abusive behaviors instead of punishing them. Once a parent his primary custody, they are in effect and in practice, substantively immune to punishment for violating court orders or being uncooperative.
- Child psychologists widely support equal shared parenting because research suggests that children benefit most when they maintain strong, consistent relationships with both parents after separation or divorce. The marginalization or elimination of one parent due to divorce can have significant emotional, psychological, and developmental consequences for children. Research consistently shows that children fare best when they maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, except in cases of abuse or neglect.
- As of February 2025, five U.S. states have enacted laws establishing a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting in child custody cases: Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and Florida. However, despite conclusive data providing direct evidence of the benefits of for both children and families, a large majority of states remain resistant to adopting equal shard parenting reforms.
- Under the primary custody model, one parent is targeted to be marginalized with respect to custody and decision-making and assigned a child support order. Socio-economic policy refers to government strategies and interventions designed to influence both social and economic conditions within a society. Existing family law, as originally constructed, was designed to ensure mothers received sufficient financial support from fathers after divorce or separation, or for unwed parents. In the U.S., under Social Security Act, Title IV-D, the federal government has established a mandate for states establish and enforce child support orders, and provided and financial incentives and bonus pool to be split amongst states for maximizing the size and efficiency of the child support pools they administer. There are NO federal incentives for the enforcement of custody orders. Because of the way the Title IV-D mechanism rewards states, there are incentives for judges to (a) maximize the size of child support orders, even if they are unaffordable, and (b) minimize the number of overnights the non-custodial parent has because child support orders are a function of both income and overnights. Government has shown great resistance to reforming family law to reflect the changing dynamics of families with respect to parenting roles and responsibilities of both parents, and instead clings to the outdated model of primary custody (mostly to mothers) and severe child support enforcement; causing great short and long-term harm to all parties involved.
- Rather than structure family law to incentivize cooperation like a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting does, the family court remains (in most states) an adversarial environment engineered to produce parental conflict over child custody. By exploiting the associated pain of losses (parent-child relationships, child support income) for both parents and the psychological drive to avoid them, the family court industry has an interest in preserving the primary custody model and an environment prone to producing parental conflict over child custody. Furthermore, the production of any abusive behaviors produced by the conflict such as narcissistic abuse, legal abuse, and parental alienation abuse positions family court industry agents to further enrich themselves at the expense of families. The industry (law firms, family investigators, forensic psychologists, supervised parenting services, and parenting plan providers) take in excess of $100B a year in revenue – which is money that moves from the savings of families to these agents. The cost of a high conflict divorce often exceeds $100,000 per parent.
- While temporary orders are meant to provide stability during a pending custody case, permanent orders are the final determination of custody, and in general, do not differ much from the temporary orders established at the beginning of court intervention. In fact, the longer a case drags on, the more likely it is a judge will be resistant to making significant changes to the temporary orders with permanent orders; often citing household stability and cooperation concerns as the basis for their judgment. Thus a custodial parent can effectively transform temporary orders into permanent orders with delay tactics and non-cooperation.
- The primary custody model, as socio-economic policy codified into family law, is more than an enforceable redistribution of income from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. It is also a redistribution of parental power, independence and accountability; and this makes the arrangement ripe for abuse. Narcissistic abuse refers to a form of emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical abuse characterized by manipulation, control, and exploitation, often leaving the victim feeling confused, devalued, and emotionally drained. Within CP-NCP dynamics, this often take the form of the weaponization of children for manipulative purposes ( for example, I may let you see the kids if you do “X”…), or for the purposes of inflicting emotional violence upon the non-custodial parent (for example, denying contact to satisfy a desire for vengeance against the custodial parent). Parental alienation is most likely to occur in high-conflict divorces or separations, particularly when one parent feels threatened, angry, or insecure. It can have devastating effects on the child’s relationship with the targeted parent and their overall emotional well-being.
- Parental alienation abuse occurs when one parent manipulates or influences a child to reject, fear, or distance themselves from the other parent, often without legitimate justification. It is considered a form of psychological abuse because it can cause long-term emotional and mental harm to the child. “Erase and Replace” in family court refers to a destructive form of parental alienation where one parent systematically erases the other parent from the child’s life and replaces them with a new parental figure, such as a step-parent, relative, or even the alienating parent themselves as the sole parental figure. Because children subjected to parental alienation behavior are being psychologically abused by the alienating parent, they display symptoms of abused children. Those attempting to discredit parental alienation abuse have a history of projecting the cause of those symptoms onto the parent being targeted with parental alienation, and subsequently utilizing the presence of the symptoms to rationalize their alienating behavior.
