Tina Swithin – Undermining Experts and Misleading Families
Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle has built a platform that critiques mental health professionals, researchers, and legal experts, despite her lack of formal education, training, or credentials in these fields.
With no degree in psychology, law, or research — and no professional training or experience in these areas — Swithin boldly dismisses esteemed, highly qualified experts in the field of parental alienation research and treatment as fraudulent.
Her most recent targets include some of the most esteemed names in their respective disciplines, including Linda Gottlieb, a family therapist with a remarkable career dedicated to reunification therapy.
Gottlieb’s extensive expertise is grounded in decades of hands-on experience and a unique mentorship under the psychiatrist often credited as the father of family therapy, Dr. Salvador Minuchin.
Despite this impressive legacy, Swithin dismisses her work with unsubstantiated claims and baseless criticism.
LEARN MORE: Dissecting Tina Swithin’s Lies About Reunification Camps
Targeting Esteemed Professionals Without Merit
Linda Gottlieb’s career exemplifies dedication to evidence-based family therapy. As a pioneer in reunification therapy for alienated families, she has helped countless families heal fractured relationships.
Her work is enriched by direct mentorship and collaboration with Dr. Salvador Minuchin, a legend in the field of family therapy whose structural family therapy model revolutionized therapeutic approaches.
Gottlieb’s expertise and contributions to the field of treating family dynamics associated with parental alienation are widely recognized and respected in professional circles.
Yet, Swithin, lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the field, dismisses Gottlieb’s accomplishments.
This pattern is consistent with Swithin’s attacks on other parental alienation experts. Below is a partial list of experts she positions herself as qualified to assess.
Criticizing Esteemed Experts Without Basis
Dr. William Bernet
Child Psychiatrist and Professor Emeritus at Vanderbilt University, has made significant contributions to the understanding of parental alienation and its effects on children.
His work is rooted in decades of clinical practice and research. Yet, Swithin labels him as fraudulent, offering no credible evidence to support her claims.
Dr. Jennifer Harmon
Leading researcher in family dynamics, has published extensively on parental alienation, her work backed by rigorous studies and peer-reviewed research. Still, Swithin undermines her findings with unsubstantiated allegations.
Demosthenes Lorandos, Ph.D., J.D.
Licensed Clinical and Forensic Psychologist with two Ph.D’s, Attorney, and Leading Researcher. Dr. Lorandos’s legal and scholarly work on the cross examination of experts, parental alienation, and false allegations has earned him national recognition.
During his career, Dr. Lorandos was admitted as a member in good standing of the State Bars of Michigan, California, New York, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia.
He has also been admitted pro hac vice in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Connecticut, Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Utah , and Alabama .
He has also been admitted as a member in good standing of the Bars of the Second, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Federal Circuits and a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.
Dr. Richard Warshak
Leading researcher and psychologist whose influential work on child custody has earned widespread recognition.
Tina’s Swithin’s Baseless Claims – A Layperson Out of Her League
Despite the credentials and accomplishments of these professionals, Swithin critiques them without any grounding in the necessary academic or clinical knowledge.
Her unfounded allegations risk damaging public perception of respected professionals whose work benefits families worldwide.
Undermining Expertise with Alarmist Rhetoric
In a recent post, Swithin declared:
“I know everyone is fighting their own battle, but things are getting worse and not better. We must come together and mobilize so that our children aren’t fighting this same battle when they grow up. The opposition is united, funded, and organized. We must act.”
This statement encapsulates Swithin’s pattern of alarmist rhetoric.
While it seeks to rally parents, it lacks any supporting evidence.
Her claims about a “united, funded, and organized” opposition appear to be a thinly veiled reference to the very professionals she critiques.
Ironically, the assertion highlights her own inadequacy: she acknowledges she is “battling” against accomplished experts who are vastly more qualified and experienced than she is.
Grifting Off Pain and Misinformation
Swithin’s primary qualification is her personal story: marrying and divorcing a man she claims is a narcissist.
She projects this experience onto other family law cases, attempting to discredit highly trained professionals while presenting herself as a savior for parents and children.
This approach positions her as a grifter, exploiting the pain of vulnerable parents for personal gain.
Rather than offering evidence-based solutions, Swithin thrives on emotional appeals and divisive narratives. Her rhetoric misleads parents seeking support, diverting them from credible professionals who could genuinely help.
By sowing mistrust in experts and promoting her unsubstantiated views, she undermines the very systems designed to support families.
Qualifications and Credentials Matter
Fields like family therapy, psychology, family law, and mental health require years of rigorous education, training, and experience. The experts Swithin dismisses have earned their standing through dedication to their disciplines.
Their insights, grounded in research and clinical practice, have helped countless families navigate challenging dynamics.
In contrast, Swithin’s critiques are based on personal grievances, not academic rigor or professional understanding.
Her lack of qualifications undermines her ability to engage meaningfully with the work of these experts, making her dismissals not only baseless but harmful.
