You deserve to understand exactly what is happening to you and your child — and exactly what you can do about it. This library was built for protective parents navigating a system that was supposed to protect their children.
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior used to dominate, isolate, and manipulate a partner or former partner. It is not always physical. It is often invisible. And it is one of the most dangerous forms of abuse because courts frequently fail to recognize it.
A pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation, intimidation, or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten a victim. It includes monitoring, isolation, financial abuse, psychological manipulation, and the deliberate destruction of a victim’s sense of reality and safety. Coercive control does not require physical violence to be devastating.
The Barron Foundation does not recognize parental alienation as a valid psychological concept. It is pseudoscience that has been consistently used to silence protective parents — overwhelmingly mothers — who are reporting genuine abuse. When a child resists contact with an abusive parent, that resistance is often a trauma response, not “alienation.” Courts that apply this label to protective parents are causing harm to children. Research confirms: the parental alienation label is disproportionately applied in cases where documented abuse is present.
Separation does not end coercive control. For many protective parents, it escalates it. Common post-separation tactics include:
The family court system is frequently used as a weapon of post-separation abuse. Abusers use litigation, false accusations, and court-appointed professionals to maintain control — and to exhaust protective parents financially and emotionally.
The misuse of court processes to continue coercive control after separation. This includes filing repeated motions with no merit, making false allegations to trigger investigations, demanding unnecessary evaluations, and using the legal process to drain a protective parent’s financial and emotional resources.
The Barron Foundation has seen consistently that the involvement of court-appointed professionals — guardians ad litem, custody evaluators, reunification therapists, and court-appointed therapists — frequently worsens outcomes for protective parents and their children. These professionals often lack training in coercive control, can be manipulated by skilled abusers, and add cost and conflict to cases that need resolution. Their recommendations carry weight courts rely on heavily. When those recommendations are wrong, children pay the price. This is not a criticism of every individual — it is an observation of a pattern that protective parents across America experience every day.
According to research compiled by the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence:
58,000+ children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce — more than twice the yearly rate of new childhood cancer cases.
Half a million children are living unprotected with a violent parent at any given moment in the United States.
75% of the time when abuse is alleged in custody cases, the child is ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser anyway.
50–73% of abuse allegations in custody cases are found to be valid when properly investigated. Most “false” allegations are misinterpretations — not deliberate fabrications.
90% of the time in cases involving alleged child sexual abuse, joint custody is awarded with no supervised visitation requirement.
Parental Alienation Syndrome is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, or any major medical classification system. It was excluded from the DSM-5. Courts that use it to punish protective parents are relying on discredited, non-peer-reviewed theory.
“This is death by a thousand cuts. No single ruling destroys a family. It is the accumulation — continuance after continuance, delay after delay, dismissal after dismissal — that wears a protective parent down to silence. That is how the system wins. That is what we are fighting.”
— Dr. Kreslyn Barron Odum
“Just like we didn’t understand what could happen in the Catholic Church, or Penn State, or with the US Olympic Gymnasts — once you understand, you cannot unknow it. I will scream till my dying breath: Believe Her.”
— Dr. Kreslyn Barron Odum
Research published in peer-reviewed journals confirms that abusive parents weaponize family courts to maintain control. Courts that prioritize shared parenting over child safety — without investigating documented abuse — are placing children at risk. Your experience is real. Your observations are valid. The system is failing you. That is what The Barron Foundation exists to change.
Many protective parents have found that thorough documentation becomes one of their most important tools. Courts respond to patterns of evidence. The most effective records are systematic, consistent, and factual. Every text message, every incident, every exchange may matter.
Family court is not designed for survivors of abuse. Understanding how it works — and how it fails — is the first step to navigating it effectively.
Not every family law attorney understands coercive control. Ask these questions before hiring:
Your child is watching you. How you show up — even when the system is failing both of you — will shape how they understand love, safety, and their own worth.
If your child resists visits or contact with the other parent, document it — their exact words, the date, the context. Do not force contact that puts them at risk. A child’s resistance to an abusive parent is not alienation. It is a survival response that deserves to be taken seriously — by courts, by every professional involved, and by the system that is supposed to protect them.
Courts may order contact anyway. If this happens, work with your attorney to request supervised exchanges, document every return, and note any changes in your child’s behavior after visits.
The Barron Foundation does not support reunification therapy. Forcing a child into a therapeutic relationship designed to restore contact with an abusive parent — regardless of the child’s expressed fears, trauma responses, or safety — causes additional harm. A child who is resisting contact with an abusive parent is not broken and does not need to be changed. The system that ordered that contact needs to change. If reunification therapy is ordered in your case, document your objection in writing and consult your attorney immediately.
If you or your child are in immediate danger, call 911. If you need support right now, these resources are available 24 hours a day.
These organizations have been vetted for their commitment to child safety and their understanding of coercive control. We do not endorse every position of every organization — but these are trusted starting points.
The Barron Foundation supports an active academic study at the University of Manchester — the ECCBS, the first scale developed to scientifically measure coercive control, child and mother sabotage, and post-separation abuse in family court contexts. Your participation helps build the evidence base that courts, clinicians, and policymakers have needed for decades.