- Legal abuse occurs when one party manipulates the legal system to harass, control, or punish the other party, rather than seeking justice. It is often seen in high-conflict divorces and custody cases, where one parent uses legal tactics to exhaust the other emotionally, financially, and psychologically. False allegations, filing frivolous motions, ignoring custody orders, delaying court proceedings, filing for contempt without justification, and engaging in “erase and replace” through legal means are the most common forms of family court legal abuse. Legal abuse is a serious issue that exploits the legal system to harm, control, or harass the opposing parent.
- Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where one person causes another to doubt their own reality, memory, or perceptions. It is commonly used in abusive relationships, high-conflict divorces, and parental alienation to gain control over a victim. Noncustodial parents (NCPs), especially fathers, often experience institutional and societal gaslighting, where they are made to feel that their concerns about custody, parental rights, and systemic bias are exaggerated or invalid. This type of gaslighting occurs when government policies, courts, and social narratives dismiss or distort their reality, making them question their experiences. The family court industry, including judges, attorneys, child support agencies, and custody evaluators, often gaslights noncustodial parents (NCPs) by denying systemic biases, shifting blame, and manipulating narratives to maintain a profitable system that thrives on prolonged litigation and child support enforcement.
- The Big Lie: It should be obvious at this point that family law is incentive incompatible with the stated goal of ensuring the best interests of the child are front and center. If this were the case, family courts would be governed by a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting that would work to ensure children have a meaningful and substantive relationship with both parents; while still allowing families the flexibility to arrange the custody arrangements that work best for them. Instead, what we have is an outdated system that has been engineered to marginalize, and even perhaps eliminate one parent; that incentives parental conflict, and rewards selfish, ruthless, and abusive behavior on the part of custodial parents, causing long-lasting or irreparable harm to both parents and children alike. So, either “the best interests doctrine” is a lie; a great public deception to mask the money-harvesting behavior of legislators and family court industry agents, or these agents are so grossly incompetent that they have no business being anywhere near a decision that affects the health and well-being of families; especially children.
Parting Thoughts:
I have a theory, and one day I may test it with real data.
Over the last decade, politicians have been voicing concerns about the steady and rather dramatic fall of marriage and fertility rates in the U.S. This problem is a big one because falling fertility rates threaten economic stability, economic growth, tax revenues, social programs, national security, and global influence. Within the U.S., marriage rates have fallen from 76.5 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women in 1970 to 28 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women (one of the lowest rates in U.S. history) as of 2022.
Concurrently, The U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) (the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime) has dropped below replacement level (2.1 children per woman). In 1950, the U.S. TFR was 3.6 children per woman, but as of 2022, it had fallen to 1.66 children per woman—the lowest ever recorded in the U.S. The number of births per year has also been declining, reaching around 3.6 million in 2022, down from 4.3 million in 2007.
Common factors cited as explanations for these declines typically include economic factors, changing social norms about marriage, declining religious influence, and access to contraception and abortion.
Another factor sometimes cited is the fear of divorce, and I suspect this factor deserves more weight than it gets.
The short story version of the family court is this: The system weaponizes children, treats non-custodial parents like crap, incentives conflict and non-cooperation, rewards all kinds of abusive behavior, financially obliterates families, and then gaslights society into believing that NCPs deserve this treatment and that their children are better off with the most selfish, ruthless, or abusive parent.
Gee, I wonder why successive generations of adults raised in this kind within this kind of destructive family policy environment are increasingly avoiding the toxic and life-destroying risks that come with marriage and children?
To me, an obvious question is: have generations of new adults formed a dim view of marriage and child rearing in direct response to their own personal experiences with systematic family court pathology? Family court destroys not just individuals, but entire families, and given the system is engineered to inspire conflict and reward abusive behavior, I find it difficult to believe they would not. This suspicion is further reinforced by the rather non-existent effects the usual government tax incentives have had on improving marriage and fertility rates.
If politicians from both sides of the aisle are concerned about falling marriage and fertility rates, why wouldn’t incentivizing 50/50 custody and rewarding parental cooperation during and after divorce be at the top of their policy agenda?
It should be common sense that if you want people to start having kids again, then curing the unhealthy and exploitative nature of family law and counter-productive socio-economic policy would be a really good place to start.