In this article, the authors systematically debunk Mercer’s assertions, highlighting four major problem areas:
Tina Swithin’s Platform is Built on Misdirection and Discredited Research
Tina Swithin’s self-proclaimed expertise in critiquing family law and parental alienation practices relies heavily on narratives that align with the discredited work of Dr. Jean Mercer.
Mercer’s controversial assertions about parental alienation being pseudoscientific have been systematically dismantled by leading experts, yet Swithin continues to use them as the basis of her platform.
By clinging to these unfounded critiques, Swithin not only discredits herself but also undermines critical advancements in parental alienation research and therapy.
Discrediting the Foundations of Swithin’s Claims
A comprehensive critique of Mercer’s claims was published in Rejecting the Rejection of Parental Alienation: Comment on Mercer (2021) by Dr. William Bernet, Dr. Ronald P. Rohner, and Dr. Kathleen Reay.
In this article, the authors systematically debunk Mercer’s assertions, highlighting four major problem areas:
False Labeling of Parental Alienation as Pseudoscience
Mercer claimed that parental alienation is pseudoscientific, but she provided no evidence to support this accusation. Her assertion relied solely on opinion rather than empirical data.
Bernet et al. pointed out that PA research, including the use of tools like the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ), is grounded in decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed studies.
Misrepresentation of Parental Alienation Theory
Mercer falsely stated that PA theory is based solely on inference without evidence of alienating behaviors by the preferred parent.
This claim ignores decades of work by PA proponents, such as Gardner (1985) and Baker (2020), who emphasize the necessity of observable alienating behaviors for diagnosing PA.
Incorrect Understanding of Splitting
Mercer argued that polarized thinking (splitting) observed in alienated children is age-appropriate, a notion refuted by Bernet et al.’s research.
Their studies showed that such extreme splitting is not observed in non-alienated children, even in stressful family situations, undermining Mercer’s claim.
Straw Person Arguments
Mercer misrepresented the conclusions of Bernet et al.’s work, setting up straw person arguments to criticize positions that the researchers never actually took.
For example, she incorrectly claimed that the PARQ-Gap was presented as a diagnostic tool for PA when the authors explicitly stated it should only be part of a comprehensive psychological assessment.
LEARN MORE: Tina Swithin Hurts Families – Uncredentialed Influencer Exposed
Swithin’s Platform: Misinformed and Misleading
By basing her critiques of Parental Alienation research on Mercer’s flawed work, Swithin perpetuates misinformation about a well-researched phenomenon.
Leading experts such as Dr. Bernet, Dr. Rohner, and Dr. Reay have spent years advancing the understanding of PA through empirical studies and peer-reviewed publications.
They emphasize that PA is distinguishable from parental estrangement through careful, evidence-based assessments that consider both the child’s behavior and the alienating parent’s actions.
Swithin’s failure to acknowledge this robust body of research—and her reliance on Mercer’s discredited assertions—undermines her credibility.
Worse, it misleads parents navigating difficult custody disputes, steering them away from evidence-based approaches that could help restore fractured family relationships.
The Consequences of Undermining Research
Parental alienation is a deeply nuanced and impactful issue, particularly in high-conflict divorces where a child unjustifiably rejects one parent.
Research like that of Bernet et al. has significantly advanced our understanding of this phenomenon, providing tools to distinguish Parental Alienation from legitimate estrangement due to abuse or neglect.
Mischaracterizing such research as pseudoscience diminishes its value and hinders efforts to address the harm caused by Parental Alienation.
Swithin’s continued reliance on Mercer’s discredited claims contributes to a growing mistrust of trained professionals and evidence-based practices.
This not only hampers families’ ability to access appropriate support but also undermines the professionals dedicated to resolving these complex issues.
Upholding Evidence-Based Practice
Rather than relying on alarmist narratives and discredited research, meaningful progress in family law and parental alienation must be rooted in credible, evidence-based practices.
Professionals like Dr. Bernet, Dr. Rohner, and Dr. Reay have dedicated their careers to advancing this field, offering valuable insights and tools to support families.
Tina Swithin’s platform, built on misinformation and discredited claims, does a great deal of harm to alienated children. Families navigating the challenges of parental alienation deserve accurate information and qualified guidance—not rhetoric rooted in flawed foundations.
Recognizing and supporting evidence-based research is critical to addressing parental alienation effectively and ensuring better outcomes for children and families alike.
Conclusion – Expertise Over Rhetoric
Tina Swithin’s approach exploits parents’ pain while undermining the work of dedicated professionals. Her unsubstantiated claims, alarmist rhetoric, and dismissal of expertise present a substantial risk to public understanding of family law and mental health.
Professionals like Dr. Bernet, Dr. Harmon, Dr. Lorandos, Dr. Warshak, and Linda Gottlieb have spent their careers improving the lives of children and families.
Their work is invaluable, deserving respect and recognition—not dismissal by an unqualified critic.
Parents navigating family dynamics deserve better than emotional appeals and misinformation. Expertise matters, and families should rely on evidence-based practices and trained professionals for the support they need.
