Parental alienation is a deeply complex psychological and legal issue that requires the involvement of qualified experts with extensive training in family dynamics, child psychology, psychiatry, and forensic family assessment.

Over the years, renowned parent alienation specialists have made significant contributions to the field.

Decades of research by specialists such as Dr. Steven G. Miller, Dr. William Bernet, Dr. Amy Baker, and many others, have produced scientifically validated definitions, clinical assessment tools, and intervention strategies to protect children in high-conflict custody disputes.

Their work is rooted in empirical research, peer-reviewed studies, and years of clinical experience, ensuring that families and courts have access to evidence-based practices.

Table of Contents

Unqualified Tina Swithin is Out of Her League

Despite their expertise, the field of parental alienation has seen the rise of uncredentialed and unqualified influencers like Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle, who criticize these experts and attempt to shape public discourse on family court reform.

Advocacy for family court reform is important, but it is crucial to distinguish between advocacy and expertise, unqualified and qualified voices, and personal agendas versus lifelong contributions to science.

Without formal training or licensure in child psychology, psychiatry, or social work, such figures lack the scientific rigor necessary to provide accurate, evidence-based guidance on issues as complex as parental alienation.

This distinction matters, as the voices of clinical experts should not be drowned out by personal anecdotes and unscientific claims.

This article explores the importance of scientific expertise in parental alienation, the risks posed by uncredentialed influencers, and why the work of renown experts like Dr. Miller, Dr. Bernet, and Dr. Baker remains essential for protecting children and families.

Parental Alienation – A Field Rooted in Clinical Expertise

Parental alienation is a psychological phenomenon where a child becomes alienated from one parent due to the manipulation, coercion, or influence of the other parent.

This process can lead a child to unjustly reject one parent, causing significant emotional, cognitive, and relational harm that may persist throughout their lifetime.

Unlike general parent-child conflicts, parental alienation requires specialized clinical assessment and intervention, as it involves psychological manipulation that may not be immediately apparent.

Experts like Dr. Steven G. Miller, Dr. William Bernet, and Dr. Amy Baker have contributed decades of research to better understand this phenomenon.

Contributions Experts Have Made

Scientifically valid definition of parental alienation
Clear, objective criteria for identifying parental alienation in family court cases.
Scientifically valid forensic assessment tools
Evidence-based tools to assess the presence and impact of alienation on children.
Scientifically valid research tools
Multiple valid and reliable research studies that assess complex family dynamics
Trained Family Court Professionals
Offered guidance to family court judges, lawyers, and custody evaluators on how to identify and address alienation.

These experts operate within the framework of scientific objectivity, relying on peer-reviewed studies, empirical evidence, and clinical training.

Their work has been recognized and cited in family court proceedings worldwide, supporting child reunification programs and therapeutic interventions that restore healthy parent-child relationships.

LEARN MORE: Legendary Parental Alienation Expert – Steven G. Miller, MD

The Problem with Untrained, Unqualified, and Uncredentialed Influencers Like Tina Swithin

While experts like Dr. Miller, Dr. Bernet, and Dr. Baker approach parental alienation with scientific precision, Tina Swithin and her platform, One Mom’s Battle, approach it from a different perspective — that of a parent-turned-advocate with an agenda.

While her personal experiences may resonate with some parents, her approach lacks the clinical authority and scientific foundation required to address the complexities of parental alienation.

Lack of Professional Credentials

Tina Swithin is not a psychologist, psychiatrist, or mental health professional.
She has no formal education, training, or licensure in child psychology, social work, or forensic family assessment.
She has no professional degree that qualifies her to provide family therapy, psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, or any other such therapy for that matter.
Tina Swithin is likely unable to identify or analyze any of the 1000+ trial and appellate court decisions in the U.S. that have accepted parental alienation science as valid and useful to the court as a trier of fact.

These are crucial distinctions, as the field of parental alienation requires scientific knowledge of child development, attachment theory, and psychological assessment.

Unlike experts such as Dr. William Bernet, a board-certified child psychiatrist, or Dr. Amy Baker, a developmental psychologist and leading researcher on parental alienation, Tina Swithin’s knowledge is limited to her personal experiences as a litigant in family court.

While her story may offer emotional relatability, it cannot substitute the scientific evidence required for clinical diagnosis or legal assessment.

LEARN MORE: Harmful Lies Perpetuated by Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle

Reliance on Personal Narratives Over Evidence

Swithin’s platform relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, which, while powerful in advocacy, is not a substitute for peer-reviewed, evidence-based research.
Her claims are often based on personal grievances rather than neutral, scientific observation.
For example, parental alienation experts like Dr. Amy Baker conduct research using clinical methodologies — including interviews, case studies, and empirical analysis — to understand how alienation affects children.
This form of research informs therapeutic strategies and forensic assessments used in family courts worldwide.
By contrast, Swithin’s approach is often focused on emotional storytelling, which lacks objectivity and introduce bias.

One-Sided Narratives and Potential for Misinformation

Parental alienation requires balanced and unbiased assessment, as each parent in a high-conflict divorce may present differing perspectives.

However, platforms like One Mom’s Battle tend to present a victim-perpetrator narrative, suggesting that one parent is always the “abuser” and the other is always the “victim.”

This simplistic framework ignores the nuanced reality of family dynamics.

Experts like Dr. Steven G. Miller emphasized the need for objective, evidence-based assessments to avoid mislabeling parents or misdiagnosing children’s estrangement as “alienation” or “abuse.”

A forensic approach is crucial to understanding the truth of the family dynamic, as opposed to relying on a single party’s allegations.

The Superiority of Clinical Experts Over Advocacy-Based Figures

When it comes to parental alienation, the work of experts like Dr. Steven G. Miller, Dr. William Bernet, and Dr. Amy Baker, and others, is vastly superior to the narratives offered by uncredentialed advocates.

Scientists Clinical Expertise Matters More
Objectivity and Impartiality
Clinical experts conduct assessments using objective tools and scientific protocols.
They review evidence from both parents and seek to identify patterns of behavior, not just accusations.
By contrast, figures like Tina Swithin often present one-sided accounts, advocating for one parent’s version of events.

Use of Evidence-Based Methodologies

Employed the scientific method of understanding parental alienation to develop clinical trials, research studies, and psychological assessments.

Their work has been peer-reviewed and supported by scientific bodies and institutions.

Public figures like Swithin do not contribute to the research literature, nor do they offer evidence-based solutions.

Legal Admissibility

The testimony of qualified experts can be used in court, as their assessments meet the legal standard for admissibility.

In contrast, the testimony or claims of unlicensed advocates like Tina Swithin are unlikely to be considered objective or scientifically valid in court proceedings.

Focus on Child Well-Being

Reunification programs based on expert research aim to restore a child’s attachment to both parents, promoting healthier family dynamics.

By contrast, advocacy figures often prioritize a “winner-loser” narrative, which may fuel parental conflict instead of promoting co-parenting.

Conclusion

While public advocacy for family court reform is valuable, it should never be mistaken for clinical authority.

Figures like Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle and other unqualified, untrained, and uncredentialed influencers could play a role in raising awareness.

However, they undermine their credibility by promoting invalid and inaccurate narratives that lack sound clinical reasoning.

Highly qualified experts like Dr. Steven G. Miller, Dr. William Bernet, and Dr. Amy Baker have dedicated decades to the rigors of studying parental alienation and its impact on families.

Unqualified influencers like Ms. Swithin have no place meddling in families lives by criticizing or undermining the validity of the very science on which they rely.

LEARN MORE: Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire