The Dangers in Kayden's Law: How Federal Intentions and Incentives Undermine Child Welfare
Kayden’s Law — formally known as Title XV of the 2022 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization — is named for Kayden Mancuso, a seven-year-old girl tragically murdered by her father in Pennsylvania after family court awarded him unsupervised visitation. Her story galvanized public outrage and inspired the crafting of Kayden’s Law, which intends to better protect children from abusive parents by requiring family courts to prioritize allegations of abuse over presumptions of parental rights.
The law seeks to remedy systemic failures by mandating judicial training in family violence and trauma, and by requiring courts to fully consider a history of abuse when making custody decisions. On its face, this goal appears sound, even noble.
But embedded within this framework are fatal flaws (ethical, procedural, and psychological) that not only fail to solve the original problem but actively create new harms. Peer-reviewed research and numerous field experts warn that laws that overlook or dismiss psychological abuse risk turning family courts into instruments of further child abuse.
Notable of concern from the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda Maryland
The Impact of Parental Alienating Behaviours on the Mental Health of Adults Alienated in Childhood
This study explores the long-term mental health consequences for adults who experienced parental alienating behaviors during childhood, highlighting issues such as anxiety, depression, and substance use.
Federal Funding Incentives: A Red Flag for Ethical Compromise
One of the first red flags in evaluating Kayden’s Law is its linkage to federal funding incentives. States that enact Kayden’s Law or similar measures are eligible for enhanced federal grants through the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and other federal agencies under the Department of Justice.
This raises immediate ethical concerns.
Professor Daniel Hatcher, in his book The Poverty Industry: The Exploitation of America's Most Vulnerable Citizens, discusses how state agencies may prioritize revenue generation over child welfare. He highlights instances where states have used foster children's Social Security benefits to reimburse themselves, raising ethical questions about the alignment of financial incentives with the best interests of children.\
Additionally, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has noted that while federal funding aims to improve state child welfare work, the structure of these programs can influence state policy decisions. The CRS report Child Welfare: Purposes, Federal Programs, and Funding outlines how federal funding mechanisms can impact state priorities and practices.
In simpler terms: financial rewards risk perverting the goals of child protection into a compliance checklist. This undermines judicial impartiality and incentivizes states to prioritize optics over outcomes.
Moreover, the mere availability of federal funding does not absolve legislatures or courts of their ethical obligations. In fact, accepting funds under conditions that undermine the full range of child abuse protections — especially when psychological abuse is sidelined — could arguably be construed as a violation of professional ethics for attorneys, judges, and lawmakers alike.
Kayden’s Law Harms Children by Ignoring Psychological Abuse
A devastating consequence of Kayden’s Law is that it structurally prioritizes physical and sexual abuse while neglecting the equally real, equally damaging scourge of psychological abuse — including Parental Alienation.
Parental Alienation is the process by which one parent deliberately manipulates a child to fear, reject, or distance themselves from the other parent without justification. Supporters of Kayden’s Law (and parents seeking to deflect their role in alienating children) create bodies of work that deny the reality of Parental Alienation and sow doubt that such research, and the mental health and psychology experts involved, are credible, creating a circumstance in society in which the courts and lawmakers protect psychologically abusive people given the fact that the laws pertaining to child abuse are unclear, open ended, open to interpretation, or incomplete. Parental Alienation is recognized by multiple psychiatric bodies as a profound form of emotional abuse. The American Psychological Association has acknowledged that alienation can produce long-lasting trauma, akin to PTSD .
However, Kayden’s Law, as implemented and incentivized, fails to explicitly recognize psychological maltreatment as a standalone form of abuse warranting equal consideration. In practice, this means:
Courts are steered to favor physical/sexual evidence.
Allegations of psychological abuse, no matter how credible, are routinely discounted.
Experts in psychological trauma are often dismissed if they lack certifications narrowly focused on physical abuse cases.
Children suffering under coercive psychological control are miscategorized as simply "estranged" rather than victims.
Linda Gottlieb, a leading authority in child reunification therapy and former New York State Child Protective Services caseworker, argues that “Kayden’s Law creates a chilling effect where courts are afraid to intervene in alienation for fear of being accused of ignoring physical or sexual violence.”
