Please: Stop Saying “Alienation”The word, “alienation,“ has divided the domestic violence community AND we cannot afford this division. We are stronger together which is why it is absolutely critical we all get on the same page. This word is the Father’s Rights movement.
As Richard Ducote stated,
"Alienation is the only 'disease' diagnosed by lawyers."
This pseudoscience was concocted by pedophile sympathizer, Richard Gardner. Gardner is a disgraced psychiatrist and he is responsible for many children being placed in the clutches of sexual predators.
Accusations of alienation are the weapons of abusers. To most of us, that is as clear as day however, the water has become very muddy because many mothers are using this terminology without understanding the repercussions it is having on our movement. When you use this word, you are playing into the hands of the enemy – you are validating and strengthening their movement. You are propelling their disturbing movement forward and you are setting family court advocates (myself included) back. You are unraveling the work we are doing. You are assuming position in enemy territory. Please, stop using this word in a way that validates it or in a way that validates the cottage industry of professionals who are laughing all the way to the bank.
The word, “Alienation” belongs to the abusers:
Claims of “alienation” are the go-to defense of the abuser when a child rejects the abuser. Suddenly, it's the mother's fault that the abuser lacks a bond with the child.
Why is there no bond? Could be a variety of reasons such as: a) No interest or desire in bonding with your child unless there is an audience nearby or a camera rollingb) Incapable of bonding with your child due to faulty wiring (aka a personality disorder)c) Your own abusive behaviors have severed any potential bond with the childd) All of the above
I have actually been on both sides of this - standing accused and watching my ex attempt to turn my daughters against me. I absolutely validate and acknowledge that the toxic parent attempts to turn the children away from the healthy parent and many times, they are successful. I personally know many moms in these situations, and it is devastating and heartbreaking. I’ve had a unique vantage point for many years (over a decade) and I see these situations play out. What I know is that the initial bond and attachment is the foundation on which our children were built – and that withstands these storms.
When the conflict ends and the child is left to navigate their relationship with the toxic parent, they end up seeing behind the mask. It’s inevitable. Things return to baseline – there was never a bond with the toxic parent to begin with and when the child (or young adult) sees behind the mask, the façade of this relationship crumbles. With this said, it doesn’t diminish the pain that a parent feels while waiting for this to all play out – the children were used as weapons and pawns because the toxic parent knows this is the way to inflict the most pain and to maintain power and control.
A similar analogy to help you understand:
My marriage was toxic and abusive because my ex-husband was a sociopath (antisocial personality disorder).
My separation was terrifying, and I ended up in the women’s shelter with my children because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
My children became pawns and weapons during our very lengthy court case because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
My case was considered “high conflict” because my ex-husband was a sociopath
I was able to successfully protect my children at year six of our family court case and at year ten, we terminated my ex-husband’s parental rights because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
Everything that happened from the time I met my ex-husband (2000) until present day can be explained because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
With all of this said, I have never used the word, “sociopath” or “narcissist” to describe or label my ex-husband. As validating as that word has been for me personally and in my healing journey, I’ve never uttered either of those descriptor words in family court. I was able to successfully protect my children because I focused on his patterns of behavior – specifically, the patterns of behavior that affected my children. I documented everything – and then I documented more.
If someone had said, “Hey Tina – that word, ‘sociopath’ has roots in pedophilia and to this day, places children in harms way,” I would scrub that word from my vocabulary. That word would never again leave my mouth. It wouldn’t matter to me that it explained twenty years of my life – my validation and healing comes from knowing my truth at a core level, it’s not wrapped up in a word.
The Experts of Pseudoscience:
I watch people grasp onto the dangling carrots of validation held out by people like Childress (Pruter), Baker, and Warshak, and I cringe. I’ve watched the work of these individuals destroy children and protective mothers whom I personally know -all for money. Those who cling to these “experts” don’t realize that if two people showed up at their offices with checkbooks, they will take the side of whoever writes the biggest check first. My humble opinion, of course and based on experience watching them side with the abuser over the almighty dollar.
Show me an expert who believes in “alienation” and I will show you red flags.
