An Uneven Playing Field: Family Courts & the Cluster B Dilemma

Written By Fathers Anonymous

Family courts are supposedly tasked with making decisions in the “best interest” of children, yet they often operate in a complex psychological and social landscape that disproportionately maligns fathers via court rulings. A significant factor contributing to this imbalance is the court’s struggle to identify and address Cluster B personality disorders (e.g. borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, and antisocial personality disorders) which are frequently linked to parental alienation. These disorders, which research suggests are more prevalent in women, can manifest as manipulative behaviors that alienate children from one parent, typically the father. Compounding this issue is the psychological community’s shift toward affirmation over rigorous diagnosis, the inadvertent reinforcement of alienation by child therapists, and societal biases that misinterpret men’s emotional expression while underestimating women’s capacity for cunning and influence. This article explores how these factors create an unfair disadvantage for fathers, and ultimately their children, in family court and calls for an entirely different approach to custody disputes. And don’t worry, I shared an abundance of references down below.

Cluster B Personality Disorders and Parental Alienation

Cluster B personality disorders are characterized by dramatic, emotional, or erratic behaviors, often including manipulation, lack of empathy, and a need for control. In the context of family court, these traits can manifest as parental alienation (or “estrangement” for those that may care to minimize the end goal). Parental alienation is where one parent, often the mother but certainly not ALWAYS, systematically undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent. Amy J.L. Baker, a parental alienation expert, notes, “In most cases, the alienating parent is acting on feelings of hurt related to the divorce, which are not about the kids. Or that parent more than likely has an undiagnosed personality disorder that they’re inflicting onto other family members”. Research suggests that alienating parents may exhibit narcissistic or borderline traits, using children as tools to inflict pain on their ex-partner, often without regard for the child’s well-being.

While both men and women can engage in alienating behaviors, sources indicate a gender disparity. Studies cited in Psychology Today suggest that mothers are more likely to be identified as alienators in cases labeled as parental alienation syndrome (PAS), though this remains controversial due to the syndrome’s lack of recognition in the DSM-5. The National Institute of Health notes that Cluster B disorders, particularly borderline and histrionic personality disorders, have higher prevalence rates among women, with borderline personality disorder diagnosed in women at a rate of approximately 3:1 compared to men. This statistical trend, while not absolute, suggests that women with these disorders may disproportionately contribute to alienation dynamics in custody disputes.

Family courts, however, are often ill-equipped to diagnose or address these disorders. Bill Eddy, a family law specialist, explains, “Courts don’t understand personality disorders, yet personality disorders drive a lot of the high-conflict behavior in family court”. Judges and evaluators may lack the training to recognize subtle manipulative behaviors, such as gaslighting or emotional blackmail, which are hallmarks of Cluster B disorders. Instead, they may rely on surface level impressions, where the alienating parent’s charm and composure, common traits of narcissistic or histrionic personalities, contrast with the targeted parent’s distress, leading to biased judgments.

The Psychological Community’s Shift Toward Affirmation

The psychological community’s evolving approach to mental health further complicates accurate diagnosis. Historically, psychology emphasized observation, diagnosis, and evidence based treatment. However, recent trends, particularly in certain therapeutic circles, prioritize affirmation of a client’s narrative over critical analysis. This shift is evident in the controversy surrounding gender affirming care, where whistleblower Jamie Reed highlighted how some clinicians avoid challenging patients’ self-diagnoses to affirm their identities, even when evidence suggests otherwise. In family court, this trend can manifest as therapists accepting an alienating parent’s claims, or a child’s manipulated narrative, without scrutinizing underlying psychological issues.

This reluctance to diagnose Cluster B disorders stems partly from cultural pressures to avoid stigmatizing mental health conditions, particularly in women. Susan Heitler, a clinical psychologist, observes, “Alienators are usually quite charming to everyone on the outside,” which can mask their manipulative behaviors and make therapists hesitant to label them as disordered. As a result, alienating parents may evade accountability, while targeted parents face skepticism or misdiagnosis when they attempt to highlight the manipulation.

Child Therapists and the Reinforcement of Alienation

Child therapists, allegedly intended to advocate for the child’s “best interests”, can inadvertently reinforce alienation. Children manipulated by an alienating parent may present a scripted narrative, expressing fear or hostility toward the targeted parent that aligns with the alienator’s agenda. Therapists, lacking specialized training in parental alienation, may take these expressions at face value. Ashish Joshi, an attorney representing targeted parents, argues, “Therapy actually cements the hostility in alienation cases,” as therapists validate the child’s feelings without addressing the underlying manipulation. This validation can entrench the child’s alienation, as they feel empowered to reject the targeted parent without confronting the alienator’s influence.

The child’s voice, in these cases, is effectively silenced. As Loretta Maase, a parental alienation therapist, notes, “The child is caught in a loyalty bind, emotionally blackmailed into aligning with the alienating parent”. Therapists who fail to recognize this dynamic may misinterpret the child’s behavior as genuine, further alienating the targeted parent and undermining the court’s ability to make informed custody decisions.

