The Cost of Custody When Your Pain is Profitable -- Part II
Here's the final version of the proposal; I hope you can use it
As promised, here is the final version of the proposal I submitted for the McGraw Business Journalism Fellowship. I understand most of my readers are probably not journalists, but I hope some of the writing could be repurposed in your own activist work, current or future.
Take Action Tip: write a letter to your state rep that starts with the overview of the problem (below), then share the details of your own experience as a case study.
Elevator Pitch:
Across the U.S., parents are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to protect their children from abusive ex-partners—only to lose custody in family court. My investigation explores how judges have been unduly influenced by a debunked theory called “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” leading them to justify removing children from protective parents and placing them in dangerous, sometimes life-threatening custody arrangements. These misguided custody decisions have also fueled a cottage industry of unregulated court-appointed experts whose services are both costly and potentially complicit in endangering children.
Overview of the Problem:
Family court judges across the country are assigning custody to parents accused of abuse, ignoring evidence and expert testimony in favor of an unscientific theory—Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Once this label is attached to a parent (usually the mother), judges often remove their children and restrict access, alleging the parent is attempting to “alienate” the child from the other parent (usually the father).
The result is an underreported but flourishing ecosystem: court-appointed custody evaluators, visitation supervisors, family reunification therapists, therapeutic interventionists, and other paraprofessionals—often chosen from a short list provided by the judge—charge tens of thousands of dollars in mandatory fees.
These roles are largely unregulated, and the same individuals are appointed again and again by the same judges. The financial burden on protective parents is immense and sustained, and the children they are fighting for are sometimes irreparably harmed—or worse.
My investigation will probe several questions:
How much influence does money exert on custody decisions in family courts?
What are the incentives—financial or otherwise—for judges and court-appointed professionals to uphold discredited theories and extract massive sums from vulnerable families?
Case Study : Ruth and Boy
Ruth, a mother in Arizona, is in year eight of a high conflict custody battle with her ex-husband Josiah. During the divorce, she alleged that Josiah was physically and sexually abusive—to both her and their young son Boy. She presented photos, videos, and expert testimony from a nationally recognized domestic violence researcher who determined Ruth was at “extreme danger” of being killed by Josiah. The expert shared with the court that abusive partners frequently become abusive parents. Still, the judge granted 50/50 custody.
This was to be expected. In multiple studies, judges have been found to reject women’s claims of partner violence, on average, two-thirds of the time. If the judges had found Ruth credible, according to custody law, they would not have been able to grant unsupervised custody to Josiah.
While in Josiah’s care, Boy has sustained a steady stream of injuries, even since infancy. These include lacerations encircling the wrists and ankles, genital bruising, and five-inch burn marks on his torso–in the shape of Josiah's metalsmithing tool. Since Boy could speak, he’s been talking about his father touching his “privates” and taking photos of him without clothes. Multiple investigations by Child Protective Services and the Maricopa County Special Victims Unit have ended as inconclusive.
In one custody hearing, a forensic interviewer testified that she found Boy “credible and not coached,” in regards to his sexual abuse disclosures. Yet, the outcome was that Ruth lost primary custody.
Why?
Josiah accused her of parental alienation. “Parental alienation syndrome,” (“PAS”) is a term first coined in the 1980’s by Richard Gardner, a controversial psychiatrist whose research was not peer-reviewed. PAS has been rejected by the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the American Psychiatric Association.
According to a study of family court custody decisions over a ten-year period, when fathers accused of child sexual abuse countered with a Parental Alienation claim, judges did not accept abuse allegations as true 98% of the time. Professor Joan Meier, Director of the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University, has commented that when fathers accused of sexual abuse counter with PAS it is “basically a trump card” against such allegations.
Since being labeled as an alienator and losing custody, Ruth has paid more than $300,000 in legal fees and court-ordered services—including a psychiatric evaluation, a custody evaluation, a therapeutic interventionist, a guardian ad litem (who later switched to representing Josiah). Whenever Ruth receives a bill in the mail, she facetimes other protective parents for emotional support in opening the envelope. She describes herself as “actively going bankrupt.” Ruth suggests that the family courts have come up with a terrific business model, since most mothers would pay “every last red cent and then some” to maintain contact with their child.