Playing Russian Roulette with Family Court Professionals:
Here is another scenario: there is a family court judge that I know of who is educated on the origins of the “alienation” movement and the damage that the present day movement has done to protective parents. Not only is she well-versed on this topic, she trains other judges throughout the state on this topic. I know this from being more ‘behind the scenes’ than most however, imagine yourself standing in her courtroom, clinging to that word and building your case on that platform? She would be doing a mental eye roll as you parade in your expensive experts (who are laughing all the way to the bank). All it takes is opposing counsel to argue that it is discredited pseudoscience (and they will) and it’s case closed.
There are some pockets throughout the country where the “alienation professionals” have set up shop and infiltrated the system - but there are professionals who are knowledgeable and see it for what it is. Clinging to this word in front of the wrong professional could be detrimental to your case.
To Learn More About The Disturbing Present Day Movement
Jane Doe Films, in partnership with the National Family Violence Law Center, Center for Judicial Excellence and RAINN, brought together a panel of leading experts to discuss the present day “alienation” movement which is as disturbing as the Gardner origins. To watch, click here. The present day movement involves children being taken away from their healthy parent by “transporters” and placed into camps where contact with their healthy parent is cut off. They are told that the abuse they experienced did not happen - it’s likened to organized, systemic gaslighting.
ABC 10 News did a feature on the present-day world of alienation which can be viewed here.
NBC Bay Area did a feature on the present-day world of alienation which can be viewed here.
Washington Post did a feature on the present-day world of alienation which can be viewed here.
Final Words:
I stand firm in my statement: if you are using the word, “alienation,” you are propelling very dangerous people forward. You have joined the father’s rights movement and you are setting our movement back tremendously.
Please focus on patterns of behavior – not that word.
If someone absolutely MUST have a descriptor, the best one to use is domestic violence by proxy.
Resources:
Joan Meier Research: U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show?
Jean Mercer: Challenging Alienation
As Richard Ducote stated,
"Alienation is the only 'disease' diagnosed by lawyers."
This pseudoscience was concocted by pedophile sympathizer, Richard Gardner. Gardner is a disgraced psychiatrist and he is responsible for many children being placed in the clutches of sexual predators.
Accusations of alienation are the weapons of abusers. To most of us, that is as clear as day however, the water has become very muddy because many mothers are using this terminology without understanding the repercussions it is having on our movement. When you use this word, you are playing into the hands of the enemy – you are validating and strengthening their movement. You are propelling their disturbing movement forward and you are setting family court advocates (myself included) back. You are unraveling the work we are doing. You are assuming position in enemy territory. Please, stop using this word in a way that validates it or in a way that validates the cottage industry of professionals who are laughing all the way to the bank.
The word, “Alienation” belongs to the abusers:
Claims of “alienation” are the go-to defense of the abuser when a child rejects the abuser. Suddenly, it's the mother's fault that the abuser lacks a bond with the child.
Why is there no bond? Could be a variety of reasons such as: a) No interest or desire in bonding with your child unless there is an audience nearby or a camera rollingb) Incapable of bonding with your child due to faulty wiring (aka a personality disorder)c) Your own abusive behaviors have severed any potential bond with the childd) All of the above
I have actually been on both sides of this - standing accused and watching my ex attempt to turn my daughters against me. I absolutely validate and acknowledge that the toxic parent attempts to turn the children away from the healthy parent and many times, they are successful. I personally know many moms in these situations, and it is devastating and heartbreaking. I’ve had a unique vantage point for many years (over a decade) and I see these situations play out. What I know is that the initial bond and attachment is the foundation on which our children were built – and that withstands these storms.
When the conflict ends and the child is left to navigate their relationship with the toxic parent, they end up seeing behind the mask. It’s inevitable. Things return to baseline – there was never a bond with the toxic parent to begin with and when the child (or young adult) sees behind the mask, the façade of this relationship crumbles. With this said, it doesn’t diminish the pain that a parent feels while waiting for this to all play out – the children were used as weapons and pawns because the toxic parent knows this is the way to inflict the most pain and to maintain power and control.
A similar analogy to help you understand:
My marriage was toxic and abusive because my ex-husband was a sociopath (antisocial personality disorder).
My separation was terrifying, and I ended up in the women’s shelter with my children because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
My children became pawns and weapons during our very lengthy court case because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
My case was considered “high conflict” because my ex-husband was a sociopath
I was able to successfully protect my children at year six of our family court case and at year ten, we terminated my ex-husband’s parental rights because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
Everything that happened from the time I met my ex-husband (2000) until present day can be explained because my ex-husband was a sociopath.
