Family courts have a profound and often underestimated impact on the mental health of children caught in high-conflict custody disputes.
Research shows that children involved in prolonged legal battles, especially where one or both parents exhibit traits of personality disorders, experience significantly higher rates of trauma-related symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and attachment disruption (Lange et al., 2021).
These effects are worsened in cases where the court fails to recognize or intervene in emotional abuse, often masked as legal conflict. Co-parenting, which requires empathy, regulation, and mutual respect, becomes nearly impossible when one parent has an untreated personality disorder; a dynamic that places the child in a chronic stress environment with long-term psychological consequences (Association of Maternal and Paternal Personality Disorders, 2023).
Over time, these experiences not only affect the child’s current well-being but have been shown to contribute to transgenerational trauma, where unresolved psychological pain is passed on to future generations (Shields et al., 2021).
Judges play a pivotal role in either mitigating or worsening this trauma. A trauma-informed judicial approach can significantly reduce the psychological burden children face in custody and family court settings (McKinsey et al., 2022).
However, when judges lack awareness, empathy, or training in trauma-responsive practice, the courtroom itself becomes a source of harm. Children often perceive court decisions as disempowering and unpredictable, especially when their voices are ignored or manipulated by high-conflict parents (Judicature, 2025).
To break the cycle of emotional abuse and system-driven trauma, legislative reform and judicial education must align to prioritize the psychological safety of children, not just the procedural rights of adults.
The Training Gap
That Costs Childhoods Despite the enormous responsibility judges hold in shaping children’s lives, many enter family courtrooms with little to no training in child development, attachment theory, or trauma psychology.
This gap leaves them ill-equipped to assess what truly constitutes the “best interests of the child.” Research from the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that custody evaluators and, by extension, the judges who rely on them often lack consistent training in domestic violence and trauma, creating dangerous blind spots in rulings (Jaffe et al., 2017).
What is at stake is not a debate about alienation.
The real issue is the disruption of a child’s attachment to a parent, particularly when one parent manipulates or obstructs the child’s bond with the other.
Attachment is a foundational need; its disruption undermines stability, identity formation, and emotional regulation. When courts fail to protect a child’s secure attachment, they inadvertently endorse conditions that can produce long-term psychological scars.
While reforms such as Kayden’s Law have begun requiring judicial education in states like California, Colorado, and Maryland, these efforts remain patchy and inconsistent nationwide.
The result is a fractured system where some children benefit from trauma-informed practice while others remain invisible within adversarial legal proceedings (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023).
Internationally, the United Kingdom faces similar challenges, with surveys showing that fewer than 10% of family law professionals had received training to recognize trauma responses in children. This deficit directly affects justice outcomes (The Times, 2023).
Why This Matters When judges misinterpret a child’s silence as indifference or a trauma response as unreliability, the law itself becomes complicit in perpetuating harm.
A courtroom intended to protect can instead deepen wounds, entrench conflict, and fuel the cycle of transgenerational trauma. The stakes are not abstract: they are lived out in the anxiety of a child waiting for a ruling, in the depression of an adolescent alienated from a parent’s love, and in the adult who still carries scars from a system that misunderstood them.
Dr. Steve Hudgins, is a father who has lived in the system and was part of the 2001 change of equal access law signed by Governor Keating in Oklahoma.
Dr. Hudgins is a U.S. Army veteran, adjunct professor, researcher, licensed clinician, and founder of Mosaic Family Systems, has dedicated his career to reframing alienation through a trauma-informed, child-first model.
He introduces the concept of Disruptive Parental Attachment (DPA) to spotlight the covert dynamics of parental manipulation that fracture a child’s emotional security (Hudgins, 2025).
His goal is twofold: first, to shift the conversation away from outdated terms like Parental Alienation Syndrome, and second, to advocate for legal and clinical interventions that prioritize the child’s right to emotional stability and attachment.
Ultimately, Dr. Hudgins aims to mend what he calls “the child’s emotional anchor,” transforming custody discourse from conflict to compassionate clarity. It is not about alienation—it is about the child’s right to maintain secure attachment with both parents whenever safe and possible.
A trauma-informed, child-centered judiciary is not optional—it is essential.
References
Association of maternal and paternal personality disorders. (2023). ACP Clinical Psychology.
Hudgins, S. (2025).Why PAS fails and why children pay the price. Mosaic Family Systems Blog. Drsteveh.com.
Hudgins, S. (2025). Lost in the alienation? Learn. Train. Change the conversation from alienation to Disruptive Parental Attachment©: The healing of the next generation depends on it. Drsteveh.com.
Hudgins, S. (2025). Piece by piece: My blended experience of mosaic family. GBW Publishing, LLC. Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2017). A framework for addressing allegations of domestic violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody, 14(2–3), 124–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2017.1317253
Judicature. (2025). Trauma-informed courts: How judges may influence kids’ experiences of court. Duke University School of Law. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/trauma-informed-courts-how-judges-may-influence-kids-experiences-of-court/
Lange, A. M. C., Stewart, C., & Vervoort, S. (2021). Parental conflicts and post-traumatic stress of children in high-conflict divorces: A literature review. Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1833813
McKinsey, E., Zottola, S. A., Ellmaker, L., Mitchell, A., & Heinen, M. (2022). Trauma-informed judicial practice from the judges’ perspective. Judicature. https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/trauma-informed-judicial-practice-from-the-judges-perspective/
Shields, A. N., Wamboldt, M. Z., & Howell, K. H. (2021). The impact of personality pathology across three generations: Evidence of transgenerational transmission of trauma. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000776
The Times. (2023, May 15). Understanding trauma: Why family lawyers and judges need training. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/understanding-trauma-why-family-lawyers-and-judges-need-training-mbdtnm335
U.S. Department of Justice. (2023). The need for mandatory domestic violence training for court-appointed custody evaluators. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/need-mandatory-domestic-violence-training-court-appointed-custody-evaluators
#FamilyCourtReform#TraumaInformedJustice#ProtectChildrenNotConflict#DrSteveHudgins#MosaicFamilySystems#DisruptiveParentalAttachment#CustodyReformNow#StopCourtTrauma#ChildCenteredJustice#MentalHealthMatters