Which State is the Worst?
Variables that influence a protective parent’s custody experience
Hello dear everyone,
Recently someone posted that, on Substack (a platform amongst which there are many, and I believe they meant this in a general way) we ought to normalize irregular posting, or inconsistent posting (something to that effect). Because, they said, “humans are not robots.” It’s true and it’s not; I agree and I don’t.
As you might have noticed, I’d proposed posting M, W, F and here we are— it’s Thursday by my clock/ calendar. A year in, and I’m still working on that consistency variable. True, humans are not robots (pretty sure), but there’s still something to be said for regularity.
I think in addition to apologizing, if you had expected me yesterday and I fell short, I’d like also to find a way to make it up to my readers. Yeah, maybe it’s no big thing and y’all don’t mind (which is also cool), but maybe there were a handful of people (or even just one) who looked in their inbox yesterday morning and did not see a message from me, aka Protect the Parents.
If that was you, I’d like to invite you to reply to this email and let me know how I could make it up to you. I seek not to disappoint, but to assist. And if you’d like to just drop me a note about challenges you’re facing lately and what I might help you with, this is also warmly welcomed. Thanks for being with me.
Yesterday I experienced one of those rare instances of a sense of progress. Recently I’d applied for and been accepted for a consultation (free) with a senior investigative reporter, who was previously with ProPublica for several years. They gave such thorough, detailed and helpful feedback on a pitch about a protective parent’s experience of the family courts— I was nearly in tears.
Years of working on this issue, feeling like your just flailing through it all, not sure how to budge this big stone. Trying, over and over and over, to make progress— to get to publish a story, and try to let people know— “look, do you see that building on fire?”
Sometimes I have this dream and there is a big chain around my waist; attached to the chain is a ton of raw meat, that I am dragging through the forest. I am trying to drag the wolves off your scent. I am trying to wipe the target off your back. I am trying to reach the boy before he is burned.
In my conversation with him, a major instruction was to narrow the scope of focus. I’ve put too much in my pitches, I need to break them down, and look at one, specific, clear target; one by one. He also reminded me about ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network, an initiative to support accountability reporting projects in every state.
What is “accountability journalism”? Here are my notes from the conversation. He likened this form of reporting to a math equation:
Variable A (what should be happening) - variable B (what is happening) = result C (the accountability gap).
The accountability gap is the shortfall between what the system is supposed to be doing (protecting DV victim-survivors and their kids) and what the system is actually doing (giving custody to parents accused of abuse without sufficient scrutiny, process, protections).
To apply for the LRN, you have to pitch a story that is uniquely local to the state. Not a national story that you’ve drawn local connections to, per their instructions. However, when looking at the sample pitches they shared, applications which were successful, I still think the journalists pitched issues which are national issues, but are exacerbated by variables related to the state.
I understand that perhaps you don’t consider yourself a writer or journalist. You may be thinking— how is this relevant to me?
However, as a protective parent, I’d like to suggest that you have a unique story to share. You have intimate insight into the systemic failing of the family courts; you have possession/ access to documentation and sources that can show where and how accountability gaps are yawning wide and ensnaring those they shouldn’t.
Consider telling your story, painful as it is, or even as embarrassed as you feel, or choked by rage. Or just damn tired. Telling can be healing, and can point out to others — “look, do you see that building on fire?” If we let it keep burning, more protective parents and their kids are burned. This is awareness raising; this is media strategy.
As we’ve talked about before, one of the ways to dismantle and rearrange the problems in the family courts (or, to make any positive change in an onerous issue) is to report on it, write about it, point out the problems. Check out “Can I Help You Share Your Story? Part III” and “Writing as Activism.” I’m posting the same poll as before, and interested to see your responses this round.
If you’re curious, you can check out the sample stories posted by ProPublica, to see how editors are evaluating a story. Even if you don’t think you’d want to try your story with ProPublica (admittedly a high bar, probably the best investigative publication around, for their breadth and depth)— you can consider a local publication.