With all of this said, I have never used the word, “sociopath” or “narcissist” to describe or label my ex-husband. As validating as that word has been for me personally and in my healing journey, I’ve never uttered either of those descriptor words in family court. I was able to successfully protect my children because I focused on his patterns of behavior – specifically, the patterns of behavior that affected my children. I documented everything – and then I documented more.
If someone had said, “Hey Tina – that word, ‘sociopath’ has roots in pedophilia and to this day, places children in harms way,” I would scrub that word from my vocabulary. That word would never again leave my mouth. It wouldn’t matter to me that it explained twenty years of my life – my validation and healing comes from knowing my truth at a core level, it’s not wrapped up in a word.
The Experts of Pseudoscience:
I watch people grasp onto the dangling carrots of validation held out by people like Childress (Pruter), Baker, and Warshak, and I cringe. I’ve watched the work of these individuals destroy children and protective mothers whom I personally know -all for money. Those who cling to these “experts” don’t realize that if two people showed up at their offices with checkbooks, they will take the side of whoever writes the biggest check first. My humble opinion, of course and based on experience watching them side with the abuser over the almighty dollar.
Show me an expert who believes in “alienation” and I will show you red flags.
Playing Russian Roulette with Family Court Professionals:
Here is another scenario: there is a family court judge that I know of who is educated on the origins of the “alienation” movement and the damage that the present day movement has done to protective parents. Not only is she well-versed on this topic, she trains other judges throughout the state on this topic. I know this from being more ‘behind the scenes’ than most however, imagine yourself standing in her courtroom, clinging to that word and building your case on that platform? She would be doing a mental eye roll as you parade in your expensive experts (who are laughing all the way to the bank). All it takes is opposing counsel to argue that it is discredited pseudoscience (and they will) and it’s case closed.
There are some pockets throughout the country where the “alienation professionals” have set up shop and infiltrated the system - but there are professionals who are knowledgeable and see it for what it is. Clinging to this word in front of the wrong professional could be detrimental to your case.
To Learn More About The Disturbing Present Day Movement
Jane Doe Films, in partnership with the National Family Violence Law Center, Center for Judicial Excellence and RAINN, brought together a panel of leading experts to discuss the present day “alienation” movement which is as disturbing as the Gardner origins. To watch, click here. The present day movement involves children being taken away from their healthy parent by “transporters” and placed into camps where contact with their healthy parent is cut off. They are told that the abuse they experienced did not happen - it’s likened to organized, systemic gaslighting.
ABC 10 News did a feature on the present-day world of alienation which can be viewed here.
NBC Bay Area did a feature on the present-day world of alienation which can be viewed here.
Washington Post did a feature on the present-day world of alienation which can be viewed here.
Final Words:
I stand firm in my statement: if you are using the word, “alienation,” you are propelling very dangerous people forward. You have joined the father’s rights movement and you are setting our movement back tremendously.
Please focus on patterns of behavior – not that word.
If someone absolutely MUST have a descriptor, the best one to use is domestic violence by proxy.
Resources:
Joan Meier Research: U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show?
Jean Mercer: Challenging Alienation
Article written by Weaponized Stepmom on Facebook
Debunking the Myths: Why Dismissing Parental Alienation is Dangerous and Misleading
Tina Swithin One Mom's Battle would have you believe that parental alienation is nothing more than a debunked concept, a tactic invented by one man, Richard Gardner, to protect abusive fathers. She argues that the term “parental alienation” has no scientific basis and exists solely to deflect from the reality of child abuse. But this argument, while compelling on the surface, crumbles under scrutiny. Let’s break it down and see why dismissing parental alienation is not only misleading but also dangerous.
The Origin of Parental Alienation: More Than One Man’s Idea
It’s true that Richard Gardner coined the term “parental alienation,” but to suggest that the entire concept is flawed because of its origin is disingenuous. Gardner’s observations in 1985 were a starting point, not the final word. Since then, countless professionals—psychologists, psychiatrists, and legal experts—have expanded on the idea, recognizing that alienation is a real and harmful phenomenon. The fact that Gardner’s views were controversial doesn’t erase the thousands of cases where children have been manipulated into rejecting a parent, often with devastating consequences.
Gardner’s work opened the door to a much-needed conversation about how parents can, and do, weaponize their children against the other parent in high-conflict divorces. Over time, the concept has been refined and studied extensively. Today, we know that parental alienation is not just a theoretical idea—it’s a real issue that affects countless families, with serious implications for the emotional and psychological well-being of children. Parental Aleination is a social political issue that has become an epidemic.
