A judge in a child custody matter allowed the forced and unannounced removal of children from their custodial mother so they could enter a “reunification” program with the estranged father.
The Wall Street Journal on August 24 reported on the case of Tori Nielsen, aged 16, and her brother, aged 12. An unnamed judge in Ventura County, California authorized four strangers to whisk the siblings into a van and bring them to an offsite, four-day “reunification” program with their father. The children were then barricaded in a room to await the meeting.
The children were unable to contact their mother after they were taken away and the mother was unable to contact them. The mother was not allowed to reconnect with her children until two years later when the daughter turned 18. The father had argued in court that the mother was poisoning the children’s minds against him.
Broken-Family Industry
Reunification therapy has become a growing business as divorce rates rise and parents tangle over physical and legal custody of their children. Family courts may assign such programs when parents cannot work together, and family court guidelines promote the idea that children deserve a chance to bond with both mother and father, usually by establishing a visitation schedule.
Building Family Bridges, the program used in the Nielsen case, was one of the first companies to get into the reunification business, in 1991. The company receives referrals from courts, child custody evaluators, therapists, counselors, attorneys, and “child representatives,” the company’s website states.
The four-day program which the company calls an “educational and experiential workshop” is aimed at “children who reject a parent after divorce, who refuse or resist contact with a parent, or treat a parent with contempt,” states the website, “without the presence of the other parent.”
The program is not therapy or counseling but “an educational experience based on scientifically established concepts and procedures,” states the website.
The parent who requests the program pays the fee. The website does not state the costs.
‘Vulnerable Participants’
Tori Nielsen told the Journal she and her brother resisted meeting with their father because of his temper. Nielsen described the time away from her mother, and tactics by Building Family Bridges staff members, as something she had to survive.
“I tried to numb myself to what was happening,” Nielsen told the Journal. “But that only worked for so long because it all absolutely destroyed me.”
The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) published an analysis of treatment intervention ordered by courts earlier this year.
Reviewing the history of court involvement and forced reunification therapy, the FCVFC noted the courts “preside over a captive audience of vulnerable participants where assets of wealth and property, as well as children, are subject to court authority,” and found “family court, unrestrained … has been allowed to excise unlawful detention, sloppy legal processes, and the manipulation of so-called experts approved by the courts.”
Courts have used their power to “extort a financial advantage over subjects … [through] unlawful practices which have combined and conspired to deprive innocent subjects of lawful defenses and the ability to protect children,” the analysis states.
New Protections
Testifying before Arizona lawmakers earlier this year, Tori Nielsen helped convince them to ban reunification programs that prevent contact with the favored parent unless both parents agree. Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) signed the bill into law in April.
New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Utah also enacted legislation to limit court-ordered reunification therapy, requiring added scrutiny of such programs. California and Colorado halted the use of such programs in 2023.
The federal government, under the Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act, now provides federal funds to states to improve child custody laws to protect children including limits on court-ordered reunification programs.
Government Overreach
The controversy over family reunification treatment programs is an example of increasing government control of family life, says educator and family rights expert Larry Sand.
“This is a classic example of the therapeutic state at work,” said Sand. “Traditionally, the family, unless flagrant child abuse is apparent, has had the final say in issues that affect their kids.”
In California, government intrusion into family life became obvious earlier this year with the passage of AB 1955, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on July 15, says Sand.
“This deplorable legislation bars school districts from requiring staff to notify parents if their child decides to change their gender,” said Sand. “But even California now has passed a law restricting unification treatment.”
As a Minnesota licensed marriage and family therapist, Ben Baker has provided therapy for a family that previously participated in reunification therapy.
“In general, if a parent proves, over an extended period, to be a safe adult and responsive to the physical, emotional, and relational needs of a child, then a parent-child relationship can be repaired,” said Baker. “For a child to regain trust that a caregiver is safe and responsive can be a time-intensive and delicate process.”
Rough Justice
Nielsen told the Journal her experience with the system was anything but delicate. The separation from her mother was abrupt, and the court failed to consider her wishes.
“Though situations vary widely, the developmental needs of a child, level of environmental support, mental health status, trauma history, and the willingness of both the parent and child contribute to the effectiveness of family therapy,” said Baker. “A competent and ethical therapist would keep these factors in mind.”
Ashley Bateman (bateman.ae@googlemail.com) writes from Virginia.
