🦚Family court ignoring your ex's abuse? Here's why

(Four proven strategies to make them see the truth)

Author

Rina Groeneveld
February 28, 2025

You're in court. Again. Or maybe you’re undergoing a parenting evaluation. You lay out the evidence of your ex's manipulative and abusive behavior. It’s all there, in texts, emails, and documented incidents. You're thinking, "Finally, they'll see what's really going on."

But instead of the validation you're hoping for, you get raised eyebrows and talk about "high-conflict dynamics" and "communication issues." The judge (or the evaluator) seems more impressed by your ex's polished lies than your stack of evidence.

Sound familiar?

If you feel like you're speaking a different language than these professionals, you're not wrong. Understanding why this disconnect happens is your first step toward being heard.

THE MYTH OF OBJECTIVITY

It’s a sacred cow that judges and other court professionals should be completely neutral and objective. They're supposed to look at the facts and make unbiased decisions based purely on evidence and law.

But that’s not how the world works. It's absolutely impossible for any human being—including judges—to be truly "neutral" or "objective." Every single person brings their own background, beliefs, and experiences to how they interpret situations. And yes, that includes the judges and other professionals weighing in on your future and your children’s future.

This isn't just my opinion. It's backed by decades of research into how human beings make decisions, especially in legal settings. Generally, these professionals aren't lying when they say they're being objective. They genuinely believe they are. But they're viewing everything through their own lens, shaped by:

🔍 Their professional training and education

🔍 Their personal and cultural background

🔍 The traditions of their profession

🔍 Their previous experiences with similar cases

🔍 Their own biases about what "good parenting" looks like

Here's what this means for you: The facts you present in your case don’t reach the judge raw and unfiltered. They’re filtered through their personal and professional worldview.

In the 1960s, a German philosopher named Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote a book called "Truth and Method" where he explained how humans interpret things (this is called hermeneutics). His big idea was that it's impossible for anyone to interpret something in a completely objective way.

Think of it like this: Imagine you and your friend are both looking at a picture of a family having dinner.

Your friend grew up in a family where everyone ate dinner together every night, had pleasant conversations, and it was always a happy time. When they look at the picture, they think, "This is normal and good. It’s what family dinner should look like."

But in your experience, family dinners were stressful. Maybe there was fighting, or someone was always criticizing everyone else. When you look at the same picture, you might feel uncomfortable or see signs of tension that your friend misses.

Neither of you is exactly "right" or "wrong" about what's happening in the picture. You're both interpreting it through what Gadamer calls your "horizon". This encompasses all your past experiences, beliefs, and knowledge that shape how you understand things.

This is also how it works in family courts: When judges (and other professionals) look at your case, they can't help but see it through their "horizon". This includes their legal training, their professional experience, and their beliefs about what makes a good parent.

Just like you and your friend couldn't help seeing the dinner picture through your own experiences, judges can't help seeing your case through their professional and personal "horizon."

That’s why you and the judge are looking at the exact same case and coming to different conclusions. You're each interpreting the facts through your own unique lens of experience and understanding. What’s more, judges are only getting a snapshot of your situation, which they have to fit into their horizon.

WHY FAMILY COURT JUDGES DON'T "GET IT"

Let's take a common scenario. You're trying to explain how your ex uses the children to manipulate and control you. To you, the pattern is crystal clear. But the judge or evaluator might be:

  • Trained to see all post-divorce conflict as "both parties need to communicate better"

  • Unfamiliar with the dynamics of coercive control

  • Influenced by traditional beliefs about keeping both parents equally involved

  • Skeptical of abuse claims in custody battles due to past experiences

  • Unconsciously biased against mothers who seem "too emotional" in court

âťť

You only filter in the information that meshes with the way you think the world should work.

Morgan Housel

This doesn't mean these professionals are bad people or deliberately working against you. But it does mean you need to adapt your approach.

Think of it like this: If you were trying to explain something to someone who speaks a different language, you wouldn't just talk louder in your own language. You'd find ways to communicate that they can understand.

You can't force a judge or other court professional to change their horizon to make it the same as yours. But what you can do is to understand their horizon, go stand next to them and then point out the things they can see from their horizon.

Imagine you're trying to show someone a beautiful view from a mountain, but they're standing in a different spot than you are. You could keep shouting at them to come to your spot, or you could walk over to where they are and say, "From here, you can see that waterfall through those trees."

You're still showing them what you want them to see, but you're doing it from a vantage point they can understand. This is exactly what you need to do in court. Instead of trying to force professionals to see things exactly as you do, you need to present your evidence in ways that make sense from their perspective.

