Why Oklahoma’s Custody Laws Must Catch Up to Mental Health Science
Across Oklahoma courtrooms, families are breaking apart, not from bruises or blows, but from something far quieter and crueler, the emotional violence that twists a child’s love into a weapon.
When a child is manipulated into rejecting or fearing a loving parent, it is not “high conflict.” It is coercive control. It is emotional abuse. It is domestic violence in psychological form. I know this pain firsthand, long before I became a doctor of community health and a licensed therapist, I lived it.
As a licensed professional counselor, former engineer turned doctor of community health, and author of Piece by Piece: My Blended Experience of a Mosaic Family, I have lived, researched, and testified to one core truth:
“The greatest harm to children occurs when courts fail to recognize emotional manipulation as domestic violence.”
Understanding Parental Alienation as Domestic Violence
Parental alienation (PA) is an outdated term not officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the DSM-5. PA describes a situation where one parent deliberately manipulates a child to reject the other parent, often causing trauma comparable to that experienced by children who witness physical domestic abuse (Bernet et al., 2020; Harman et al., 2018). The DSM-5 does not include PA as a formal diagnosis because it is considered a relational problem affecting the child’s relationship with parents rather than a distinct mental disorder within the child. Instead, related concerns are categorized under broader diagnostic terms such as child psychological abuse and parent-child relational problems (Bernet et al., 2020; Harman et al., 2018).
Alienating behaviors include:
- Chronic denigration of the targeted parent
- Intimidation or emotional threats
- Violations of protective orders
- Silent treatment or psychological isolation
- We do not let 12-year-olds vote for who leads the country, yet we allow them to decide which parent’s home to live in. That is not empowerment—it is emotional burdening disguised as choice.
These behaviors weaponize a child’s sense of belonging, turning love into fear and attachment into anxiety. The mental health and legal fields now converge on a shared understanding: alienation is emotional abuse and fits squarely within the statutory framework of domestic violence (Krüger & Graf, 2022; Verhaar & Saini, 2023).
Peer-reviewed research reinforces these judicial findings: parental alienation and coercive control behaviors inflict trauma comparable to other forms of domestic violence, producing lasting developmental and psychological harm (Harman et al., 2018; Bernet et al., 2020). Collectively, these statutes and cases confirm that the use of parental authority or language as a weapon of domination or fear is not merely conflict—it is domestic violence in psychological form, justifying supervised visitation or custody restrictions to ensure the emotional and physical safety of children and the targeted parent.
However, U.S. statutes, including those in Oklahoma, still lack clarity in recognizing and prosecuting this form of family violence. The result: children are retraumatized by systems that were designed to protect them.
Oklahoma’s Title 43 (§§107.3 & 112.5) includes emotional injury in its definition of domestic abuse yet lacks statutory mechanisms for assessing or prosecuting coercive control and parental alienation behaviors, resulting in inconsistent judicial outcomes (Oklahoma Legislature, 2023). Comparative analyses show that fewer than a dozen states—such as California, Hawaii, and Washington—have enacted coercive-control legislation that explicitly recognizes psychological manipulation as domestic violence (Evans, 2022).
In states without such provisions, including Oklahoma, judges and guardians ad litem often rely on subjective interpretation rather than trauma-informed evidence, which can perpetuate emotional harm and repeated exposure to the abusive parent (Stark & Hildyard, 2023). Research confirms that this legal ambiguity retraumatizes children, forcing them to navigate ongoing conflict and divided loyalties long after court intervention (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018; Krüger & Graf, 2022). When courts fail to differentiate coercive control from legitimate co-parenting disputes, they inadvertently replicate the emotional abuse within the judicial process itself, turning a place of protection into a new source of trauma.
The Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA®) Framework
While “parental alienation” remains an unofficial label in diagnostic manuals, Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA®) provides an empirically verifiable framework for assessing attachment-based trauma caused by coercive parenting behaviors.
In my research, I have coined and developed the Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA®) model, in lieu of Parental Alienation as a trauma-informed framework designed to help clinicians and courts identify and intervene when attachment bonds are intentionally disrupted.
Unlike the vague and often disputed concept of PA, DPA® can be substantiated through standardized psychological evaluation tools such as the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC), and Parent–Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), as well as through documented patterns of academic regression, behavioral dysregulation, sleep disturbance, and anxiety observed by educators and clinicians.