In particular, father involvement with children comes often enough with a great deal of personal sacrifice. I think the trade-off is more than worth it in terms of life-experience, but it also means that the financial burden imposed on working and middle class non-custodial parents fighting to preserve their place in the lives of their children during and after divorce is crushing and in many cases, simply unaffordable.
Certainly, reforming family law by establishing a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting will clean up 90% of the pathology, dysfunction, and greed driving family court custody decisions and the systematic abuse of children and non-custodial parents that is born of it, but sadly, we seem to be a long way from that day as of now.
While it is true that law-makers needs to start listening to parents and psychologists about the destructive effects of an abusive family court environment, I cannot help but also point out that in an ideal world, the family court would not be needed in the first place as parents can simply choose to be cooperative and put the children first (and many parents do) rather than being uncooperative and dishonestly masking purely selfish behaviors as “solely interests of their children”.
Actually, in “my” ideal world, society would take responsibility for disincentivizing selfish parenting and abusive parenting behavior on its own.
Can this ideal world of mine happen? Doubtful, at least in terms of the complete eradication of it….people being people and all that.
I will not presume to preach to you who you should vote for, who you should marry, who you should work for, or who you should befriend. I will only take a moment to point out:
- A parent who will throw their own children under the bus for selfish reasons will have no problem throwing their friends under the bus for the same.
- A parent who will lie to a judge will have no problems lying to their boss or colleagues about co-workers.
- A parent who has no problems abusing and discarding an Ex will have no problems doing the same to others once they are no longer of any use to them.
Selfish parents, abusive parents – they are often prolific liars and will, of course, lie to cover up their behavior. All you need to do is look for the rather obvious markers and you stand a good chance of sniffing out the truth.
A simple way to do this is to point people toward the facts and observe the choices they make. Those that genuinely love their children will put the effort in to learn more and help make things right. THIS TAKES COURAGE, SO PLEASE DO ALL YOU CAN TO OFFER YOUR LOVE AND SUPPORT TO THESE FOLKS!
On the other hand, those who are running a con or are too selfish to own-up won’t bother to listen, and if pressed, will probably become hostile.
Of course, they may also keep lying, but those folks are easy enough to spot, because the lying and gaslighting are not typically limited to issues surrounding the custody of their children. You will see the behavior used against others easily enough.
We can each be agents of accountability, drawing a red line about what we choose to tolerate and stop enabling and rewarding this kind of awful behavior, and by doing that, do something impactful to make things a little better for the world – one child and one parent at a time.
Please do not look the other way when you witness the systematic abuse of children or parents, because the time for accountability for abusive parents, government, and the family court industry is long past due.
If you would like to help, you can print this article and mail it to your state and federal representatives with a personal note expressing your expectation of family law reform (see below for instructions and the relevant links).
Warmest Regards,
Michael (Huckelberry)
Not A Member Of Our Network?
The Love & Iron Project is an alliance of individuals and organizations committed to equal shared parenting, ending parental alienation abuse, and reunifying parents and children estranged by pathological family courts and abusive custodial parents.
If you are struggling with a family court battle or have been targeted with parental alienation and would like a better plan, or if you would like to join our network and help us make a difference for parents and children, you can REGISTER A FREE MEMBERSHIP HERE TO START TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR TOOLS, RESOURCES, AND SUPPORT.
U.S. Residents – This post is printable! Help put real pressure on lawmakers and hold them accountable by either (a) printing this post (use the print icon on the bottom of the page), attaching your own personal note and mailing it to them, or (b) emailing them with a a personal note from you and the link to it:
https://loveandiron.com/the-big-lie-of-family-court/
Thanks for helping us share the word about the urgent need for family law reform. By sharing our article, you will also be playing a vital role in driving positive change for the justice and accountability families need from lawmakers!
You can find who your state representatives and their contact information here: USA.gov. For a complete description of the “Light, Love, And Justice” Political Accountability Campaign, including detailed instructions on how to log your contacts and participate – PLEASE CLICK HERE.
Want to stand with us in the work we’re doing?
Please consider making a purchase from our gift shop—for yourself, a loved one, a friend, or a colleague.
You’ll find messages that promote family law reform, raise parental alienation awareness, inspire focus and resilience, and playful items that are just for fun!
Every purchase directly fuels our mission, assist those in need, and helps create real change.
You can find who your state representatives and their contact information here: USA.gov. For a complete description of the “Love, Light, And Justice” Political Accountability Campaign, including detailed instructions on how to log your contacts and participate – PLEASE CLICK HERE.