When Advocating for Children, AFCs Must Do More Than Just Repeat Their Words
Parental alienation is one of the most heart-wrenching and complex issues to navigate in family court. It’s a scenario where one parent, through manipulation and influence, turns a child against the other parent—often causing lasting emotional and psychological damage. In these situations, the role of the Attorney for the Child (AFC) is critical. AFCs are supposed to be the voice of the child in court, ensuring that the child’s needs and best interests are represented. Yet, when parental alienation is alleged, too often AFCs fall into what can only be described as the “lazy advocacy” trap.
The Lazy Advocacy Trap: Regurgitating the Child’s Words
It’s disturbingly common: an AFC listens to a child say they don’t want to see one parent and then simply relays that preference to the judge. Case closed. The reasoning? “I am here to represent my client’s wishes.” While this approach might technically adhere to the letter of the law, it completely disregards the spirit of what advocacy for children should mean. After all, a child’s wishes are not always synonymous with their best interests. And in cases of alleged alienation, taking a child’s words at face value without further inquiry does a grave disservice to everyone involved—especially the child.
Take this example: In a family courtroom, a father stood pleading with his child’s attorney, desperate to understand why his once-loving 8-year-old suddenly refused to see him. The AFC replied, “I’m going to tell the judge what my client wants. It’s not my job to interpret their wishes, but I trust the judge won’t make a decision based solely on them.” Yet, moments later, the father left the courtroom shattered, having lost visitation with his son. The child’s words, filtered through an attorney unwilling to ask deeper questions, became the basis for a decision that tore apart a parent-child relationship.
This isn’t advocacy—it’s negligence.
The Question No One is Asking: “Why?”
When a child tells an AFC, “I don’t want to see my dad,” that statement should be the beginning of an inquiry, not the end. The question that must follow is, “Why?”
- Did the father do something harmful or neglectful to cause the child to resist visitation?
- Or is the child being coached by the other parent, who knows that weaponizing the child’s wishes can sabotage the relationship with the alienated parent?
Unfortunately, many AFCs fail to ask this crucial question. Instead, they take the child’s words at face value and assume their duty ends there. But children are not adults—they don’t have the emotional maturity or life experience to navigate these situations without guidance. Their words are often heavily influenced by the parent they spend the most time with, the parent who controls their environment, and the parent who may be actively undermining the other’s relationship with them.
Why “Wishes” Shouldn’t Always Dictate Advocacy
The role of an AFC is more nuanced than simply parroting what a child says. Children often don’t understand what is best for them. If a child says they don’t want to do their homework or go to school, do we validate that decision simply because it’s their “wish”? Of course not. As adults, we have an obligation to guide children toward what is in their best interests, even when it’s not what they want in the moment.
The same principle applies to family court. When a child says they don’t want to see one parent, an AFC should dig deeper:
- Is the child expressing genuine fear or discomfort? If so, what’s the root cause?
- Are they being influenced or manipulated by the other parent?
- Are they reflecting a temporary emotion, or is there a deeper pattern that needs to be addressed?
By failing to ask these questions, AFCs are failing to fulfill their obligation to advocate for the child’s long-term well-being.
How Did the Court System Get So Messy?
The current family court system prioritizes a child’s “voice” but often forgets that children’s voices are shaped by the adults around them. Judges, AFCs, and therapists are inundated with cases, and in their effort to resolve them quickly, they can become blind to the complexities of alienation. The result? Decisions are made based on surface-level interpretations of a child’s wishes, rather than a thorough investigation of the family dynamics.
In the messy, overburdened system, the responsibility of ensuring that a child maintains a meaningful relationship with both parents is often pushed aside. Alienating parents exploit this chaos, knowing that time, delays, and superficial assessments will work in their favor. And AFCs, often overwhelmed and underprepared, become unwitting participants in the alienation process.
What Needs to Change?
- AFCs Must Prioritize Investigation:
- AFCs should not simply report a child’s wishes; they must investigate the “why” behind those wishes. This includes interviewing both parents, reviewing evidence, and considering the possibility of coaching or manipulation.
- Judges Must Hold AFCs Accountable:
- Judges should demand thorough reports from AFCs that go beyond, “The child doesn’t want to see their father.” Advocacy must include context, analysis, and recommendations based on the child’s best interests—not just their immediate desires.
- Therapists and Evaluators Must Be Involved:
- Independent forensic evaluations can provide critical insights into whether a child’s rejection of a parent is due to genuine issues or alienation. Courts must rely on these evaluations as part of their decision-making process.
- Focus on Long-Term Best Interests:
- The court system needs to shift its focus from validating a child’s temporary wishes to ensuring their long-term well-being. Encouraging relationships with both parents, unless there is clear evidence of harm, should always be the goal.
- Education and Training for AFCs:
- AFCs need specialized training to recognize the signs of parental alienation and distinguish them from genuine concerns. They must understand how their actions—or inaction—can impact a child’s life forever.
Conclusion
When a child says they don’t want to see one parent, it’s not the AFC’s job to simply echo those words in court. It’s their responsibility to uncover the truth, advocate for the child’s best interests, and ensure that the court sees the full picture. Anything less is a betrayal of the very children they are sworn to represent.
For the fathers who leave the courtroom with their heads in their hands, broken and confused, the system has failed. For the children who grow up alienated from one parent, manipulated into believing they don’t need them, the system has failed. It’s time for AFCs, judges, and therapists to stop taking the easy way out and start asking the hard questions. Only then can we untangle the mess that family court has become.
I’m Randy Morano—a father, author, and staunch advocate for parental alienation awareness. My journey through the depths of parental alienation has transformed me into a passionate advocate, dedicated to shedding light on this overlooked form of emotional abuse.
As a survivor, I understand the profound impact of parental alienation firsthand. Through my writing and advocacy efforts, I aim to raise awareness, empower others, and provide support to families in need. Join me in the fight for change and hope.