These measurable indicators allow courts and mental health professionals to establish a direct link between coercive control, disrupted attachment, and the child’s functional decline. Integrating DPA® into Oklahoma’s family law system is therefore essential—it provides a trauma-informed, evidence-driven method for identifying emotional abuse early, guiding protective interventions, and ensuring that custody decisions reflect the child’s psychological safety rather than parental narratives of conflict.
DPA® provides tools for:
- Clinical assessment of attachment-based trauma
- Psychoeducational supports to restore emotional safety
- Therapeutic trauma interventions to rebuild trust through guided reconnection
- Legal documentation linking trauma evidence to coercive-control behaviors
By expanding this framework into Oklahoma law, courts could identify emotional abuse early, before it escalates into chronic trauma or family fragmentation. (Harman & Lorandos, 2021; Verhaar & Saini, 2023).
Legal Recognition: Alienation as Emotional Abuse
Internationally, courts have begun to classify alienating behavior as domestic violence and psychological abuse:
- Canada: In Y.H.P. v. J.N. (2023), Ontario’s Superior Court found persistent alienation to be emotional harm requiring a “blackout” from the alienating parent and custody reversal (Mills & Mills LLP, 2025).
- United States: In G.R.G. v. S.G. (2023), repeated violations of protective orders and manipulative coercion were defined as emotional abuse meeting domestic-violence criteria (Sinatra Legal, 2025; Stewart, 2025).
- United Kingdom: The Family Justice Council distinguishes justified estrangement from manipulative alienation, affirming that the latter constitutes psychological abuse (Alsalem, 2023; Stewart, 2025).
These rulings underscore a global shift: alienation is not a custody dispute; it is emotional abuse demanding protection orders, therapy, and accountability.
Oklahoma Context: Emotional Injury and Attachment Interference
Oklahoma’s Title 43 defines domestic abuse as including emotional injury, harassment, and coercive control (§§107.3 & 112.5). Subsection §112.5(A)(1)(e) directs courts to protect children from exposure to emotional harm.
However, there are no standardized trauma-screening procedures to identify alienation or attachment interference, and the statutes do not define these terms. While standardized screening for alienation or attachment interference is lacking in Oklahoma, these laws provide courts with a legal basis to intervene and protect children from emotional harm due to alienating behaviors by a parent.
Thus, the legal structure in Oklahoma supports protection against alienation as a form of emotional abuse through child abuse, domestic violence, and custody statutes focused on emotional injury and coercive control, empowering courts to order custody modifications, visitation suspensions, therapy, or other protective measures grounded in Title 43.
These statutes and case law like Hilfiger v. Hilfiger reflect a legal recognition of the need to protect children emotionally from alienation in Oklahoma family court proceedings. The lack of consistent protection and enforcement against parental alienation as emotional abuse in Oklahoma family courts stems from several interrelated challenges:
When Trauma Is Ignored: The Urgent Need for Mental Health Awareness in Oklahoma Family Courts
In Oklahoma, serious gaps remain between child protection policy and trauma-informed practice. State agencies, including the Department of Human Services (DHS), can be subpoenaed yet sometimes fail to appear in court without penalty. When that occurs, vital testimony and context are lost, leaving the court to make decisions without the full scope of information needed to safeguard a child’s emotional well-being.
Guardians ad litem (GALs) and court-appointed professionals often serve with the best intentions, yet many lack adequate trauma-informed training. This lack of awareness can lead to the dismissal of critical mental health insights—especially in cases involving patterns of coercive control, domestic violence, or emotional abuse.
Too often, parents with documented histories of violence, coercive control, or traits consistent with personality disorders retain custody or unsupervised visitation. This reflects not only a gap in trauma-informed training but also a systemic misunderstanding of emotional abuse as a legitimate and measurable form of domestic violence.
Research indicates that parental emotional instability, antisocial behavior, and certain personality disorder traits significantly decrease the likelihood of gaining custody; however, courts often prioritize observable behaviors over diagnoses, leading to custody decisions that may expose children to ongoing emotional risks (Raub et al., 2013). Individuals with personality disorders, particularly those marked by manipulation, lack of empathy, or chronic control behaviors, pose sustained emotional dangers to children long after the relationship ends, yet these dynamics are frequently minimized or misunderstood within the legal system, leaving children vulnerable to invisible harm (Vasi Law, 2025).