Perhaps this can be a way to shine the spotlight on a local judge, custody evaluator or visitation supervisor. You can also reach out to a publication with a story, but say that your name could not be used in the piece, nor identifying details. If you would like help, or to just talk about the possibility of sharing your story with a local publication, feel free to reach out to me.
Here are the sample ProPublica stories, which show what they are looking for in state-focused stories. They are also helpful frameworks for understanding what an investigative story would need to include.
The Sacramento Bee investigated conditions in California’s county jails.
The Public’s Radio looked at problems with Rhode Island’s 911 system.
Mississippi Today documented how the state treats people in mental health crises.
Source New Mexico looked at recovery assistance for victims of the largest wildfire in the state’s history.
They point out that an accountability story pitch should be able to answer these questions:
What’s wrong? Who is harmed? Who or what is responsible?
What needs to be changed?
Looking through the different proposals, I’ve been wondering — which state is the worst for protective parents?
Here are variables that can influence a protective parent’s custody experience—
1. Use or Acceptance of “Parental Alienation” Claims
Why it matters: Courts in some states allow abusers to claim that the protective parent has “alienated” the child from them—even if the child is rejecting the parent due to abuse. This can result in custody reversals, punishments against the protective parent, and forced reunification. Or, even in states where “alienation” is passé or even banned, there may be substitute terms which mean essentially the same thing, i.e. “resist and refuse dynamics.”
Dangerous outcome: Protective mothers may lose custody for raising valid abuse concerns.
2. State Adoption of Kayden’s Law or Equivalent
Why it matters: States that have passed Kayden’s Law (or equivalent reforms) prioritize child safety over shared parenting ideals, limit unqualified expert testimony, and restrict dangerous reunification programs.
Safer states: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and others that mandate abuse hearings and judicial training. (See Danielle Pollack’s site for details on legislation)
3. Availability of Judicial Immunity Protections
Why it matters: In states where judges are highly shielded from lawsuits or oversight, courts may act with impunity—even in the face of clearly harmful rulings. This reduces accountability for judges who ignore abuse or dismiss protective parents. I recall attending a talk by the Center for Judicial Excellence, and they highlighted that in California, the wording says that even if a judge acted intentionally and with malice towards a litigant, they were still shielded by judicial immunity.
Dangerous outcome: No recourse for unjust custody decisions.
4. Presence of Reunification Programs (e.g., Family Bridges, Turning Points)
Why it matters: These programs—often based on pseudoscience—are used to reunite children with abusive parents by forcibly severing contact with the protective parent. States that allow or mandate these are highly dangerous. This is like the end of the line, the nuclear option, in what has already been a highly contested custody battle. If a child is taken for ‘reunification therapy’ they can be totally cut off from the protective parent and gaslit into disbelieving their own experiences, and coerced into accepting the parent they allege abused them.
Warning sign: Programs used despite denigration from mainstream science community.
5. Mandatory Shared Parenting or 50/50 Custody Laws
Why it matters: In states with presumptive 50/50 custody laws, judges may award shared custody even when one parent is abusive, under the assumption that both “deserve equal time.”
Risk: Courts may overlook abuse in favor of equal division.
6. Standard of Proof for Abuse Allegations in Family Court
Why it matters: Family courts use a lower “preponderance of evidence” standard, but some states effectively require near-criminal proof for abuse. This makes it extremely difficult for mothers to prove their children are at risk. (Dang, dang, double dang… I had just recently looked at a chart which included all the states and provided the definition for their preponderance of evidence standard… I’m pretty sure it was at the WomensLaw.org site but now I cannot find it. I will keep looking. And if you know the doc I’m referring to, please ping me!)
Dangerous outcome: Abuse allegations are minimized or dismissed as “unsubstantiated.”
7. Training Requirements for Judges and Custody Evaluators
Why it matters: In states with little or no training requirements on domestic violence, coercive control, or trauma, decision-makers may misinterpret abuse as high conflict, emotional instability, or manipulation.
Safer outcome: States that mandate training better protect survivors and children.