You’re not changing your truth. What you’re doing is making your truth visible from where they stand.

So how do you get through to professionals who see things so differently? Here are four strategies that can help:

Speak their language

Instead of expecting them to understand your perspective immediately, frame your concerns in terms they're trained to recognize:

  • Focus on specific behaviors and their impact on the children.

  • Use professional terminology they can relate to when appropriate.

  • Avoid terms from your own horizon (narcissist, supply, etc.) as much as possible. If you do use a term (like gaslighting, which was the word of the year last year), then only do this after you’ve described the actual incidences. One incident is not enough.

  • Keep emotion out of your presentation while showing appropriate concern (yes, you have to be a tightrope artist, too, as well as a translator).

Document strategically

Don't just collect evidence. Present it in a way that aligns with their professional framework:

  • Organize incidents chronologically.

  • Focus on patterns rather than isolated events.

  • Highlight impacts on the children's wellbeing.

  • Keep records factual and objective.

Understand their priorities

Court professionals are typically focused on:

  • The best interests of the child (as they define it).

  • Maintaining neutrality (even if that sometimes means ignoring abuse).

  • Finding "workable" solutions.

Work with their biases instead of fighting against their preconceptions

  • Present yourself as reasonable and cooperative.

  • Focus on solutions rather than problems.

  • Show you're willing to facilitate the other parent's relationship with the children (as much as is safely possible).

  • Demonstrate that your focus is on the children's wellbeing, not punishing your ex.

THE POWER OF PERSPECTIVE IN FAMILY COURT

Understanding that court professionals see things differently isn't about giving up or accepting injustice. It's about being strategic. When you understand their viewpoint, you can:

✨ Present your case more effectively

✨ Anticipate and prepare for their concerns

✨ Choose battles wisely

✨ Protect yourself and your children better

Remember, you don't have to agree with their perspective to work with it. Sometimes, the most powerful thing you can do is understand how others see things, not to change your truth, but to find more effective ways to protect your children and yourself.

Want to know how I can help you?

Hey, I totally get it—the family court system can be really tricky. If you're having a hard time presenting your case effectively, I'm here for you. I've been through the system myself, and it's my mission to help ease your way. Book a free 30-minute discovery call with me, and let's figure out the best way to make your case strong and protect you and your children.

If you want to find out more about what I do…

Did someone forward this to you?

Resources

Domestic Abuse, Child Custody, and Visitation: Winning in Family Court by Toby G. Kleinman and Daniel Pollack is like having an insider's guide to the courtroom mindset.

It’s written primarily for attorneys, but don't let that scare you off. This book is remarkably accessible for anyone who’s been thrown into the family court meat grinder. What makes this resource gold? Kleinman and Pollack don't just explain legal concepts – they decode the entire judicial perspective and expose what one reader called "the Great Judicial Fallacy" that affects family court's handling of abuse cases.

They reveal how to transform your lived experiences into evidence that resonates with legal professionals. The book walks you through how to document incidents, present patterns of behavior, and frame your concerns in language the court will actually respond to.

One particularly valuable section explains how to demonstrate the impact of seemingly "minor" incidents that professionals might otherwise dismiss. This is crucial when you’re dealing with coercive control, where the pattern matters more than any single event. Another big takeaway for me is how the book talks about how perceived credibility influences judges’ decisions when they lack true insight into a situation.

As one protective parent shared: "This is the book that could finally open the eyes of family court professionals about what passes for 'best interest of the child' in a system that privileges parental rights over child safety." Another reader called it "a roadmap through the minefield of family court where intimate violence, child abuse or coercive control are part of the picture."

Think of it as your courtroom Rosetta Stone. It helps you translate your truth into terms the legal system can process without diluting its importance. It’s also an incredibly validating read for victims of domestic violence and post-separation abuse. One survivor summed it up perfectly: "It's nice to read a book that makes you feel seen and heard when you're struggling."

A couple of weeks back, I unearthed my MA thesis, written (what feels like) a gazillion years ago. It was about how judges in Germany make their decisions in cases about homeschooling. My professor was an expert on hermeneutics and I realized at the time that Gadamer’s theory explained the gap between the expectations of homeschoolers in Germany and what rulings judges there actually made.

As I was rereading my thesis, I realized that this is also a key factor in family court, and this newsletter is the result of that. But there’s still plenty that I have to say, too much to fit into one newsletter. So, look forward to more insights, in future newsletters, into how the court thinks and how you can use this to strategize in your dealings with your lawyers and court professionals.