Why the Absence of Parental Alienation in the DSM-5 is Not a Valid Argument Against Its Existence
Some argue that parental alienation isn’t real or important because it’s not listed as a specific disorder in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition). But this misses the mark—it misunderstands both what the DSM-5 is for and what parental alienation really is.
The DSM-5 is a tool that mental health professionals use to diagnose mental disorders in individuals. It’s focused on identifying issues within a person’s mental health. But parental alienation isn’t about a disorder within the child. It’s about one parent manipulating a child to turn them against the other parent. This is a form of psychological abuse, not a mental disorder the child has.
Parental alienation isn’t in the DSM-5 because the DSM-5 doesn’t diagnose behaviors or abuse inflicted by someone else. It’s about diagnosing internal issues within an individual, not external actions like manipulation or coercion. So, the fact that parental alienation isn’t in the DSM-5 doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or it isn’t harmful. It’s just not the kind of thing the DSM-5 is designed to cover.
This is the same reason why other forms of abuse, like emotional abuse or coercive control, aren’t listed as standalone disorders in the DSM-5. But that doesn’t mean these forms of abuse aren’t real. They’re serious issues recognized in courts, in therapy, and by social services—where the focus is on stopping the abuser, not diagnosing the victim.
In legal and psychological circles, the harmful effects of parental alienation are well-known. Custody evaluations, psychological assessments, and expert testimony help identify and address the damage caused by this kind of abuse. Research shows how deeply parental alienation can affect a child’s emotional and psychological well-being, even though it doesn’t fit neatly into a DSM-5 diagnosis.
It’s also important to remember that the DSM-5 isn’t the only guide to understanding psychological and emotional harm. Just because something isn’t in the DSM-5 doesn’t mean it’s not real or serious. The DSM-5 is for diagnosing disorders within individuals, not for categorizing abusive behaviors in relationships. So, dismissing parental alienation because it’s not in the DSM-5 misses the point.
Parental alienation is a serious form of emotional abuse with long-lasting effects on children and families. The fact that it’s not in the DSM-5 shouldn’t be used to dismiss its reality or the need for legal and therapeutic interventions.
In short, the DSM-5’s exclusion of parental alienation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t harmful. It just means the DSM-5 isn’t designed to diagnose abusive behaviors. So, using the DSM-5 to argue against the reality of parental alienation doesn’t hold up.
The “Cottage Industry” Myth: Conflating Legitimate Practice with Misconduct
Tina Swithin One Mom's Battle likes to paint the professionals who work with alienated children as part of a “lucrative cottage industry,” "alienation industry" and/or "reunification industry" profiting off childhood trauma. This argument deliberately confuses unethical practices with legitimate efforts to help children and families. Yes, there are unethical professionals in every field, but that doesn’t invalidate the work of those who genuinely want to protect children from the harm caused by alienation.
Reunification therapy, for example, isn’t inherently traumatizing or wrong—it’s a process that can help repair relationships and heal the psychological wounds inflicted by alienation. When done properly, reunification therapy provides a safe space for children to rebuild trust with a parent they’ve been taught to fear or hate without reason. Dismissing these efforts as part of a “cottage industry” ignores the positive outcomes that many families experience when they receive appropriate support.
Let’s not forget that in any profession, there will always be a few bad apples. But to throw out the entire concept of parental alienation because of them is not only irresponsible but also harmful to the very children these professionals aim to protect. The focus should be on regulating and improving the quality of services, not on dismissing the existence of a real and damaging issue.
The Hypocrisy Behind Tina Swithin’s One Mom's Battle Profit Model
While Tina Swithin One Mom's Battle criticizes others for allegedly profiting from the concept of parental alienation, it’s important to examine her own practices. Tina has built an entire business model around promoting her self-created, self-promoted high-conflict coaches—individuals who support her views without any formal accreditation or proper vetting. These coaches, operating under the banner of “protective parenting,” often push strategies that are, in reality, thinly veiled parental alienation tactics.
Tina’s program isn’t about genuine protection; it’s about teaching women how to manipulate the legal system to avoid sharing co-parenting responsibilities equally. She openly shares her disdain for the court system, and her agenda is clear: to equip women with the tools to win custody battles, even if it means engaging in alienating behaviors. By using the term “protective parenting,” Tina and her followers obscure the fact that they are engaging in the very strategies they claim to fight against. This isn’t just unethical—it’s dangerous.
Tina is not just participating in a so-called “cottage industry”; she’s creating one. Her approach profits off the fear and vulnerability of parents in high-conflict situations, offering them a pathway to gain the upper hand in custody battles, regardless of the long-term damage to the children involved. This is a clear conflict of interest that needs to be exposed and addressed.
The False Dichotomy Between Parental Alienation and Child Abuse
Another tactic Swithin One Mom's Battle uses is to create a false dichotomy, suggesting that acknowledging parental alienation means ignoring child abuse. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is, courts and professionals must be vigilant about both. Sometimes, a parent can be both an abuser and an alienator. Other times, false allegations of abuse are used as a weapon to alienate a child from the other parent.
Dismissing parental alienation as a myth doesn’t protect children; it puts them at greater risk. When courts and professionals are forced to choose between two competing narratives—abuse versus alienation—children often become the collateral damage. What we need is a balanced approach that recognizes the potential for both abuse and alienation, ensuring that children are protected from all forms of harm.
It’s not about choosing one over the other—it’s about acknowledging that both can exist and that both need to be addressed with care and attention. Ignoring parental alienation doesn’t protect children; it leaves them vulnerable to ongoing manipulation and psychological harm.
The Real Impact on Children: The Consequences of Alienation
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Tina Swithin’s One Mom's Battle argument is how it dismisses the real, long-lasting impact that alienation can have on children. When one parent successfully alienates a child from the other, the child suffers. They lose out on a relationship with a loving parent, are forced to internalize false narratives, and often grow up with a distorted view of reality.
Alienation doesn’t just impact the parent-child relationship in the short term—it can have profound effects on a child’s emotional and psychological development. Children who are alienated from one parent often struggle with issues of identity, trust, and self-esteem. They may carry these wounds into adulthood, affecting their ability to form healthy relationships and leading to ongoing emotional turmoil.
Ignoring this reality doesn’t help children—it harms them. By dismissing parental alienation as a myth, Tina Swithin One Mom's Battle is not only denying the experiences of countless children and parents but also perpetuating a cycle of harm that can last for generations.
Conclusion: Why We Need to Take Parental Alienation Seriously
Tina Swithin’s One Mom's Battle arguments against parental alienation are built on a foundation of half-truths and oversimplifications. #sprinkledintruth Yes, the concept of parental alienation has its roots in the work of Richard Gardner, but it has since evolved into a well-documented and widely recognized phenomenon. Ignoring or dismissing it is not just misleading—it’s dangerous. We owe it to our children to recognize the full spectrum of harm that can be done in high-conflict custody battles, and that includes acknowledging the very real damage that parental alienation can cause.
The focus should be on improving how we handle these cases, ensuring that the best interests of the child are always at the forefront. This means recognizing both the potential for genuine child abuse and the insidious effects of parental alienation. Dismissing parental alienation as a myth doesn’t protect children—it leaves them vulnerable to ongoing manipulation and psychological harm. It’s time to move beyond outdated arguments and focus on what really matters: the well-being of our children.
We must also be vigilant about the motivations behind those who seek to profit from these highly sensitive issues. Tina Swithin’s self-promoted high-conflict coaches, who are neither accredited nor properly vetted, contribute to a narrative that encourages manipulation of the legal system under the guise of “protective parenting.” This approach doesn’t serve the best interests of children; it serves the interests of those looking to avoid shared responsibility in co-parenting.
Beware of Tina Swithin One Mom's Battle High Conflict Dicorce Coaches pushing the narrative that parental alienation is only an abuser's false claim. https://www.onemomsbattle.com/divorce-coaching, https://www.hcdivorcecoach.com/coach
As we continue to advocate for the recognition and proper handling of parental alienation, it is crucial to expose the hypocrisy and financial motivations behind those who dismiss or downplay its impact. We must push for a more balanced and informed approach in family courts—one that takes into account all forms of abuse, including the psychological manipulation that parental alienation represents.
By acknowledging the reality of parental alienation and rejecting the misleading arguments against it, we can work toward a legal and therapeutic system that truly prioritizes the health and happiness of children. It’s time to move beyond self-serving agendas and focus on what’s really at stake: the future well-being of our children and the integrity of our family courts.