Investigation Target : Judge Charlene Jackson
Ruth’s case is one of several in Maricopa County, Arizona that have raised red flags. My investigation will center on the custody decisions of Judge Charlene Jackson, a relatively new family court judge who has already drawn a lot of public scrutiny. Over 2,000 people have signed a petition demanding Jackson be removed from the bench.
Arizona State Representative Rachel Keshel has indicated she may pursue an investigation into Jackson’s conduct. Many parents have accused Jackson of judicial bias, collusion with private service providers, and issuing “adverse” custody orders that endanger children. This story will examine the facts as to whether Jackson’s courtroom serves the best interests of the child— or those of an entrenched, profitable system.
Why Now:
In 2022, the Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act—also known as Kayden’s Law—was passed, named after a seven-year-old girl murdered by her father during a court-ordered unsupervised visit. Kayden’s mother had repeatedly warned the court about his violent history. The law offers incentives to states that improve judicial training on domestic violence and prohibit discredited theories like PAS from being admitted in court.
Several states have passed similar legislation: Piqui’s Law was passed in California in 2024 (Piqui was five when he was murdered by his father); Greyson’s Law was passed in Florida in 2023 (Greyson was four). Kyra’s Law is on the books in New York (Kyra was 28 months). Parents like Ruth have been mobilizing and working with advocates like Joan Meier and Danielle Pollack (who wrote Kayden’s Law) to draft the Arizona bill.
Reporting on this issue now, with a focus on Arizona, will hopefully raise awareness of the issue among legislators. Arizona’s law could be named after some 38 children who have been killed by a divorcing parent– Lydia, Gwen, Kai, Caleb, Ania, Troy, and on and on.
What’s New + Why This Matters:
Parental Alienation Syndrome and family court dysfunction have been covered in recent years by outlets like ProPublica, The Guardian, and HBO’s Allen v. Farrow. This issue needs more sustained, targeted attention because children’s lives are at stake. This is an absolutely preventable injustice. If more attention can be trained on judges, who operate with judicial immunity in an opaque system, this can make a major contribution. The dysfunction begins with the judges.
Also, while other coverage has often alluded to the costs associated with high conflict custody battles, I believe that the structure of this proposed piece– focusing on one judge and her impact on multiple parents– will lead to new insights. The investigation will focus specifically on the financial incentive structure: how PAS fuels a shadow economy of court-appointed professionals, how judges create repeat business for select providers, and how this imposes crushing financial burdens on parents who are trying to keep their children safe.
This story will quantify the costs of custody battles in cases where PAS is invoked, document the roles and payments of paraprofessionals involved, and examine potential conflicts of interest between judges and service providers.
Reporting Plan + Timeline:
June 2025:
Review Judge Jackson’s case rulings via public court documents
Analyze billing records, where accessible, from court-appointed professionals
File public records requests and FOIAs on judicial complaints and contracts
July 2025:
Conduct interviews with protective parents (including Ruth and at least five others)
Interview attorneys, advocates, and court-appointed professionals
Speak with experts on domestic violence and coercive control (e.g. Joan Meier, Danielle Pollack)
Work with a data analyst to identify appointment patterns and financial flows
August 2025:
Final round of interviews and verification
Writing and revisions
Submit to media partner
Why Me:
I am a multimedia journalist with a master’s degree from Columbia Journalism School, where I completed a thesis titled “A Dark Contortion: How Family Courts Deliver Children to Abusive Parents.” For my thesis I spent two years investigating the case of Ruth and Boy; I understand the ins and outs of the family court, and how to dig into the details. I’m committed to this topic and have continued to write about it through my Substack “Protect the Parents.” My work has appeared in The New York Times, The Economist, Slate, and The Guardian. I bring both deep reporting experience and personal understanding—I’m a second-generation domestic violence survivor—and approach this issue with tenacity and care, with an eye towards making the greatest impact.
Please feel free to let me know if this description of the problem does or does not ring true to your experience. Have I covered all the major mechanisms of being stuck in family court?
My nieces and sister have experienced the same in San Diego county. 4 years of this nightmare