🦚Every protective parent gets this label

Recently, I wrote about how manipulative exes use the responsibility trap to keep you defensive instead of effective.

There’s another tactic they use that’s closely related but even more insidious: the attribute ambush.

This happens when your ex (or their lawyer, or even a custody evaluator) slaps a label on you instead of addressing actual events.

You document concerning behavior? You're “anxious and overreactive.”

You enforce a court order? You're “hostile and uncooperative.” 

You or your child talk about their other parent’s abuse? You’re “alienating.”

These labels aren't about what you did. They're about what you supposedly are. And that's the whole point.

Why I’m writing this

Last month, one of the moms I help—let's call her Jessica—had her 7-year-old daughter, Emma, return from a weekend at dad’s house (details changed for privacy). Emma told her mom she’d asked to call her several times but dad said no, that when she got upset about it he told her she was “being manipulative just like her mother,” and that she’d cried herself to sleep.

Jessica did exactly what she was supposed to do: she documented it. Date, time, what Emma said, how Emma seemed emotionally when she returned to her.

Then she did what any responsible parent would do. She made a calm, factual attempt to address it with her ex: “Emma reported feeling upset this weekend when she asked to call me and was told no. Per our parenting plan, the children should have reasonable phone access to the other parent. Can we discuss how to make sure this happens?”

His response? Two paragraphs spewing vitriol about Jessica’s “pattern of coaching the children,” her “inability to let them bond with him without interference,” and her “documented history of creating loyalty conflicts.”

Not one sentence about whether Emma asked to call. Not one about why she cried. Not one about what actually happened.

Just labels. Attributes. Character assassination.

That’s the attribute frame right there. Instead of addressing specific actions and specific events, he’s attacking her character.

If she defends herself against those attacks, she looks defensive, and she’s lost the round.

Recognizing the trap

Another mom I work with went to court recently about child support. Before the hearing, she was stressed because her ex had been threatening to bring up “parental alienation.” That’s his go-to accusation whenever she documents his manipulation tactics (surprise, surprise 🙄🙄)

Her lawyer wasn’t at all worried. “If he tries that, I’m objecting. Your son has a children’s lawyer, and he told that lawyer he wants to stay in 50-50 custody. This hearing is about child support calculations. His character attacks are irrelevant.”

That’s what a good lawyer does: recognizes attribute frame attacks and redirects to specific, concrete issues.

Unfortunately, most of us don't have that lawyer in the room when we’re reading blame-filled emails at 11 PM or sitting across from a custody evaluator who holds our kids’ future in their hands.

That’s why we have to learn this skill ourselves

The reframe: Shift to actions

When someone attacks you with an attribute label, you have one job: redirect to specific actions.

They say: “You're creating loyalty conflicts in the children.”

You respond: “What specific statement or action are you referring to? Please provide the date and what was said.”

They say: “You're being hostile and uncooperative.”

You respond: “I’m enforcing the court order dated [date] which states [specific provision]. Which part would you like to discuss?”

They say: “You’re alienating.”

You respond: “Emma expressed [specific feeling] about [specific incident that occurred on date].”

Notice what you aren’t doing:
You’re not defending your character or your parenting. You’re stepping out of the attribute frame, into the actions frame, forcing the conversation back to concrete, documentable events.

How to document in the actions frame

This is critical for court, for lawyers, for custody evaluators, and for your own sanity.

Don't write this: 

Write this: 

See the difference? The first version is an opinion. The second is evidence. a factual record of specific events on specific dates, without any emotional color. It also shows that, instead of addressing the incident, Emma’s father attacked her mother.

The second version can’t be dismissed as “high-conflict” or “alienating.” It’s just facts. Either these things happened or they didn’t. And it has the bonus effect of exposing who the high-conflict parent is in this scenario.

If you stay in the actions frame, eventually, you’ll have a pattern. Not a pattern of your supposedly toxic personality traits. A pattern of their specific behaviors and aggressive responses repeated over time.

Why this protects you

When you stay in the actions frame, several things happen:

You can’t be gaslit. They can call you high-conflict all day long, walk up and down the streets of the town ringing a bell and yelling, “My crazy ex is an alienator” all they want. But you have documentary evidence of specific events. You know what happened. You trust your perception of reality.

You give courts something to evaluate. Judges can't assess whether you're “alienating” or “hostile”. Those are subjective character judgments. But they can assess your credibility, yours and your ex’s actual responses in black and white, whether your documentation is accurate, whether there's a pattern, whether specific behaviors violate court orders.

You sidestep the trap. The attribute frame is designed to make you defensive, to keep you explaining yourself, to waste your energy proving you’re not a bad person and trying to get validation from your ex. When you redirect to actions, you give the trap the middle finger.

You look measured and child-focused. When you respond with “Stop being so hostile” or defend yourself against their attacks, it looks to a judge like two people in conflict arguing back and forth. “Our child expressed [specific feeling] about [specific incident that occurred on date]” looks focused on the children and makes it clear who’s creating the conflict.

Just remember this

❌ You are not high conflict for documenting abuse.
❌ You are not alienating for believing your children.
❌ You are not hostile for enforcing court orders.
❌ You are not vindictive for protecting your kids.

Those labels are weapons meant to silence and destabilize you. To make you second-guess yourself. To make you feel and look crazy. To keep you playing the game your ex wants you to play.

Stay in the actions frame. Document what happened, when it happened, and what was said.

That’s what keeps you grounded. It’s also how outcomes start to change.

Want to know how I can help you?

Are you struggling not to get defensive when your ex is attacking your character or a custody evaluator or child protection officer is unfairly labeling you?

Feel free to book a 30-minute consultation with me, free of charge, where you’ll get to identify the challenges you’re facing and get clarity on where to focus your energy right now.

Want to know more about what I do?

Resources

If you need some extra resources to help you duck attribute ambushes, check out this series of newsletters I published early last year.

🔗 My Family Court Survival Series
These posts unpack why courts miss abuse—and how to fix it. Read in order:

• Family Court Bias: Why They Ignore Abuse – Why evaluators and judges often side with the charming manipulator + 4 strategies to shift their perceptions.​

• The Family Court Trap Wrecking Your Case – Spot and escape defensive pitfalls that wreck your credibility.

• Judges/Experts Dismissing Evidence – How to reframe evidence so it actually lands with resistant professionals.

• Judges' Hidden Biases – I decode a judgment to show you what judges actually see vs. what you think they see.

• Hostile Court Evaluators – Why evaluators and judges often side with the charming manipulator and what you can do about it.

• Evaluator Black Swans – Spot hidden biases that sway custody decisions.