Written by Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq. in Child Custody, Coercive Control, Family Law, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome
Written by Sally Vazquez Castellanos, Esq., Shareholder and Attorney at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, located in Los Angeles, California. Editor and Author of It’s Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law and Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection Law.
Published on Friday, May 16, 2025. Revised on May 18, 2025.
In high-conflict custody litigation, courtroom narratives are shaped by power, persuasion, and presentation. Nowhere is this more evident than in cases where a parent or guardian with a background in law enforcement–or strong institutional ties–offers a confident, well-supported version of events that characterizes the other parent or guardian as emotionally unstable, irrational, or controlling.
Legal Recognition of Coercive Control in California
In recent years, California expanded the definition of domestic abuse to include coercive control, which is described as a nonphysical form of abuse involving a pattern of behavior that interferes with individual autonomy, liberty, and psychological well-being.
The legislative intent behind the Family Code’s inclusion of coercive control is that it is an important legal recognition that abuse is not limited to physical acts, but that there are times that it may extend to psychological and emotional control that can have a serious impact on the targeted parent and the children involved. Today, psychological and emotional abuse can extend to technology abuse.
Parental alienation is often referred to as a psychological theory and in a much broader sense — a legal concept. It’s also viewed as a strategy in custody litigation.
For example, when claims of parental alienation are made preemptively, bolstered by professional therapists or psychologists, who present documented evidence of psychological manipulation, the court should proceed cautiously.
Court’s increasingly recognize the need for trauma-informed training for judicial officers and others dealing with parental alienation. I might add that the legal system as a whole must become better informed about all aspects of technology abuse.
Parental alienation is seen in situations where one parent or guardian manipulates a child to unjustifiably reject or resist contact with the other parent or guardian.
This is a legal strategy that can be used as a shield or a sword. Judicial officers and child custody evaluators need to be trained to discern some of the subtleties in behavior and testimony.
Parental alienation is not easily discernible in high-conflict custody proceedings involving a parent or guardian who is accustomed to using psychological manipulation. I believe this behavior is not uncommon among those who are skillful at using psychology to manipulate others.
Judicial officers and child custody evaluators need to be trained to discern some of the subtleties in behavior and testimony. I do believe similar parallels may be found in cases where bias and discrimination is integral to the judicial officer’s decision-making process.
In some cases, the parent or guardian alleging parental alienation may be engaged in coercive control and narrative manipulation. This may obscure a child’s emotional reality, as well as the protective role of the other parent or guardian.
Custody in a Digital Age: Disputes Over Technology and Education
Consider a custody dispute in Los Angeles County:
- One parent or guardian favors a classical, low-tech education, seeking to delay or control cellphone usage and a reduction in screen time. Their position is rooted in the health and safety of the child and concerns over technology use. They have stricter standards on how a child should be educated. They are skeptical of unfettered technology use by the child which the other parent or guardian supports. Meanwhile, the parent or guardian is not responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the child at a school that is technology driven.
- The other parent or guardian, who has law enforcement or government ties, that advocates for a technology-driven academic environment also argues that digital access is essential for social and educational success. The technology driven school district requires a smartphone.
When the child resists screen-heavy environments and expresses anxiety, the tech-favoring parent or guardian files an OSC alleging parental alienation-claiming that the other parent or guardian is coercing the child into rejecting modern tools and rejecting the other parent or guardian.
But upon closer review, the behavior may not reflect parental alienation. It may be that the child is overstimulated, anxious, or is undergoing a more subtle form of psychological pressure. This is trauma-informed judicial training. Where understanding subtleties in behavior and testimony is extremely difficult to ascertain. Or, it could be something else.
What California Law Actually Requires
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)– is a specific diagnosis that is used to describe the child’s symptoms after parental alienation occurred. The systems are typically described as intense negativity towards the parent or guardian that is targeted by the other parent or guardian; Or, any other party petitioning for a change in custody, and the refusal to engage in any positive interactions with the targeted parent or guardian.
Parental Alienation Syndrome has been widely discredited for the lack of empirical evidence. PAS is not recognized as a formal diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013.
