Five Things Family Law Professionals Should Know About Parent-Child Contact Problems

When children resist or refuse contact with a parent after separation, family law professionals face one of the most resource-intensive challenges in practice. These cases consume disproportionate court time, require extensive coordination among professionals, and often escalate rather than resolve. 

For decades, the field has been stuck in a false binary: Is this parental alienation, or is it justified estrangement? This either/or framework has limited our ability to help families and contributed to polarization among professionals. 

A recent national webinar hosted by OurFamilyWizard in collaboration with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) introduced a promising path forward. Dr. Robin Deutsch, Dr. Leslie M. Drozd, and Dr. Michael A. Saini presented the Parent-Child Relationship Concerns Checklist (PCRC), a new structured assessment tool that examines parent-child contact problems through five evidence-based domains. 

As Dr. Drozd emphasized, " The answer is ‘AND.’ Rarely is it ‘or.’" 

Here are five key takeaways from this webinar that every practitioner should understand.

1. Your first question determines your entire assessment 

Dr. Saini explained the critical concept of anchor bias: "It's the questions you ask at the very beginning that sets the stage for every other question you ask afterwards. And so, if your first question is, is this alienation? You're then anchor bias towards a single or a dominant factor theory of that case." 

Starting with "Is this alienation?" or "Is this abuse?" predetermines your conclusion before comprehensive data gathering occurs. 

The PCRC reframes the initial question. Instead of asking whether this is alienation or abuse, practitioners ask: "Is this a parent-child contact problem?" Then all five domains are systematically assessed, weighted, and considered in interaction with one another. 

What this means for your practice: Challenge single-factor expert reports by asking on cross-examination what the evaluator's first assessment question was, and what other factors were systematically investigated after identifying the initial concern. 

2. Five domains capture the full complexity 

The PCRC organizes assessment across five empirically supported domains: 

Domain 1: Safety Issues – Intimate partner violence, child abuse or neglect, risk of abduction, severe untreated mental illness or substance misuse, and sibling conflicts. The framework distinguishes between current and past violence, which require different interventions. 

Domain 2: Child-Related Factors – Age, developmental stage, temperament, mental health, special needs, independence of voice, blended family struggles, and loyalty conflicts. As Dr. Deutsch noted, "You could have two kids in the same family, and they could have very different reactions to a parent's behavior." 

Domain 3: Parenting Problems of the Rejected Parent – Harsh parenting styles, inadequate skills, power struggles, counter-rejection ("You don't really believe this"), ongoing conflict with the child, and boundary issues. 

Domain 4: Unjustified Restrictive Gatekeeping Behaviors – Campaigns of denigration, attempts to interfere with contact, boundary issues (particularly enmeshment), and parent alienating behaviors. This domain is broader than traditional "parental alienation" concepts. 

Domain 5: Trauma Indicators – Unresolved trauma in parents and children, exposure to chronic toxic conflict, and trauma as reenactment. Some contact problems involve parents working through trauma responses, not deliberate manipulation. 

The power lies in understanding how these domains interact. A case might involve moderate safety concerns, a child with anxiety, some parenting skill deficits, minor gatekeeping behaviors, and unresolved parental trauma. No single factor dominates, but the combination creates significant contact problems. 

3. Match interventions to your assessment findings 

Dr. Deutsch made a striking statement about reunification therapy: "I don't even know what reunification therapy is, but what I do know is that treatment between a rejected parent and a child alone is going to fail." 

Different combinations of weighted factors require different intervention sequences. When safety issues predominate, the response includes risk assessment, safety planning, and possibly supervised contact. When child factors dominate, age-appropriate therapy and peer support may be indicated. When gatekeeping behaviors are primary, boundaries work and co-parenting interventions become essential. 

Dr. Saini's research revealed a critical insight: "If you can improve co-parenting relationships, you actually improve parent-child relationships." This suggests the intervention point may be the co-parent relationship rather than the parent-child dyad. 

Documentation supports intervention matching: Platforms like OurFamilyWizard provide objective data for assessment and monitoring. The ToneMeter feature analyzes communication patterns, the Calendar documents compliance and interference, and the Journal captures real-time parenting observations. This creates accountability while giving professionals timestamped data to track patterns over time. 

4. Shared parenting isn't always the answer 

Research supports shared parenting arrangements (30-50% time with each parent) only when specific conditions are met: cooperative and communicative parents, low conflict, nonviolent relationships, children older than four years, child-focused parents, and, critically, parents who have chosen the arrangement rather than having it court-ordered. 

Dr. Deutsch emphasized, "It's family by family as to whether it's bes.” It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. 

State rebuttable presumptions favoring 50-50 arrangements don't account for the conditions research has identified as necessary for positive outcomes. When shared parenting is court-ordered in high-conflict cases, it may exacerbate rather than alleviate parent-child contact problems. 

5. Consultation is a professional standard, not a weakness 

Dr. Drozd shared a powerful insight: "There isn't one evaluation that I've done that I have not double-checked my thinking with another professional, and that is one of the values of AFCC." 

Parent-child contact problem cases are extraordinarily complex. The experts acknowledged their own biases throughout the presentation. Dr. Drozd noted, "We're all biased. We all come in with some look at it... Maybe one factor weighs 75% and the other 4 factors together get 25%." 

Structured approaches like the PCRC help practitioners recognize and counteract those biases. And including limitations sections in reports strengthens rather than weakens professional credibility. 

When asked on the witness stand why an expert would list limitations that could be used on cross-examination, Dr. Drozd responded: "I'm not into avoiding behavior as an evaluator. I would rather face it."

Moving beyond false polarizations 

As Dr. Saini noted, "We limit our opportunities to assist when we get stuck in false polarizations." 

The multi-factor framework does not dismiss concerns about alienating behaviors, nor does it minimize the reality of justified estrangement. It simply insists that practitioners look comprehensively before drawing conclusions and matching interventions to actual findings. 

For 26 years, the field has grappled with these questions. As Dr. Drozd reflected, "One could get depressed and think that you know, we haven't come very far, but we have come a long way, because we're at least talking about it." 

The PCRC represents meaningful progress. Dr. Saini emphasized that "this is a decision support tool that's going to give you the weighted domains"—not a definitive answer, but a structured approach that improves accountability and reduces bias. 

The tool will be presented in final form at the AFCC Seattle Conference in May 2026, with statistical validation results and intervention-matching guidance. 

Three practical steps for your practice 

1. Adopt structured assessment approaches that reduce anchor bias and ensure comprehensive evaluation across all relevant domains. 

2. Utilize technology tools that provide objective, timestamped documentation of communication patterns, compliance, and parenting behaviors. Platforms like OurFamilyWizard offer court-admissible records accepted in all 50 states, with features specifically designed to support professional assessment and monitoring. 

3. Build consultation into practice as a professional standard. AFCC membership provides access to archived webinars, Family Court Review since 1966, and an interdisciplinary consultation network. 

About the webinar presenters: Dr. Robin Deutsch is Past President of AFCC and co-editor of Overcoming Parent-Child Contact Problems. Dr. Leslie M. Drozd has 36 years of forensic psychology practice and co-authored professional guidelines on evaluations and alienation. Dr. Michael A. Saini is Full Professor at University of Toronto, Past President of AFCC, and recipient of the 2019 AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award.