Moreover, coercive control, a form of domestic violence involving psychological tactics of manipulation and control, is often overlooked in custody evaluations that tend to focus on physical violence, resulting in insufficient protection for children subjected to emotional abuse (Cross & Chadwick, 2025). The legal system’s failure to fully recognize and integrate the impact of emotional abuse and personality disorder dynamics perpetuates risks for children and underscores the urgent need for trauma-informed approaches and better understanding of psychological harm in custody decisions.
When judicial decisions are made without trauma literacy, children are re-victimized by the system meant to protect them.
Bridging Law and Psychology: Closing Legislative Gaps
To align Oklahoma law with modern psychological science, several urgent reforms are needed:
- Mandate early screening for coercive control during custody evaluations (Oklahoma Bar Association, 2024).
- Codify trauma-informed testimony standards based on forensic interviewing best practices (Faller, 2015).
- Require interagency collaboration between DHS, GAL offices, and licensed clinicians.
- Add a statutory definition of “Disruptive Parental Attachment” under the coercive-control provisions of Title 43.
- Create oversight for therapeutic reunification programs that follow standardized, research-based clinical protocols such as DPA®.
- Enforce accountability for DHS and GAL noncompliance with court orders and child-protection duties. Establish statutory penalties for any DHS personnel or Guardian ad Litem (GAL) who fail to comply with subpoenas, disregard court directives, or neglect their duty to protect children from emotional or psychological harm.
- Holding alienating parents accountable when they knowingly provide false testimony, manipulate evidence, or use the judicial process to perpetuate coercive control and emotional abuse. Such conduct should be treated as a direct violation of the child’s right to safety and stability as a criminal misdemeanor.
- Require continuing education for judges, GALs, and custody evaluators on trauma-informed practice, attachment theory, and coercive control.
Evidence for Personality Disorders in Custody Contexts
State funding can significantly enhance the ability of less fortunate families to ensure safe and fair custody evaluations by supporting highly trained staff psychologists. These professionals, equipped with specialized expertise in detecting personality disorders such as borderline and narcissistic personality disorders, play a crucial role in safeguarding children from manipulation and emotional harm. Research underscores that these disorders often involve patterns of control, manipulation, and a lack of empathy, which are critical factors in custody disputes and can pose ongoing risks to a child’s emotional well-being (Otto et al., 2000, p. 315).
Supporting custody evaluators through state-funded programs ensures access to advanced psychological training and standardized assessments, thereby reinforcing an evidence-based approach that courts can trust. Such evaluations typically include a range of diagnostic tools and tests, such as the MMPI-2 or Similar instruments, specifically used to identify personality pathology and assess parental fitness (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997; Dr. Lisa Long, 2025). Furthermore, state-funded resources can also enable the employment of evaluators with extensive experience in forensic psychology, developmental psychology, and family dynamics, which are essential for producing accurate and impartial assessments in complex custody cases (American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers [AAML], 2020).
By funding these expert evaluations, states can help mitigate systemic biases, ensure consistent application of trauma-informed standards, and enhance child safety in custody decisions, especially where psychological risk factors are prominent. This approach supports a more nuanced understanding of emotional abuse and personality pathology, ultimately fostering more protective and evidence-based custody outcomes.
- Custody evaluators use clinical interviews, psychological diagnostic tests, and home visits to assess the mental health and personality traits of parents involved in disputes, providing courts with unbiased, objective recommendations for custody arrangements that reflect the child’s best interests.
- Oklahoma law allows for mental health and psychological examinations in custody cases when a parent’s mental health is directly relevant to the dispute, enhancing the ability of the court to protect children from harm driven by such disorders (Okla. Stat tit. 12 § 3235; Okla. Stat tit. 43 § 112).
- The APA’s guidelines for child custody evaluations explicitly recommend advanced training for evaluators and advocate for the detection of severe personality disorders due to their connection with adverse child outcomes and manipulation risks.
- Peer-reviewed research has documented increased risks for children when a parent demonstrates traits consistent with borderline or narcissistic personality disorder, including consistent manipulation, disregard for the child’s emotional needs, and harmful parenting practices (Bernet et al., 2020; Harman et al., 2018).