However, actual alienating conduct may be considered under the best interest of the child standard, which is codified in California Family Code §§ 3020 and 3011. These statutes guide the Court in their analyses in a custody proceeding, which includes:
- Prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the child above all else (Please see § 3020(a));
- Promote frequent and continuing contact with both parents, unless the contact would be contrary to the child’s best interests–such as in cases involving abuse, coercive control, or manipulation (§ 3020(c));
- Consider history of abuse, emotional well-being, and the child’s developmental needs (§ 3011)
To support a parental alienation claim, the accusing parent must offer credible, admissible evidence of:
- Intentional interference with visitation or communication
- Repeated disparagement or manipulation of the child’s perception of the other parent
- Coaching or undue influence on the child’s preferences
- Absent such evidence, courts should not presume alienation, particularly when a child’s resistance reflects trauma, anxiety, or psychological discomfort.
Institutional Advantage and Strategic Framing
Parents or guardians with law enforcement or governmental backgrounds may appear more credible in court, often presenting their arguments with legal structure and emotional control. When paired with therapists or court evaluators who support their position–whether knowingly or not–these parents or guardians may effectively curate a persuasive narrative casting doubt on the credibility of other testimony.
This dynamic becomes more complex when technology-related decisions are involved. The parent or guardian who limits screen time, postpones cellphone access, or who opposes or is cautious about technology is characterized as controlling–even when acting in the child’s developmental interest or after taking on the role of the protective parent in this particular scenario.
Conclusion: The Importance of Trauma-Informed Judicial Training
In modern custody litigation, strategic use of psychological language and institutional credibility can make it difficult for the court to discern a child’s living conditions. When one parent or guardian is equipped with legal sophistication, obtains professional allies, and has positional authority, it becomes essential that courts apply a trauma-informed lens and rely on psychological and statutory guidance.
The child’s emotional health, developmental capacity, and long-term safety should remain the focus of the hearing.
References:
- Michael Friedman, Ph.D., “Parental Alienation Is Real but Remains Hard to Prove,” Psychology Today, April 17, 2023.
- Please see: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ): Recommended against using “parental alienation” as a formal diagnosis or a basis for changing custody without clear, corroborated evidence of abuse or harm.
NCJFCJ Resolution (2016):
“The NCJFCJ does not support the use of parental alienation syndrome or parental alienation as a basis for denying custody, especially when abuse is alleged.”
NCJFCJ Position Statement (2016):
- Parental Alienation Syndrome Not Recognized by Major Diagnostic Authorities. Not in the DSM-5.
Fair Use Notice:
This article includes references to publicly available legal standards and third-party commentary solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not intended as legal advice. For legal counsel, please consult a qualified attorney.
SPECIAL COPYRIGHT AND NEURAL PRIVACY NOTICE
© 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.
Notice to All Persons, Entities, and Systems—Human or Machine, Governmental or Private:
The entirety of this platform—including all expressions, prompts, intellectual output, symbolic language, narrative structures, and thematic concepts—is the protected intellectual property of Sally Castellanos. These works reflect original cognitive labor, emotional authorship, and narrative agency, and are safeguarded under U.S. and international copyright law, as well as emerging principles of neural privacy and cognitive liberty.
Any unauthorized use, mimicry, simulation, extraction, analysis, reproduction, profiling, or redirection of this content or identity—whether by a human user, artificial intelligence system, neural network, or state actor—may constitute:
Violation of Title 17, U.S. Copyright Code Unlawful deprivation of rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Intrusion upon cognitive autonomy and neural privacy Tortious interference with business, authorship, and reputation Violation of international human rights instruments, including the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This prohibition includes—but is not limited to—use in:
Surveillance, behavioral modeling, or psychographic targeting Government or corporate-run experiments (classified or otherwise) AI or LLM training without affirmative, informed consent Social engineering, synthetic media reproduction, or simulated likeness Psychological operations or manipulative content generation, à la Her or Inception.
Cease and Desist Directive
You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from any unauthorized use, manipulation, or extraction of content, metadata, biometric signals, behavioral cues, or neuro-symbolic patterns derived from or associated with this work or author. Any continued interference will be treated as a violation of fundamental constitutional and human rights and may give rise to civil and/or criminal liability.
Affirmation of Rights
The author asserts all moral, creative, and legal rights to her work, including the right to narrate her own experience without coercion, distortion, or appropriation. No form of silence, latency, or publication shall be interpreted as waiver or consent.
For legal correspondence or notice of use requests, contact: