Legislative Straw Men – How Texas H.B. No. 3783 – Safe Haven Act, Kayden’s Law, and Piquis Law Obscure Parental Alienation as Psychological Abuse
Parental alienation (PA), a form of psychological child abuse, involves one parent manipulating a child to reject the other, causing significant emotional harm. Unlike physically abused children, who maintain attachment to their abusive parents (Baker et al., 2019), alienated children reject the targeted parent due to brainwashing and loyalty conflicts.
Legislative efforts like Texas H.B. No. 3783 – the Safe Haven Act, Kayden’s Law, and Piquis Law construct straw man arguments by exaggerating risks in reunification programs, diverting attention from the alienating parent’s abuse.
This article analyzes these laws, integrating findings from Baker et al. (2019), Clawar and Rivlin (2013), an independent audit of the Turning Points for Families (TPFF) program by Harman et al. (2021), and research by Harman, Bernet, Lorandos, and others.
It refutes claims that removing children from alienating parents is harmful, citing evidence supporting temporary no-contact orders and intensive reunification therapy in severe PA cases, and addresses science denial tactics by Kayden’s Law advocates.
The article argues that these laws gaslight the public, undermine evidence-based interventions, and perpetuate harm by ignoring the distinct abuse of alienation.
Understanding Parental Alienation
Parental alienation occurs when one parent manipulates a child to reject the other without legitimate cause, using tactics such as denigration or restricting contact.
Recognized as psychological child abuse, it causes profound emotional harm, including anxiety, depression, and loyalty conflicts (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Baker, 2007).
In contrast, Baker et al. (2019) found that physically abused children, even those adjudicated for severe abuse, exhibit attachment-enhancing behaviors toward their abusive parents, rarely rejecting them.
This distinction highlights alienation’s unique dynamics, where rejection stems from manipulative brainwashing rather than the child’s natural attachment instincts.
Severe alienation requires a court’s removal from the abusing and alienating parent, no-contact orders with the alienating parent, and intensive reunification therapy to protect children.
However, H.B. No. 3783 – the Safe Haven Act, Kayden’s Law, and Piquis Law misrepresent reunification programs as dangerous, constructing straw man arguments that ignore the alienating parent’s abuse.
Kayden’s Law, in particular, is driven by advocates who deny PA’s scientific validity, aiming to eliminate its recognition in family courts.
This article examines these legislative efforts, their gaslighting tactics, the necessity of no-contact orders and intensive reunification therapy, and the robust evidence supporting interventions like TPFF, emphasizing the need to address alienation as a distinct form of abuse.
Parental Alienation – Scientific Foundation
Parental Alienation is Supported by Extensive Research
Clawar and Rivlin (2013)
In Children Held Hostage, they analyzed over 1,000 cases, identifying 12 brainwashing techniques (e.g., vilification, fear induction) that distort children’s perceptions, creating a “hostage” dynamic that constitutes psychological abuse.
Baker (2007)
Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome documents long-term effects, including identity disruption and emotional distress.
Warshak (2010)
Divorce Poison outlines manipulative strategies causing loyalty conflicts.
Bernet et al. (2016)
In “Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress” (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry), they describe CAPRD (DSM-5 V61.29), noting that disparagement leads to loyalty conflicts and alienation.
Harman et al. (2022)
In “Developmental Psychology and the Scientific Status of Parental Alienation” (Developmental Psychology), they reviewed 29 studies, confirming alienation’s scientific validity.
Lorandos and Bernet (2020)
Parental Alienation – Science and Law provides intervention frameworks.
Harman and Matthewson (2020)
In Parental Alienation – Science and Law, they liken alienation to coercive control.
Fidler and Bala (2010)
Children Resisting Post-Separation Contact emphasizes loyalty conflicts as a primary harm.
Baker, Miller, Bernet, and Adabeyo (2019)
In “The Assessment of the Attitudes and Behaviors about Physically Abused Children” (Journal of Child and Family Studies), a survey of 338 clinicians found that physically abused children exhibit significantly more attachment-enhancing (AE) behaviors (e.g., minimizing abuse, self-blame) than attachment-disrupting (AD) behaviors (e.g., refusing contact, rudeness) toward abusive parents, with 83.6% showing a preponderance of AE behaviors.
LEARN MORE: The Assessment of the Attitudes and Behaviors about Physically Abused Children
This was true for both moderately and severely abused children, rated specifically or generally, with AE scores significantly higher (e.g., specific severely abused: AE M=19.6, SD M=11.5, p<0.001). Younger children showed stronger AE behaviors, likely due to developmental dependence.
Contrast with Alienation
Unlike physically abused children, alienated children reject the targeted parent due to the alienating parent’s brainwashing (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013). Baker et al. (2019) suggest that physically abused children maintain attachments due to hard-wired survival mechanisms (Bowlby, 1969), reinforced by cognitive distortions like self-blame.
In alienation, manipulative tactics override these instincts, inducing rejection. This distinction underscores alienation as a unique form of abuse, driven by the alienating parent’s coercive control (Harman & Matthewson, 2020).
Parental Alienation Recognition in Professional Contexts
- The American Psychological Association’s 2022 Guidelines for Custody Evaluations mentions alienation over 20 times, emphasizing diverse expert input and distinguishing valid from false allegations.
- Kaplan and Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (10th ed.) discusses PA as child maltreatment.
- The American Academy of Forensic Psychology includes PA in its child custody evaluation training.
- The AFCC and NCJFCJ’s 2022 Joint Statement on Parent-Child Contact Problems recognizes PA as a factor in custody decisions.
- PA is included in the DSM-5 under CAPRD (V61.29) and was found material in 1,181 U.S. appellate court cases from 1985-2018.
Parental Alienation Varies in Severity
Mild to Moderate – Manageable with counseling.
Severe – Requires no-contact orders and intensive therapy.
Necessity of No-Contact Orders and Intensive Reunification Therapy
Severe parental alienation demands robust intervention due to its nature as psychological child abuse, causing profound harm through brainwashing and loyalty conflicts.
Clawar and Rivlin (2013) argue that the alienating parent’s persistent manipulation creates a psychological hostage situation, necessitating no-contact orders to halt ongoing abuse.
Bernet et al. (2016) highlight loyalty conflicts as a key harm, alleviated by removing the alienating parent’s influence.
Baker et al. (2019) show that, unlike physically abused children who maintain attachment to their abuser, alienated children’s rejection is induced by manipulation, requiring no-contact orders to restore natural attachment.
Why No-Contact Orders Are Necessary
The alienating parent’s continuous influence perpetuates psychological abuse, reinforcing the child’s distorted beliefs and rejection. No-contact orders interrupt this toxic dynamic, providing a safe space for the child to process their feelings without manipulation.
Ashish Joshi (2020) cites Martin v. Martin (Michigan, 2020), where the court upheld a no-contact order to protect the child from the alienating parent’s “psychologically very dangerous” behaviors.
Templer et al. (2017) and Warshak (2020b) support temporary no-contact orders as a necessary measure to counter PA’s toxic effects when other interventions fail, ensuring the child’s safety and mental health.
Without such orders, children risk “re-alienation,” reverting to rejection behaviors (Warshak, 2010).
Why Intensive Reunification Therapy Is Necessary
Severe PA’s deep psychological impact—marked by entrenched false beliefs, emotional trauma, and complete rejection of the targeted parent—requires specialized, structured interventions beyond traditional therapy.
Programs like TPFF and Family Bridges address these issues through evidence-based methods, rebuilding trust and communication with the targeted parent.
Harman et al. (2021) audited TPFF, finding an 82% reunification rate among 47 severely alienated children, with improved well-being and reduced loyalty conflicts, and no evidence of harm.
LEARN MORE: Evaluation of the Turning Points for Families (TPFF) program for severely alienated children
Kelly (2010) praises Family Bridges for its empirical foundation, using multi-media learning and social science research to foster healthy family dynamics.
The severity of the child’s alienation, driven by brainwashing (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013), necessitates this intensive approach to counteract manipulated beliefs, address emotional damage, and restore the parent-child bond, which traditional counseling cannot achieve in severe cases (Reay, 2015; Templer et al., 2016).
These programs provide a neutral, supportive environment to help children create a cohesive, hopeful narrative, aligning with their need for dual-parent relationships (Fabricius, 2020).
Effectiveness and Refuting Harm Claims
Research by Templer et al. (2016, 2017) and Warshak (2020b) validates temporary custody transfer to the targeted parent, coupled with no-contact orders, as effective in severe PA cases, countering claims that such measures are more traumatic than alienation.
Fabricius (2020), Kruk (2013), and Nielsen (2018) emphasize that maintaining relationships with both parents is critical for post-divorce adjustment, and no peer-reviewed study documents harm from custody reversal (Joshi, 2020; Warshak, 2015).
Adults who reconciled with a parent report positive outcomes, while those allowed to reject a parent regret it (Baker, 2005). Critics’ claims of trauma misapply attachment theory, ignoring the benefits of moving children to a loving parent’s care (Joshi, 2020).
Legislative Overview
H.B. No. 3783
H.B. No. 3783 amends Section 153.010 of the Texas Family Code, regulating court-ordered counseling.
It mandates consideration of family violence, prohibits joint victim-perpetrator counseling, and bans practices like isolating children, requiring out-of-state stays, or changing possession schedules (Subsection (d)). It applies to pending and future cases, allowing modification of prior orders.
Safe Haven Act
The proposed Safe Haven Act in Texas, linked to H.B. No. 3783, prioritizes physical abuse allegations and restricts interventions like reunification therapy.
By framing such programs as harmful, it gaslights the public, leveraging fear to obscure alienation’s psychological abuse.
Kayden’s Law
Enacted in states like Pennsylvania, Kayden’s Law, part of the 2022 Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, prioritizes physical abuse and domestic violence. It implies courts routinely ignore abuse, exaggerating systemic flaws while sidelining alienation.
Advocates aim to abolish PA claims in family courts, denying its scientific validity.
Kayden’s Law advocates for restrictive custody regulations, claiming courts routinely overlook physical abuse, a stance that exaggerates judicial shortcomings while disregarding safeguards like Texas Family Code Section 153.004.
It often labels parental alienation (PA) as “junk science” or mere conflict, dismissing its established role as psychological abuse, supported by Baker et al. (2019) and over 200 empirical studies in Developmental Psychology (2022).
Danielle Pollack, Policy Manager at the National Family Violence Law Center and a key driving force behind Kayden’s Law across the United States, seeks to eliminate PA claims by promoting training that brands PA as pseudoscience and restricting related experts and reunification therapies.
Despite her influence, Pollack lacks advanced training or clinical experience in psychology, psychiatry, or family therapy, and has no peer-reviewed publications or engagement with the extensive scientific literature validating PA.
Critics of Ms. Pollack’s efforts to promote misinformation, such as Linda Gottlieb, argue that Pollack’s ideologically motivated position ignores robust evidence, including the American Psychological Association’s 2022 guidelines, the DSM-5’s acknowledgment of PA-related issues, and 1,181 U.S. appellate cases affirming PA’s legal relevance, underscoring concerns about her qualifications to shape critical family policy.
LEARN MORE: Danielle Pollack Harms and Exploits Children – Exposed!
Piquis Law
Proposed in California, Piquis Law restricts custody for parents with abuse allegations, emphasizing judicial training. It suggests courts favor abusive parents, misrepresenting judicial processes and marginalizing alienation’s harm.
Like Kayden’s Law, it advocates for restrictive custody regulations, claiming courts routinely overlook physical abuse, exaggerating judicial shortcomings while disregarding safeguards like Texas Family Code Section 153.004.
Piquis Law frequently dismisses parental alienation (PA) as “junk science,” despite its recognition as psychological abuse in studies like Baker et al. (2019) and over 200 empirical studies in Developmental Psychology (2022).
This stance ignores the American Psychological Association’s 2022 guidelines, DSM-5 inclusion, and 1,181 U.S. appellate cases recognizing PA’s relevance.
Straw Man Arguments in Legislation
A straw man argument is a rhetorical fallacy where an opponent’s position is misrepresented, exaggerated, or oversimplified to make it easier to attack, diverting focus from the real issue. It involves:
Misrepresentation – Inaccurately portraying the position.
Ease of Attack – Creating a weak, indefensible version.
Diversion – Distracting from the actual argument.
Intentional or Unintentional – Arising from manipulation or misunderstanding.
Structure
Person A presents a position.
Person B misrepresents it as weaker or different.
Person B attacks the misrepresentation, avoiding the original content.
Example
Original – “Invest in renewable energy with a gradual transition.”
Straw Man – “Shut down all fossil fuels immediately.”
Attack – Critique the immediate shutdown, ignoring the gradual approach.
Straw man arguments undermine discourse, mislead audiences, and polarize debates by creating false dichotomies.
Application to Reunification Therapy and Parental Alienation
These laws construct straw man arguments by misrepresenting reunification programs, judicial processes, and PA science, often with the intent to eliminate PA recognition in family courts:
Misrepresentation – H.B. No. 3783 and Safe Haven Act
Imply programs like TPFF isolate children, force out-of-state stays, or use coercion, suggesting they endanger children. Harman’s audit (2021) disproves this, showing TPFF’s safety and 82% reunification success.
Critics portray reunification therapy as “forcing children to live with abusive parents” or “brainwashing them to love a hated parent,” when it is a child-centered, evidence-based process that addresses alienation’s psychological harm, not substantiated abuse (Harman et al., 2021).
The claim that removing a child from an alienating parent is harmful and more traumatic than exposure to alienating behaviors is another misrepresentation.
Research by Fabricius (2020), Kruk (2013), and Nielsen (2018) shows that maintaining meaningful relationships with both parents is critical for children’s post-divorce adjustment, and Templer et al. (2016, 2017) and Warshak (2020b) demonstrate that temporary custody transfer to the alienated parent in severe PA cases, with restricted or no contact to the alienating parent, is effective and necessary when other interventions fail, countering the toxic effects of PA without causing greater harm.
Joshi (2020) notes that courts, as in Martin v. Martin (Michigan, 2020), recognize that no-contact orders protect children from psychological abuse, contradicting claims of trauma.
Kayden’s and Piquis Laws
Suggest courts routinely ignore physical abuse, necessitating restrictive custody rules. This exaggerates judicial flaws, ignoring safeguards like Texas Family Code Section 153.004.
They frame alienation as mere conflict or “junk science,” dismissing its psychological abuse, despite Baker et al. (2019) showing that physically abused children maintain attachment, unlike alienated children, whose rejection is induced by manipulation.
Kayden’s Law advocates, such as Danielle Pollack, aim to abolish PA claims, promoting training that labels PA as pseudoscience and banning PA experts and reunification therapies (Letter to Legislature).
This ignores the American Psychological Association’s 2022 guidelines, DSM-5 inclusion, and 1,181 U.S. appellate cases recognizing PA’s relevance.
Pollack’s reliance on unsubstantiated arguments, despite lacking advanced training or clinical experience in psychology, psychiatry, or family therapy, and having no peer-reviewed publications, risks undermining the safety and well-being of children and families.
Science Denial Tactics
- Critics and key proponents of anti-parental alienation legislation across the U.S., such as Pollack and online influencer Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle, reject scientific evidence by asserting that parental alienation is merely a tactic used by abusive parents to dismiss domestic violence allegations.