8. Whether Coercive Control is Recognized by Law
Why it matters: Some states (like Connecticut) have added coercive control to their legal definition of domestic violence. Recognizing non-physical abuse is key in assessing ongoing danger to children and parents.
Safer outcome: Emotional/ psychological abuse is factored into custody decisions.
9. History of Child Welfare/CPS Collaboration with Family Courts
Why it matters: In states where CPS and family courts operate in silos, abuse substantiations may be ignored in custody cases. In others, CPS may side with the abusive parent under pressure to maintain “family unity.”
Problem: Conflicting findings between agencies can undermine protective efforts.
10. Use of Gag Orders or Retaliatory Measures Against Protective Parents
Why it matters: In high-risk states, protective mothers may face gag orders, fines, or even jail for speaking publicly or trying to advocate for their child. These measures suppress reporting of judicial misconduct and systemic failure.
Red flag: Punishment for trying to protect one’s child.
11. Access to Legal Representation and Domestic Violence Services
Why it matters: States with underfunded legal aid or weak DV support infrastructure leave women without help navigating court, especially when the abuser is financially dominant.
Consequence: Self-represented survivors are at a major disadvantage.
12. Political Climate Around Fathers’ Rights and Domestic Violence
Why it matters: In some states, fathers’ rights groups have successfully lobbied for laws that frame women’s safety concerns as vindictive or destabilizing. Anti-feminist backlash often drives custody rulings.
Dangerous context: Cultural norms shape judicial attitudes.
13. Rate of Appeals Reversing Family Court Rulings
Why it matters: In some jurisdictions, the appeals process is so ineffective or inaccessible that dangerous custody rulings are rarely overturned—even when new evidence surfaces.
Warning sign: High reversal threshold + high judge discretion = entrenched disadvantage to protective parents.
14. Family Court Transparency and Public Access
Why it matters: Closed courtrooms and sealed transcripts make it hard for journalists, watchdogs, or the public to assess whether children are being protected. States with poor transparency see more cover-up and less accountability.
Example: Connecticut and New York have come under fire for secrecy in abuse cases.
15. Admissibility and Weight Given to Video or Audio Evidence
Why it matters: In many states, home video disclosures by children (even of abuse) are dismissed as hearsay or "coaching," especially if recorded by the protective parent. This undermines evidence that could be helpful.
Implication: Abusers walk free while protective parents are punished.
These are a couple variables, what are some others that should be added to the list?
I’d love to investigate these things since I’m really curious about the answers.
Here’s one source of info I just discovered for Texas: https://www.tpr.org/news/2025-03-31/database-charts-more-than-1-200-child-deaths-from-abuse-and-neglect-in-texas-between-2018-and-2023
Also https://childwelfaremonitor.org has some state specific info
Excellent writing! Thank you for your dedication. Another variable could be the selection of judges and the incidence (or lack of) judicial discipline. In SC, which - call me biased, but I do think it has got to be the worst - the judges are hand-picked by the legislators. Only VA (one other state of 50) does similar. This effectively chokes out separation of powers. To make it worse, the SC constitution was written in such a way that the governor has very little power… essentially legislators run the entire state.
Break that down further, approx 1/3 of them are attorneys, and many of them are committee chairs determining what bills can even progress.
Essentially, one small group of rogue attorneys runs the entire state. There has never been an impeachment of a state judge… it’s like anything goes.
There’s also no reporting of judicial discipline, though just this week, they promise that would change in November… but it’ll have redacted names of the judges.
The elite who can afford a lawyer legislator often do so to arrange a backroom deal or at least “favor.”
There is also (rarely!) the judge who goes against a lawyer legislator… career suicide will often be quick and humiliating.
Seems there is no bar too low for a S.C. judge. A couple of years ago, one was ostensibly (?) doing lines of cocaine with an atty when the atty died… they still let judge Bentley price work the remainder of his term. No drug tests for judges here…
Truly, they are awful here! One judge Deborah malphrus does her dogs’ toenails in court while presiding over abuse and neglect cases. I have a recording of her saying - in my hearing - that she would not consider perjury bc there was not a court order barring my ex from committing perjury.
Cannot
Make this up!