Few topics in family court create more confusion and more damage than “parental alienation.” For years, it has been used as a blanket accusation, a catch-all explanation for why a child resists seeing a parent. But like many ideas that take on a life of their own, the reality is far more complex, and far more heartbreaking.
Is parental alienation real? In rare cases, yes—there are situations where one parent intentionally manipulates a child against the other for revenge, control, or personal gain. But more often than not, what is labelled as “alienation” is nothing more than the natural, instinctive reaction of a child who does not feel safe.
And here is the part that very few people are willing to say out loud:
Many children aren’t “alienated.” They’re afraid.
They are not rejecting a parent because of poison from the other household. They are rejecting a parent because that parent caused harm—whether through emotional abuse, physical intimidation, manipulation, or the chaos the child had to live through. Children do not need to be coached to avoid someone who frightened them, minimized their feelings, or hurt the parent they love and depend on. They remember slammed doors. They remember yelling. They remember their mother crying in the bedroom while covering bruises or wiping away silent tears. They remember tension in the house thick enough to taste. And children, even the quiet ones, even the small ones, absorb everything.
Yet in courtrooms across North America, these natural trauma responses are twisted into accusations: “She’s alienating the kids. “She’s turning them against me. “She’s brainwashing them.”
This narrative is convenient for the abusive parent because it shifts all responsibility away from their behaviour and onto the protective parent—most often the mother. Instead of acknowledging the real reason the children resist contact, the abusive parent claims to be the victim. Suddenly, the mother becomes the one on trial, forced to defend herself against labels like “alienator” simply because she protected her children and herself from further harm.
But children are far more intuitive than adults give them credit for. A child doesn’t need a lecture to understand who feels safe and who doesn’t. A child doesn’t need prompting to feel uneasy around someone who controlled, belittled, or terrified their mom. A child doesn’t need manipulation to remember how it felt when the energy in the home shifted at the sound of footsteps, or when their mom’s voice changed in fear.
Calling this “alienation” is not only inaccurate—it’s cruel.
It erases the child’s lived experience. It punishes protective parents. It rewards abusive ones. And it places children back into environments where their trauma is minimized, dismissed, or ignored altogether.
The truth is simple: Children gravitate toward safety, not alienation. They pull away from chaos, not from love. They avoid what hurts them. They lean toward what comforts them.
If they consistently choose one parent over another, especially after a history of abuse, the most logical explanation is not manipulation—it’s survival.
This is why trauma-informed courts and child-protection experts warn against assuming parental alienation without a full, unbiased, evidence-based assessment. When systems rush to fit families into predetermined categories, children lose their voices. And mothers—especially those escaping domestic violence—are silenced, blamed, and punished for doing exactly what good mothers do: protect.
Real parental alienation does exist. But it is far, far less common than the courts are led to believe.
Much more common is this: Children who don’t feel safe with the parent who abused their mom, who carry unspoken memories that they don’t know how to articulate, whose bodies remember what their words cannot fully express, who are tired of pretending, and who want peace.
If we genuinely care about children, we must stop weaponizing the term “parental alienation” against the very people trying to keep them safe. We must start listening—not to the loudest voice in the room, not the one with the best legal strategy, but to the subtle truths children reveal through their behaviour, discomfort, and desire for safety.
Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about labels. It isn’t about court orders. It isn’t about winning or losing.
It’s about children who have already lived through enough pain being allowed to choose safety without having their choices called manipulation.
Sometimes, the most loving thing a child can do is distance themselves from the person who caused the harm. And sometimes the bravest thing a mother can do is stand her ground and refuse to let the truth be rewritten.
When we understand that, we understand that what some call “parental alienation” is often nothing more than a child’s heart doing what it was created to do—protecting itself.
Survivor Speaks Truth 
Leave a comment