For too long, protective parents have been disbelieved, pathologized, or punished for naming what was happening to them and their children. Without a validated scientific instrument, family courts have had no objective way to measure patterns of coercive control and post-separation abuse — leaving life-altering custody decisions to the intuitions of individual judges and evaluators.
The ECCBS is designed to change that. Every response contributes to a tool that can help protect the next parent, the next child, the next family.
If you have experienced coercive control or post-separation abuse, you are invited to participate. The survey is confidential, conducted by the University of Manchester’s Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, and open to protective parents.
🔗 Take the SurveyHosted by the University of Manchester via Qualtrics. The Barron Foundation does not collect or store your responses.
The statistics on this page are drawn from peer-reviewed research and expert analysis. We cite our sources because the truth is on our side.
Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC)
“How Many Children Are Court-Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?”
Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President
leadershipcouncil.org/how-many-children-are-court-ordered
Key findings: Based on a conservative estimate using the best available research, approximately 58,500 children per year are ordered into unsupervised contact with a physically or sexually abusive parent following divorce. At any point in time, an estimated half a million children are living unprotected with a violent parent. In at least 75% of cases where abuse is alleged, children are ordered into unsupervised contact with the alleged abuser.
The LC considers this a public health crisis. The estimate is described as conservative — the actual number may be higher.
Research consistently shows that 50–73% of abuse allegations made during custody disputes are found to be valid. The majority of cases that are not substantiated involve misinterpretations — not deliberate fabrications. Studies cited by the LC include research from the Kempe Center, University of Michigan, and multiple peer-reviewed journals. The narrative that protective parents fabricate abuse to gain custody advantage is not supported by the research.
The Meier Study — Professor Joan S. Meier, George Washington University Law School
Funded by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice — 10 years of U.S. custody cases
The most comprehensive empirical study of U.S. custody outcomes in abuse cases found the following:
The study also found that the involvement of GALs and custody evaluators increases gender disparities — making outcomes worse for mothers, not better.
False Allegations Are Rare — The Saunders Study Confirms It
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Saunders Study found that most allegations labeled “false” are actually misidentifications or misinterpretations — not deliberate fabrications. Protective mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations. When a mother reports abuse and is not believed, the most likely explanation is not that she is lying. It is that the system is failing her and her child.
“A mother who reports sexual abuse of her child has a 2% chance of being believed if the father claims parental alienation. That is not a justice system. That is a system that has chosen a side.”
— The Barron Foundation
50/50 Is Not a Best Interest Standard — It Is a Starting Formula That Ignores Abuse
The research on shared parenting was initially based on a very limited population: parents who enthusiastically supported the arrangement, cooperated fully, and lived close together. Later studies that included larger populations and longer-term outcomes found that shared custody arrangements are harmful to children in cases involving domestic violence or high conflict — but these findings failed to change courts’ growing appetite for 50/50 as a default outcome. Courts have taken research that applies to cooperative, non-abusive families and applied it universally — including to families where one parent is an abuser.
50/50 With an Abuser Is Particularly Dangerous
Multiple sources including the Saunders Study (U.S. DOJ) and the National Organization for Men Against Sexism research review
A protective parent cannot co-parent with an abuser. Compromise is impossible when there is unequal power. Abusers use custody exchanges and shared parenting time to continue surveillance, harassment, and control — what researchers call post-separation abuse. Abusive fathers are more than twice as likely to seek sole custody than non-abusive fathers — not because they are invested parents, but because custody is a mechanism of continued control. The Saunders Study found that shared parenting is inappropriate in domestic violence cases, and that courts imposing it are relying on the wrong framework.
Children Are Harmed in High-Conflict 50/50 Arrangements
Psychology Today, Wallerstein et al., Johnston & Straus, Family and Conciliation Courts Review
Research documents that children in 50/50 arrangements in high-conflict or abusive situations experience higher rates of depression, lower self-esteem, and emotional dysregulation. Children may feel “split in half” and develop suicidal feelings when forced to divide their lives equally between a safe and an unsafe parent. Courts that order 50/50 in abuse cases are not following the science — they are following a political and financial formula that prioritizes parental equality over child safety.
A Note on Strategy: When Protective Parents Ask for 50/50
The Barron Foundation recognizes that protective parents sometimes ask for 50/50 not because it is what they want, but because the alternative is worse. When a parent is being given little to no time with their child — or when the court appears poised to give the abuser primary custody — requesting 50/50 can be a safety measure: a floor, not a ceiling. This is a litigation strategy born of desperation and survival, not an endorsement of equal custody with an abuser. If you are in this situation, document everything. The goal is always the child’s safety, and every decision should serve that goal — even when the options are all bad.
The Barron Foundation’s Position
50/50 custody is not inherently wrong. In families where both parents are safe, cooperative, and committed to the child’s wellbeing, shared parenting can work beautifully. But when abuse is present — physical, emotional, coercive, or sexual — 50/50 is not a compromise. It is a continuation of harm on a court-ordered schedule. The standard must always be the child’s safety first. Not equality. Not fairness to parents. Safety.
Family courts that force children and protective parents to remain in contact with abusive partners are not simply making bad legal decisions. They are making medical ones. The evidence is clear: abuse causes disease. Prolonged stress, coercive control, and trauma have measurable, lasting effects on the human body. When courts ignore abuse, they are sentencing survivors and children to a lifetime of compounded health consequences.
American Heart Association — Domestic Violence Increases Heart Disease Risk
Journal of the American Heart Association • AHA Scientific Sessions 2022 • AHA Scientific Statement
Sources: Chandan et al., Journal of the American Heart Association (2020); AHA Scientific Sessions 2022; Suglia et al., AHA Scientific Statement on Childhood and Adolescent Adversity and Cardiometabolic Outcomes; Clark et al., Preventive Medicine (2016)
Peer-Reviewed Research — Domestic Violence Increases Cancer Risk
Meta-analysis of 36 studies • MD Anderson Cancer Center • Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine • Harris County DV Coordinating Council
Sources: Coker et al., meta-analysis of 36 studies, Preventive Medicine (2018); Cesario & McFarlane, Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing (2014); American Board of Family Medicine (2010); Harris County DV Coordinating Council / MD Anderson Cancer Center
What This Means for Family Court
When a family court orders a child or a protective parent to maintain contact with an abuser — without screening for abuse, without trauma-informed evaluation, without regard for the ACE research — it is not just failing them legally. It is shortening their lives. The Barron Foundation stands at the intersection of legal advocacy and public health. This is not a custody dispute. It is a health emergency disguised as one.
What Is DARVO?
DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It is a manipulation strategy identified by Dr. Jennifer Freyd, Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon, to describe how abusers respond when they are confronted with their behavior or held accountable. Rather than acknowledging the harm they caused, the abuser:
Why DARVO Works So Well in Family Court
Family court professionals who are not trained in coercive control or domestic violence dynamics are highly susceptible to DARVO. The abuser presents as calm, credible, and wronged. The protective parent — traumatized, exhausted, and often in genuine distress — appears emotional and unreliable by comparison. Courts that evaluate demeanor rather than pattern see exactly what the abuser wants them to see. The Saunders Study found that unqualified evaluators regularly misread this dynamic — pathologizing protective mothers and rewarding abusers.
DARVO and Parental Alienation
DARVO is the engine behind most parental alienation claims. When a protective parent reports abuse, the abuser uses DARVO to reframe her protective actions as manipulation — claiming she is “alienating” the children from him. Courts that do not understand DARVO accept this framing, punishing the protective parent for the abuser’s behavior. The Meier Study found that when fathers claim parental alienation in response to abuse allegations, mothers lose custody 50% of the time — and child sexual abuse claims are believed only 2% of the time.
If you have been called “high conflict,” “unstable,” “alienating,” or “vindictive” for reporting abuse — you may be experiencing DARVO. Document everything. The pattern is the proof.
Domestic violence, coercive control, and narcissistic abuse do not discriminate by fame, wealth, or strength. These public figures have spoken openly about their own experiences — not to define them, but so that others know they are not alone and not crazy.
Tina Turner
Survived years of physical and emotional abuse. Said publicly: “I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.” She left with nothing and rebuilt everything.
Halle Berry
Has spoken openly about physical abuse that caused permanent hearing loss in one ear. Her mother was also a victim. She has been a fierce advocate for DV survivors ever since.
Mariah Carey
Described emotional and mental abuse in a relationship where her partner controlled her career, finances, and life. “There was a connection that was not only a marriage but a business where the person was in control of my life.”
Christina Aguilera
Grew up watching her father abuse her mother. Said: “It is a hush, hush subject. That’s why it’s so important to speak my truth and help others find theirs.” Volunteers with DV shelters.
Mel B (Melanie Brown)
Survived coercive control and financial abuse. Has specifically called for judges to receive domestic abuse training — saying courts failed her. A patron of Women’s Aid and recipient of an MBE for her advocacy.
Mariska Hargitay
Founded the Joyful Heart Foundation after being moved by letters from survivors. “When I first did research for my role, I couldn’t believe the statistics.” Has since dedicated her life to advocacy.
Christie Brinkley
Endured a decade of narcissistic abuse, coercive control, and custody warfare. Won a court-enforced no-contact rule against her ex. Told reporters to simply “Google a narcissist” — and was flooded by women who said it changed their lives.
Bethenny Frankel
Described a decade of fraud, stalking, harassment, and emotional abuse as “mental and emotional torture” that left her with PTSD. Her ex was arrested for stalking. She won full custody. She has said publicly: “Every woman needs to know.”
Viola Davis
Grew up watching her father brutally abuse her mother. Wrote about it in her memoir Finding Me and has spoken at DV and sexual assault events. Asked aloud: “Why didn’t anybody see us or help us?” A question too many children are still asking.
These are nine voices among millions. Nine people you know by name, who lived what you are living. If it happened to them, it can happen to anyone. If it happened to you — you are in the company of women who survived, rebuilt, and refused to be silent.
The Barron Foundation was built by a protective parent who refused to stop fighting. We see you. We believe you. And we will stand with you.
🤟 Contact Us 🩷 Read Stories 🤟 Join the Movement