Why Protective Separation Isn’t Extreme; It’s Evidence-Based

A respectful and direct letter to GALs, evaluators, attorneys, and judges who want to do what’s right but fear stepping beyond what’s familiar

If you're a Guardian ad Litem, custody evaluator, family law attorney, or judge, this letter is for you.

We see you. We respect your role. And we understand the impossible choices you’re often asked to make—based on incomplete information, biased reporting, and systems that prioritize neutrality over discernment.

But we also know this:Inaction in the face of psychological child abuse isn’t neutral. It’s harmful.

Why You’re Hesitating

In almost every reunification case we consult on, there’s a moment where a professional—maybe you—asks this question:

“Isn’t this too extreme?”

You’re talking about the High Road protocol. Specifically, the 90-day no-contact protective separation. The shift in custody. The supervised reset.

We get it. It feels like a leap. And you were trained to proceed with caution. To look for consensus. To avoid disruption.

But here’s what you weren’t trained to see: the cumulative trauma of doing nothing.

This Isn’t a Custody Issue—It’s a Child Protection Issue

When a child is aligned with one parent and irrationally rejects the other—despite no abuse, neglect, or endangerment—it’s not a high-conflict divorce.It’s not just a strained relationship.It’s a relational trauma. A psychological split. A distortion of the child’s identity and developmental reality.

If you knew that a child was being covertly groomed into rejecting their mother, or being manipulated to fear their father based on false narratives, would you still call it a “custody dispute”?

Or would you call it what it is: emotional abuse?

The Elephant in the Courtroom: Piques Law, Kayden’s Law, and Misunderstood Reform

We are not in the business of harming children. We are in the business of protecting them—all of them, all the time. On this, we are fully aligned with the spirit of every reform movement that seeks to prevent further tragedy in family court.

But while the intentions behind these laws are commendable, their application has often been one-sided. They too frequently miss one of the most malignant forms of child abuse: coercive psychological abuse.

These laws are frequently written and interpreted through the lens of physical or overt abuse, leaving covert psychological manipulation undetected, unaddressed, and unrestricted. As a result, they sometimes cause the very harm they seek to prevent—by leaving children with the parent who is engaging in psychological domination and erasing the other parent.

What must evolve is not the intention to protect children, but the framework of what qualifies as abuse—and how we intervene when that abuse is emotional, invisible, and systemically reinforced.

We are fully aware of the legal reforms sweeping through family law in response to tragedies and abuses in the system. “Piqui’s Law prohibits courts from ordering children into reunification camps.” “Under Kayden’s Law, courts are mandated to prioritize child safety in custody decisions;”  and Om's Law in Utah in enhancing child safety within custody cases. guidelines. Each with a clear goal: to protect children from harm.

And yet these reforms are often misapplied—used to block safe, effective interventions like High Road out of fear or misunderstanding.

Let us be absolutely clear:

High Road to Family Reunification is NOT a Reunification Camp

• We do not remove children from their families and send them to isolated programs.
• We are not warehousing children.
• We are not separating them from both parents.
• We follow the strict guidelines laid out by the court in child protection cases.
• We don't make child protection or custody decisions these are made by the court and protection agencies.

High Road is a family-facilitated, child-protective workshop, that can be facilitated in response to child protection orders. The workshop is conducted over four days, where the protective parent is fully present and engaged with the child/ren. The purpose is to interrupt the delusion—not to punish the child.

And what happens afterward is not ambiguous:

• 90 days of protective separation, monitored by the treating mental health professionals and court.
• Daily behavior tracking and relationship rating
• Family systems therapy facilitated by trained clinicians who work with each parent individually before reintroducing shared sessions
• No reintegration until a clinician—under the guidance of the Court, not the targeted parent, determines the child’s authentic self has been restored and it is safe to proceed.
• Restore- Shared parenting when possible 

This mirrors the exact flow of a child protective services model for all forms of abuse:

1. Protect
2. Reeducate (High Road workshop)
3. Rehabilitate (family systems therapy)
4. Reintegration (monitored and gradual)

And always—always—in service of the best interests of the child: that they are safe to love and be loved by both parents, when both parents are psychologically safe. Again, we should protect all abused children all of the time. 

