Recent reports have once again drawn attention to the effects of “win–lose” decision-making in the adversarial court system, especially in family separation cases. This system is built to deliver clear rulings, but in practice, it can, at times, lead to increased conflict, rather than resolution.
Many parents enter separation knowing it may affect their children, but few expect how damaging and emotionally intense child care disputes can become. Adversarial court processes can deepen hostility between parents and make it challenging for them to reach cooperative parenting agreements independently. In family law, where children are directly affected, wide judicial discretion can sometimes intensify harm instead of reducing it.
An alternative approach has been discussed for years: a legal starting point of equal parenting, with exceptions in cases involving family violence. Supporters say this model can reduce the harm caused by litigation, help children maintain relationships with both parents and their wider families, lower conflict between parents, and, in some cases, reduce the risk of new violence emerging.
Although research increasingly supports shared parenting, where it is safe, meaningful law reform has stalled. Family courts frequently refer to the “best interests of the child,” yet there remains minimal political appetite for reforms based on evidence and child-focused outcomes, in the UK and elsewhere.
Critics of the current system also argue that adversarial courts can encourage the misuse of allegations. Claims of parental alienation or family violence may be used strategically in some cases, while real violence may be downplayed or ignored in others. This can blur the line between genuine risk and tactical accusations, undermining protection for those who truly need it.
Some argue that family violence is primarily a criminal issue and should be dealt with firmly through the criminal justice system, rather than being assessed in family courts alongside parenting arrangements.
Others warn against using individual painful experiences to condemn the family court system as a whole. Child care disputes are emotionally exhausting, especially in high-conflict separations, but family courts are not designed to validate adult grievances. Their role is to make difficult decisions in situations already shaped by parental actions. Poor or painful outcomes do not automatically mean bias; courts often have to choose between limited and imperfect options, prioritising stability over parental preference.
From this perspective, framing negative rulings mainly as evidence of systemic misogyny or institutional failure can distract from personal responsibility and from the central issue: children’s long-term well-being. Public narratives that portray family courts as inherently unjust may increase division and resentment, rather than encouraging reflection, accountability, and cooperation, all of which are crucial for effective co-parenting after separation.
There is also growing concern about the use of “alienation” concepts in family courts. Children may be labelled as “alienated” by unregulated experts, a label that can silence their voices, dismiss their experiences, and override their stated wishes. Critics argue that allegations of parental alienation, under any name, are often used to maintain control or abuse rather than to protect children.
In 2018, the European Association for Psychotherapy issued guidelines warning that many parental alienation theories lack scientific support. They cautioned that these ideas can lead to further harm, including victimisation, stigmatisation, and even violence against vulnerable people. These warnings emphasise the need for greater care and evidence-based practice in custody decisions.
Ultimately, real reform is unlikely without ongoing dialogue between advocates of shared parenting and those working to address family violence. Progress has repeatedly been blocked by ideological division, even though the interests of mothers and fathers often overlap after separation. The consequences are serious and, in some cases, life-changing. A more cooperative, evidence-based approach that focuses on children’s safety, well-being, and relationships is urgently needed.