These updates would not only modernize Oklahoma’s family law, but would stop avoidable trauma and reduce long-term costs to the state’s mental health system.
Caution on Legal Terminology
Legal concepts such as the best interest of the child standard are central to family-law decision-making but lack a consistent or universally accepted definition. Courts rely on this doctrine as a judicial standard, not as a precise rule, allowing flexibility in its interpretation and application across jurisdictions (Johnston, 2020).
This interpretive discretion often produces inconsistent rulings and, in some cases, fails to account for the psychological impact of coercive control or attachment disruption on children (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018; Krüger & Graf, 2022). Oklahoma’s custody determinations under Title 43 similarly depend on the broad “best interest” framework, yet without trauma-informed guidance, judges and guardian’s ad litem may overlook evidence of emotional abuse or Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA®). Incorporating DPA® assessments into the best-interest analysis would provide measurable psychological data, such as validated symptom inventories, attachment-security indicators, and behavioral outcomes, that align judicial discretion with clinical evidence, ensuring that rulings truly protect a child’s mental and emotional welfare (Bernet et al., 2020; Verhaar & Saini, 2023).
The best interest of the child standard remains central to family-law decision-making, yet it lacks a consistent legal definition and is applied flexibly across jurisdictions (Johnston, 2020). This judicial discretion often produces inconsistent rulings and overlooks the psychological harm caused by coercive control or disrupted attachment (Harman, Kruk, & Hines, 2018; Krüger & Graf, 2022). In Oklahoma, custody decisions under Title 43 similarly depend on this broad standard but rarely incorporate trauma-informed evaluation.
The Need for Trauma-Informed Education in the Judiciary
Every professional who makes determinations about custody—judges, attorneys, GALs, and DHS caseworkers—should be required to complete trauma-informed continuing education.
Such training should include:
- The neurobiological effects of coercive control
- Symptoms of attachment trauma in children
- Identification of manipulative versus protective parent behavior
- Case studies showing how well-intentioned rulings can perpetuate trauma
Without this foundation, courts can unintentionally reward psychological abusers while punishing stable, loving parents.
The Importance of Early Recognition and Intervention
When Disruptive Parental Attachment patterns are identified early:
- Clinicians can stabilize trauma and begin therapeutic repair.
- Courts can implement protective measures before damage is irreversible.
- Policymakers can enact reforms rooted in prevention rather than reaction.
This is the foundation of trauma-informed justice—where prevention replaces punishment and the child’s mental health is the first consideration, not the last (Bancroft & Silverman, 2022).
Conclusion: Children Deserve Better Systems
Parental alienation is not a custody dispute; it is a form of psychological domestic violence that fractures a child’s developing sense of safety, trust, and belonging. Children deserve better than systems that debate which parent wins, they deserve protection from the emotional warfare that leaves lifelong scars.
Oklahoma now stands at a defining crossroads: the law can either continue interpreting the best interest of the child through inconsistent, subjective standards, or it can advance toward trauma-informed justice grounded in measurable psychological science. The Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA®) framework provides that bridge—connecting law, mental health, and child development in ways that protect a child’s right to love both parents safely.
This is more than a matter of equal access or parental rights; it is about preserving the sacred architecture of a child’s attachment. By integrating trauma-informed assessments, mandatory education for judges and guardians ad litem, and accountability for state agencies, Oklahoma can lead the nation in redefining how justice serves children.
True reform begins when the law listens, not to the loudest parent, but to the quietest voice in the room: the child’s.
Let this be the moment Oklahoma turns pain into policy and transforms custody law into child protection law, where emotional safety is not an afterthought, but the very foundation of justice itself.
Protecting children begins with understanding that the most dangerous weapon in a custody battle is not physical force—it is emotional manipulation disguised as love.
References (APA 7)
Ackerman, C., & Ackerman, S. J. (1997). Psychological testing in custody evaluations. Child Custody Evaluations: What Parents Need to Know. https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/custody/steps/evaluations.php
Alsalem, R. (2023). Custody, violence against women and violence against children: Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences. United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org
American Psychological Association. (2022). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings.
https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody
Baker, A. J. L., & Fine, P. R. (2014). Surviving parental alienation: A journey of hope and healing. Rowman & Littlefield.
Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2022). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Bernet, W., von Boch-Galhau, W., Baker, A. J. L., & Morrison, S. L. (2020). Parental alienation, DSM-5, and ICD-11. American Journal of Family Therapy, 48(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2019.1669535
Cross, C., & Chadwick, G. (2025). Parenting under siege: Reckoning with coercive control. Connecticut Law Review, 57(3), 729-??. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1628&context=law_review
Dr. Lisa Long. (2025). What to expect from a court-ordered psychological evaluation. Psychological Testing and Family Law. https://www.drlisalong.com/blog/what-to-expect-from-a-court-ordered-psych-eval
Evans, C. (2022). Coercive control legislation in the United States: A state-by-state analysis of emerging reforms. Journal of Law and Social Policy, 18(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/lspp.2022.18.2.143
Faller, K. C. (2015). Forty years of forensic interviewing of children suspected of sexual abuse, 1974–2014: Historical benchmarks. Social Sciences, 4(1), 34–65. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci4010034
G.R.G. v. S.G., 2023 ____ (U.S. Dist. Ct.). (Sinatra Legal, 2025). https://www.sinatralegal.com/blog/2025/01/30/parental-alienation-vs-domestic-violence-allegations/
Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000175
Harman, J. J., & Lorandos, D. (Eds.). (2021). Parents acting badly: How institutions and societies promote the alienation of children from their loving families. Academic Press.
Johnston, J. R. (2020). Revisiting the “best interests of the child” standard: The role of psychology in custody determinations. Family Court Review, 58(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12477
Johnston, J. R., & Sullivan, M. J. (2020). Parental alienation: In search of common ground for a more differentiated theory. Family Court Review, 58(2), 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12478
Krüger, S., & Graf, P. (2022). Parental alienation as psychological abuse: Reviewing the evidence base and implications for family-court practice. Journal of Child Custody, 19(3–4), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2022.2110345
Mills & Mills LLP. (2025, January 30). Parental alienation in family law cases – A case law update. https://www.millsandmills.ca/blog
Oklahoma Bar Association. (2024). Integrating trauma-informed practices in Oklahoma family courts. Continuing Legal Education Division.
Oklahoma Legislature. (2023). Title 43: Marriage and family. https://www.oklegislature.gov
Oklahoma Statutes, Title 12 § 3235, Title 43 § 112. (2023). Oklahoma Legislature. https://www.oklegislature.gov
Otto, R. K., Edens, J. F., & Barcus, E. H. (2000). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38(3), 312-332. https://defensenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/THE-USE-OF-PSYCHOLOGICAL-TESTING-IN-CHILD-CUSTODY-EVALUATIONS.pdf
Otto, R., Edens, J., & Barcus, M. (2000). The use of psychological tests in custody evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7289476/
Pappas, S. (2024, October). New guidelines for child custody evaluations. Monitor on Psychology, 55(8), 39–44.
https://www.apa.org/education-career/ce/guidelines-child-custody-evaluations.pdf
Raub, J. M., Carson, N. J., Cook, B. L., Wyshak, G., & Hauser, B. B. (2013). Predictors of custody and visitation decisions by a family court clinic. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(2), 206-218. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23771934/
Settle, S. M., & Lowery, C. (1982). The use of psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 1(3), 301–314.
Sinatra Legal. (2025, January 29). Parental alienation vs. domestic violence allegations. https://www.sinatralegal.com/blog
Stark, E., & Hildyard, C. (2023). From physical violence to coercive control: Rethinking domestic abuse in legal and clinical contexts. Family Law Quarterly, 57(1), 55–89. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4521193
Stewart, R. (2025, January 28). Guidance for the courts on dealing with parental alienation allegations. Stewarts Law.
Vasi Law. (2025, June 24). Does a personality disorder affect parental rights? https://www.vasilaw.com/blog/2025/july/does-a-personality-disorder-affect-parental-righ/
Verhaar, K., & Saini, M. (2023). Bridging the gap between parental alienation research and child-protection practice: A call for integrated frameworks. Family Court Review, 61(4), 899–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12745
Warshak, R. A. (2020). When evaluators get it wrong: False-positive identifications and parental alienation. Family Court Review, 58(2), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12479
Y.H.P. v. J.N., 2023 ONSC ____ (Ont. Sup. Ct.). (Mills & Mills LLP, 2025). https://www.millsandmills.ca/blog/parental-alienation-in-family-law-cases-a-case-law-update/