The Worst-Case Scenarios:

Let’s name the three most damaging outcomes we’ve seen when the courts delay or deny protective intervention:

1. What Happens When We Don’t Intervene Properly. This is the most common and most insidious failure: the child is left with the abusive, pathogenic parent. Professionals, out of fear of making the wrong call, choose to do nothing—and in doing so, leave the child in a psychologically unsafe environment. The child remains enmeshed, isolated from one safe parent, and taught to mistrust their own instincts. Over time, the trauma is cemented, normalized, and passed on.
2. The pathogenic parent refuses to participate—abandoning the child entirely when their ability to control or manipulate the narrative is removed. This abandonment is not the result of protective intervention—it is the pathological parent’s choice. And while it is heartbreaking, it reveals the truth of the dynamic: the child was being used as a psychological pawn. The abandonment does not damage the child—the lie does. When courts uphold boundaries and stand firm in protection, children heal. When courts accommodate the abuser out of fear of abandonment, the pathology wins, and the child suffers.
3. The pathogenic parent abducts the child—physically or psychologically. Whether they flee the jurisdiction or exploit indirect contact to reestablish emotional dominance, the result is the same: the child is pulled back into an enmeshed, coercive psychological reality, and the rejection of the protective parent resumes. When courts fail to uphold protective orders, they don’t just allow the pathology to win—they allow the abuse to continue unchallenged. And not just in this generation. This dynamic, left unaddressed, replicates itself across generations. Today’s enmeshed child becomes tomorrow’s pathogenic or rejected parent. Silence in the face of this abuse is not neutrality—it is complicity.

This is not theoretical. These are real children, in real cases. And every time it happens, it’s because the legal system chose hesitation over protection.

The Science You’re Looking For Already Exists

Before continuing, let’s address the widespread use of misleading terminology. The terms "parental alienation" and "resist-refuse dynamics" are often used to soften or neutralize what is, in reality, psychological child abuse. These euphemisms create confusion in the courtroom, give cover to pathogenic behavior, and place undue scrutiny on the rejected parent rather than identifying the true source of harm.

Instead of using language that obscures the issue, it is essential to call it what it is: coercive psychological abuse resulting in relational trauma.

Children do not arbitrarily resist safe, loving parents. They are conditioned to do so through subtle yet powerful influence by a parent engaging in psychological abuse.

Professionals must stop tolerating vague language and begin naming the clinical reality. Only then can effective, evidence-based interventions take root.

You may be waiting for randomized controlled trials. You may want APA-endorsed studies. You may feel unqualified to recommend what you haven’t been trained in.

But here’s what we know:

• The Single Case ABAB Reversal Design used in High Road to Family Reunification is a validated behavioral science method.
• The protocol has over a decade of documented outcomes, including measurable turnarounds in child behavior, attachment restoration, and affect regulation.
• When the pathogenic parent is removed from the child’s environment, psychological abuse symptoms and behaviors in the child disappear within days.
• When reintroduced too soon, those behaviors return. That’s causality. That’s evidence.

And it matches what cult deprogramming experts, trauma clinicians, and child development researchers have already said for years: You cannot heal inside the environment that caused the wound.

What Happens When You Do Nothing

When the courts delay action:

• The child’s rejection deepens
• The targeted parent becomes desperate, reactive, or disengaged
• The pathogenic parent is emboldened
• Traditional therapy fails
• The case becomes more polarized

And then—when it finally comes back across your desk—you feel even less empowered to act.

"Consensus is not a prerequisite for protective action. The best available data must guide decision-making when a child’s psychological safety is at stake." -Dorcy Pruter

We’re Not Asking You to Gamble—We’re Offering You a Roadmap

This isn’t about picking sides. It’s about removing children from psychological harm, documenting their recovery, and only reintroducing the other parent once the child’s authentic voice has returned.

We don’t just shift custody. We stabilize behavior, log daily relational data, and train both parents in post-reunification protocols.

We give you what no other intervention offers: clarity.

What Must Be Considered Now

1. Study the ABAB Reversal Design protocol—not as theory, but as the operational backbone of behavioral interventions in cases of entrenched psychological manipulation.
2. Examine the case documentation and outcomes—follow the trajectory of children who were protected, and those who were not.
3. Weigh the consequences—not in terms of court optics or parental rights, but in terms of the child’s long-term relational, psychological, and developmental health.

Decisions made in this moment either interrupt abuse or allow it to root deeper. This is the threshold of generational change—or generational repetition.

We’re not here to disrupt due process. We’re here to disrupt the dysfunction that has gone unchecked in high-conflict family systems for far too long.

If You’re Ready to Act

👉 Download our clinical framework and research summary

👉 Refer a case for evaluation

👉 Or reach out directly to consult on a current matter

We’re here to support you. Not challenge your authority—but equip it.

Let’s do what works. Let’s protect children from what we can no longer ignore.