The result? Abusive parents weaponizing the court system itself to maintain control.
Perhaps worse, attorneys or even unethical judges with an agenda, weaponizing the oversights in Kayden’s Law to further their interests.
Alienating Parents Exploit Kayden’s Law
Weaponization of Abuse Allegations:
Alienating parents — those who psychologically manipulate children against the other parent — are increasingly advised by unscrupulous legal counsel to file fabricated allegations of physical or sexual abuse.
These can be mere concerns (allegations) because Under Kayden’s Law, the mere existence of an abuse claim triggers heightened judicial caution. Alienators know this; they exploit it to sever the child’s bond with the target parent. This is often encouraged by attorneys who recognize that Family Courts are not courts of law, evidence or proof isn’t required by these laws and merely expressing concern for something as serious as sexual or physical abuse, influences Courts to perceive the abusive parent as looking out for the well-being of their children, while laying suspicion that must be considered, by law.
A 2024 article titled "Countering Arguments Against Parental Alienation as A Form of Child Abuse" in the Journal of Family Violence discusses related issues. This study suggests that abusive parents are more likely than alienated parents to make false allegations of abuse, highlighting the complexities involved in custody disputes and the potential for manipulation of abuse claims.
Shielding from Accountability:
Ironically, if the alienating parent themselves is accused of emotional or psychological abuse, the lack of a physical assault record often enables them to claim innocence.
Family courts, trained under the limited scope of Kayden’s Law, are not adequately equipped to identify the subtler, more insidious forms of abuse at play.
Thus, the abusive parent leverages the system — armed with the letter of Kayden’s Law — to maintain custody and continue psychologically damaging the child.
Courts Are Now Less Capable of Recognizing Psychological Abuse
One of the most alarming impacts of Kayden’s Law is on expert testimony. To meet compliance standards, courts increasingly require experts to demonstrate specialization in physical or sexual abuse cases.
This inadvertently sidelines professionals whose expertise lies in psychological trauma, attachment disruption, and coercive control, which is exactly what’s being done.
Example:
If a psychiatrist with 30 years specializing in parental alienation and emotional maltreatment cannot demonstrate equivalent fieldwork with battered women or sexual assault survivors, their testimony may be excluded.
This structural bias represents an intellectual impoverishment of the court’s fact-finding process. It is akin to asking a cardiologist to weigh in on a bone fracture simply because they are a doctor — while ignoring the orthopedic surgeon who could offer real expertise.
The American Academy of Pediatrics highlights that psychological or emotional maltreatment may be the most challenging and prevalent form of child abuse and neglect. This type of abuse includes behaviors such as spurning, terrorizing, isolating, or ignoring a child's needs, which can significantly impact a child's development. Despite its prevalence, emotional maltreatment has historically received less attention compared to physical or sexual abuse.
The Ethical and Legal Ramifications of Kayden’s Law
In light of the above, supporting Kayden’s Law as currently structured risks perpetuating cycles of abuse rather than preventing them. Legislators, lobbyists, researchers, and psychiatrists must recognize:
Ethical breaches arise when courts are incentivized financially rather than guided by best practices in child welfare.
Judicial impartiality is compromised when certain types of abuse are institutionally prioritized over others.
Children's holistic wellbeing is sacrificed when emotional abuse is minimized or ignored.
Furthermore, policymakers who endorse Kayden’s Law without correction are, however unintentionally, contributing to the conditions that allow parental alienation — and its devastating consequences — to thrive.
A Call for Comprehensive Reform, Not Compliance
Kayden’s Law, driven by tragedy, aspires to improve child protection. But laws born of heartbreak must still stand up to rigorous scientific and ethical scrutiny. As presently structured, Kayden’s Law fails to do so.
Rather than passively accepting its provisions, the responsible course for states and family courts is to demand comprehensive reform:
✅ Recognize psychological abuse explicitly.
✅ Equip courts to identify coercive control and alienation.
✅ Value psychological experts equally alongside physical abuse specialists.
Only then can we say that our laws genuinely protect children, instead of becoming tools for their continued victimization.
Further Discussion:
If you are a legislator, researcher, or legal advocate, now is the time to demand revisions to Kayden’s Law before further harm is done. Silence is complicity.