- Challenging Parental Alienation (Mercer & Drew, 2021) falsely states there are no empirically based PA treatments, ignoring studies by Templer et al. (2017), Warshak (2020), Harman et al. (2021), and Reay (2015).
- It misrepresents programs like Family Bridges, which Kelly (2010) praises for its evidence-based foundation, and claims PA interventions cause harm akin to abuse, without evidence (Meier, 2021).
- Varavei and Harman (2024) expose these claims as fraudulent, noting critics’ reliance on ad hominem attacks and misinformation.
Ease of Attack
By portraying reunification therapy as coercive or harmful, these laws create a weak target that is easy to condemn.
H.B. No. 3783’s bans on possession changes or out-of-state therapy attack a fabricated narrative of child endangerment, ignoring TPFF’s safeguards and Templer et al.’s (2016) evidence.
Kayden’s and Piquis Laws attack supposed judicial bias, sidelining alienation’s harm, which Baker et al. (2019) show differs from physical abuse dynamics.
Challenging Parental Alienation suggests courts ignore alienation claims when abuse is alleged, undermining due process and protecting alienating parents (Bowles, 2021; Drew, 2021).
Diversion
The core issue—alienating parents’ brainwashing, causing psychological harm (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Harman & Matthewson, 2020)—is ignored. These laws focus on fabricated risks in counseling or judicial bias, shielding alienating parents.
Baker et al. (2019) highlight that physically abused children’s attachment contrasts with alienated children’s rejection, yet Kayden’s and Piquis Laws prioritize physical abuse, diverting attention from alienation’s coercive control.
H.B. No. 3783’s intent to eliminate PA recognition further diverts focus from addressing alienating behaviors, framing reunification as the problem rather than a solution.
Pollack’s advocacy to ban PA experts and therapies distracts from the need to vet false allegations of all types (Letter to Legislature).
Lack of Evidence
No data supports claims of widespread harm in reunification programs.
Harman et al. (2022) reviewed 29 studies validating alienation interventions, and Clawar and Rivlin (2013) document extensive case evidence of alienation’s harm.
Baker et al. (2019) clarify that alienation’s induced rejection differs from physical abuse dynamics, undermining the laws’ focus on physical abuse alone.
Harman et al. (2018), Kruk (2018), and Warshak (2021) emphasize protecting children from all forms of family violence, including PA, with Templer et al. (2016) and Joshi (2020) showing custody transfer as effective, contradicting claims of trauma.
Challenging Parental Alienation omits these studies, relying on discredited claims (Varavei & Harman, 2024).
Real-World Implications
Misleading Public Perception
Straw man criticisms scare families from seeking help, leaving children in harmful alienation dynamics, despite Fabricius (2020) and Nielsen (2018) supporting dual-parent relationships. Pollack and Swithin’s protests and defiance of court orders exacerbate this.
Straw man arguments and criticisms also influence Legislators around the country who lack the time and expertise to properly vet these duplicitous and misleading efforts by those such as Pollack and Swithin.
Polarization
Framing reunification as abusive deepens divides between child protection advocates and those addressing alienation, hindering collaboration.
Harm to Policy
Misrepresentations fuel calls to restrict reunification therapy, as seen in H.B. No. 3783’s bans, without addressing oversight needs.
The intent to eliminate PA recognition risks dismissing a validated form of abuse, undermining child protection and due process (Letter to Legislature; Joshi, 2020).
Countering the PA Straw Man
Clarify reunification therapy’s child-centered, evidence-based nature, as shown by TPFF’s success (Harman et al., 2021) and Family Bridges’ foundation (Kelly, 2010).
Provide peer-reviewed evidence distinguishing alienation from physical abuse (Baker et al., 2019) and supporting custody transfer in severe cases (Templer et al., 2016; Joshi, 2020).