Gendered Power Dynamics and Societal Biases

A critical yet often overlooked factor is the gendered power dynamic in family court. Men are traditionally associated with physical strength and stoicism, while women are perceived as nurturing but also capable of subtle to immense influence; a word for influence when it turns sour might be best known as: manipulation. This stereotype can disadvantage men when their emotional responses are scrutinized. If a father remains stoic, he may be labeled as cold or uncaring; if he expresses frustration after prolonged provocation, he risks being diagnosed as an “angry dad” with emotional regulation issues. Eddy highlights this double bind: “The alienated parent, meanwhile, is anxious, agitated and afraid. The disposition of a person could be based on the situation, and clinicians should not be making assumptions when the targeted parent is acting out”.

Conversely, women’s ability to exhibit manipulative behaviors are often underestimated. Articles like “Women Who Are Friendly on the Surface but Manipulative Underneath” outline tactics such as guilt-tripping, silent treatment, and relational aggression, which can be highly effective yet difficult to detect in court. Nicholas Ngatia, writing on Medium, describes how women may use emotional leverage to control situations, such as complimenting a man to influence his behavior, a tactic that can extend to manipulating children or court professionals. These behaviors align with Cluster B traits but are often dismissed as “normal” relational strategies, leaving men to face the consequences of being portrayed as the aggressor.

Societal biases exacerbate this issue. A 2014 survey by the National Center for Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health illustrates this problem: over 95% of respondents were women, skewing perceptions of abuse and manipulation as predominantly male driven. Such biased data can influence court evaluators, who may view mothers’ allegations of abuse as more credible than fathers’ claims of alienation, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
(For extra credit, you should look at the data in the analysis doc below for this study. I was shocked/not shocked at just how flagrantly disingenuous the study was when I read the leading questions while noting the context and purpose of the hotline.)

My Take on a Path Forward

The family court system’s mantra of acting in the “best interest of the child” has rung hollow for decades, failing to deliver equitable outcomes while perpetuating systemic biases against fathers. Courts and government agencies have proven incapable of accurately diagnosing complex psychological dynamics, such as Cluster B personality disorders or parental alienation, often prioritizing expediency over justice. Their reliance on outdated frameworks and susceptibility to manipulation by alienating parents, coupled with a refusal to acknowledge the gendered power dynamics of influence, demands a radical overhaul. Rather than entrusting a broken system to reform itself, the path forward lies in AT LEAST three concrete measures: legislating equal shared parenting as the default, subjecting allegations that may try to subvert the former point to severe scrutiny, and dismantling the bureaucratic and profit-driven machinery of family courts. I’m sure there will be no love lost for me from those that profiteer off the exploitation of fathers and those that facilitate family court sanctioned kidnapping.

First, equal shared parenting laws must replace the discretionary, bias prone custody determinations that dominate family courts. Research, such as a 2018 meta analysis by Linda Nielsen, demonstrates that children in shared parenting arrangements exhibit better emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes compared to those in sole custody, regardless of parental conflict. By mandating a 50-50 custody split as the starting point, unless evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT justifies deviation, courts can neutralize the advantage alienating parents gain through manipulation or false narratives. This approach sidesteps the court’s inability to reliably diagnose Cluster B disorders, while also ensuring that no parent lives in fear of losing custody due to a mental health diagnosis, which should never be weaponized absent evidence of harm to the child.

Second, allegations of abuse, neglect, or unfitness must face severe scrutiny to prevent their exploitation as tools of alienation. Alienating parents, often leveraging Cluster B traits, may fabricate or exaggerate claims to sway custody decisions, knowing courts rarely penalize false allegations. Research by Eugene Kanter, cited in a 2024 analysis of custody disputes, estimates that false allegations of abuse occur in 36% to 55% of contested custody cases, with up to 59% of these claims deemed deliberate fabrications by children or adolescents influenced by an alienating parent. Courts must adopt a zero tolerance policy for unsubstantiated claims, imposing sanctions or custody adjustments against accusers who, when demonstrably proven, manipulate the system. This requires rigorous evidentiary standards (corroborated testimony, documentation, or forensic evaluations) rather than accepting vague or emotionally charged accusations at face value. By prioritizing evidence over narrative, courts can protect children from being weaponized while ensuring targeted parents, often men, are not unfairly stripped of their rights.

Finally, the bureaucracy and big business of family courts must be dismantled. Family court systems, bloated with evaluators, mediators, and court appointed therapists, have become a profit driven industry that thrives on prolonged conflict. As attorney Ashish Joshi notes, “The family court system is a self-perpetuating machine that profits off misery”. High cost custody evaluations and psychological assessments, often conducted by professionals with inadequate training in parental alienation or Cluster B disorders, enrich a select few while draining families financially and emotionally. Streamlining the process through clear legislative mandates, like equal shared parenting, reduces the need for endless hearings and expert testimony. Furthermore, stripping courts of discretionary power limits the influence of biased or incompetent judges, who too often fall for the charm of manipulative parents or mislabel fathers as “angry” based on situational distress.

This path forward rejects the notion that courts or government or even the weaponized professionals can be trusted to fix themselves. Decades of failure under the “best interest” standard prove that incremental reforms are insufficient. Equal shared parenting, stringent scrutiny of allegations, and a leaner, less profit-driven system offer a framework that prioritizes fairness, protects children from manipulation, and ensures no parent is punished for a diagnosis, or a lack thereof, in the absence of proven harm.
Isn’t THAT in the “best interest of the child”?

David B
Fathers Anonymous

Fathers Anonymous https://www.fathersanon.org
Previous

From Pain to Purpose: Fathers Anonymous’s Early Roots of Resilience
Next

Brokenness Before and After Relationship Collapse