Family Court fails Children

Let’s stop softening this.

Family court is not just failing children in some cases—it is exposing professionals to real statutory liability when they ignore what is right in front of them.

Attorneys in family court are not bystanders. They are officers of the court, bound by ethical duties, statutory mandates, and a legal obligation to protect the best interest of the child. When that duty is breached, it is not just a moral failure—it can rise to professional misconduct, civil liability, and, in some cases, criminal exposure.

Let’s call it what it is.

Now let’s speak in case law and immunity boundaries—because this is where accountability either happens… or is avoided.

In California, the statutory framework is already clear:

Family Code § 3011, § 3020, and § 3044 mandate that child safety and a history of abuse are not optional considerations—they are controlling factors.

But here is where it becomes even more critical:

In In re Marriage of Fajota (2014), the court reaffirmed that failure to properly apply the § 3044 presumption is reversible error.

Translation: If abuse is established and the presumption against custody to the perpetrator is not applied correctly, the decision itself is legally defective.

In In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009), the court recognized that non-physical abuse—such as invasion of privacy and coercive control dynamics—can constitute actionable harm.

Translation: Abuse is not limited to visible bruises. Psychological and coercive patterns matter—and are legally recognized.

In In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004), the California Supreme Court emphasized that courts must evaluate the impact of parental behavior on the child’s stability and well-being, not just surface-level compliance.

Translation: Behavior patterns and relational harm are part of the legal analysis—not distractions from it.

So when attorneys ignore coercive control, minimize abuse, or frame cases as “mutual conflict,” they are not aligned with case law—

They are contradicting it.

Now let’s address the shield many hide behind:

Yes—judges generally have absolute immunity for acts performed within their judicial capacity.

Yes—court-appointed professionals (such as minor’s counsel or evaluators) may have quasi-judicial immunity under certain conditions.

But let’s be very clear about what immunity does not cover:

Immunity is not a blanket protection for:

• Acts outside the scope of judicial function

• Administrative or investigative failures

• Conduct taken in the clear absence of jurisdiction

• Bad faith actions that step outside protected roles

And for attorneys specifically:

There is no absolute immunity for:

• Legal malpractice

• Breach of fiduciary duty

• Failure to meet professional standards of care

• State Bar violations (Rules of Professional Conduct)

Let me say that again:

And when their conduct contributes to placing a child in harm’s way—especially in contradiction to statutory mandates and established case law—they are exposed to:

• Civil liability (malpractice, negligence, emotional distress)

• Professional discipline (State Bar action)

• Potential federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (when acting in concert with state actors in ways that deprive constitutional protections)

Here is the bottom line from a forensic and legal standpoint:

When you have:

• Clear statutes (§ 3011, § 3020, § 3044)

• Reinforcing case law (Fajota, Nadkarni, LaMusga)

• Recognized patterns of abuse (including coercive control)

…and you still fail to act in protection of the child,

You are no longer operating within discretion.

You are operating within exposure.

Because immunity was never designed to protect indifference.

It was never designed to shield incompetence.

And it was never intended to enable a system where children become casualties of legal strategy.

To every professional in that courtroom:

If you choose to ignore what the law requires and what the evidence shows, understand this—

You may be protected in part by the system…

But you are not beyond accountability.

Not ethically.

Not professionally.

And in many cases—

Not legally.

— Dr. Kathie Mathis, Psy.D

When an attorney knowingly disregards evidence of abuse, coercive control, or endangerment, they are not being “neutral.” They are potentially violating:

• Best Interest of the Child Standards (Family Code) — which require courts and all participating professionals to prioritize child safety, health, and welfare above all else.

• Mandated Reporter Laws — where applicable, failure to report suspected child abuse is not an oversight, it is a statutory violation.

• Rules of Professional Conduct — including duties of competence, diligence, and candor to the tribunal. Ignoring patterns of abuse is not competent representation.

• Fraud on the Court / Misrepresentation — when material facts are omitted, minimized, or strategically buried.

• Civil Rights Violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983) — when systemic failures or willful blindness contribute to deprivation of a child’s constitutional protections.

And let’s go deeper.

When a child is placed—or kept—in a harmful environment because the professionals involved chose convenience over investigation, you are looking at potential exposure for:

• Negligence and Gross Negligence

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Malpractice Claims

• Conspiracy or Aiding and Abetting Harm

This is not theoretical. This is actionable.

There is a dangerous culture in family court that hides behind phrases like:

“High conflict case.”

“Both parties are difficult.”

“There’s not enough proof.”

Let me translate that through a forensic lens:

That is often code for failure to assess coercive control, failure to identify victim-hostage dynamics, and failure to understand the psychology of perpetrators.

And when you fail to understand it—you enable it.

Children do not have the luxury of legal strategy.

They do not have the power to reframe narratives.

They are dependent on the adults in that courtroom to see clearly and act decisively.

So when attorneys stop caring—or worse, become desensitized—they are not just stepping back.

They are stepping into liability.

Because the law does not protect indifference.

The law does not excuse willful blindness.

And the law will increasingly hold professionals accountable who knew or should have known that a child was at risk.

To every attorney, evaluator, and officer of the court:

If you ignore patterns of abuse, you are part of the pattern.

If you minimize danger, you magnify harm.

And if you fail to act in the best interest of the child, understand this clearly—

That failure may not just follow you ethically.

It may follow you legally.

This is no longer about awareness.

This is about accountability.

— Dr. Kathie Mathis, Psy.D

CEO California Behavioral Institute; Presidential and FBI award recipient; author; Master Trainer; Activist/Advocate; court expert-testimony; expert in Domestic Violence perpetrators and victims; child abuse; Human trafficking; Podcaster; Trauma Specialist; TV consultant; Judicial trainer/consultant; co-Founder California Assoc. of Anger Management Providers; National Training Director NWCAVE