Acknowledge concerns about practitioner qualifications, advocating for standards without conceding to misrepresentations.
Engage critics to correct misconceptions, focusing on shared goals of child well-being, as supported by Harman et al. (2018) and Warshak (2021).
Advocate for training that recognizes all abuse types and vets false allegations, maintaining judicial discretion and Daubert standards (Letter to Legislature).
Gaslighting in the Safe Haven Act
The Safe Haven Act gaslights by framing reunification as abusive, manipulating public perception to view protective measures as threats. This contradicts Harman’s TPFF audit, Baker et al.’s (2019) findings, Templer et al.’s (2016) evidence, and Joshi’s (2020) legal analysis, shielding alienating parents and perpetuating psychological abuse.
Impact on No-Contact Orders and Intensive Reunification Therapy
Child Protection
Restrictions in H.B. No. 3783 and the Safe Haven Act may block no-contact orders, prolonging exposure to brainwashing (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013), despite Templer et al. (2017) and Joshi (2020) supporting such measures.
Loyalty Conflicts
Ignoring loyalty conflicts (Bernet et al., 2016) perpetuates harm.
Effective Interventions
Bans on possession changes or out-of-state therapy hinder programs like TPFF, despite their efficacy (Harman et al., 2021).
Contextual Factors
Political Climate
Advocacy groups skeptical of alienation influence these laws. Acclaimed researchers in the field of parental alienation, Harman and Lorandos (2021), note bias against female alienators, while Pollack and Swithin’s campaigns target PA science.
Legislative Shift
H.B. No. 3783’s substitution reflects advocacy-driven reframing, mirrored in the Safe Haven Act.
Misinformation
Critics misrepresent alienation as a defense for abuse, despite Harman et al. (2022) showing no gender bias. Challenging Parental Alienation perpetuates this through science denial (Varavei & Harman, 2024).
Counterarguments and Rebuttals
Claim: These laws protect children from harmful interventions.
Rebuttal: Harman’s TPFF audit (2021) shows no harm, and existing laws address physical abuse. Alienation’s harm is ignored (Baker et al., 2019; Templer et al., 2016; Joshi, 2020).
Claim: Judicial training prevents bias.
Rebuttal: Courts weigh abuse fairly (Harman & Lorandos, 2021), and Kayden’s Law’s restrictive training undermines discretion.
Claim: Programs pose risks.
Rebuttal: Oversight ensures safety (Harman et al., 2021; Kelly, 2010).
Implications of Straw Man Arguments Driving Current Legislation
Children – Prolonged exposure to brainwashing exacerbates harm (Clawar & Rivlin, 2013; Baker, 2007).
Policy: -Undermines trust in programs like TPFF (Harman et al., 2021) and judicial processes (Joshi, 2020).
Legislation – Fear-based laws erode evidence-based policymaking (Lorandos & Bernet, 2020).
Conclusion
H.B. No. 3783 – the Safe Haven Act, Kayden’s Law, and Piquis Law construct straw man arguments, misrepresenting reunification programs as coercive and harmful while ignoring the psychological abuse of parental alienation.
Baker et al. (2019) highlight the contrast between physically abused children’s attachment and alienated children’s rejection, underscoring alienation’s unique harm driven by brainwashing.
Evidence from Clawar and Rivlin (2013), Harman et al. (2021, 2022), Bernet et al. (2016), Templer et al. (2016, 2017), Joshi (2020), and others supports no-contact orders and intensive reunification therapy in severe cases.
Kayden’s Law’s science denial tactics, driven by advocates like Danielle Pollack, and online influencer Swithin, exacerbate these misrepresentations, risking child safety by dismissing robust evidence.
These laws’ straw man tactics and gaslighting intentionally divert attention from the alienating parent’s abuse, perpetuating harm. Policymakers must prioritize evidence-based interventions to protect children from alienation’s psychological maltreatment, fostering honest discourse over rhetorical fallacies.
