In my time as a journalist and social researcher, there is one thing I have noticed again and again: family court causes people to absolutely lose their shit, and somehow, the court system is completely surprised every time it happens.
Every. Single. Time.
This should not be a surprise anymore, especially when it happens over and over. What it actually is, is the definition of insanity; doing the same traumatic things over and over and expecting different results. If anything, it suggests a distinct common denominator.
Family court has a particular knack for turning regular, functional adults into people who cannot sleep, cannot eat, cannot focus, and cannot stop scanning every email and court notice like it is a smoke alarm.
And then the system behaves like that distress is a character flaw.
It is not.
A lot of what courts interpret as “dramatic,” “unreasonable,” “high-conflict,” or “noncompliant” is actually an entirely predictable nervous system response to threat, uncertainty, loss of control, and repeated exposure to triggering material. When people are in distress, they do very weird things. Not because they are bad people. Because their brains and bodies are trying to survive the moment in front of them. Judgment centers of the brain shut down and primal instinct is redirecting traffic, trying to keep the person alive.
All of this should be a big, flashing red sign that if family court is known to consistently trigger these outcomes, it MUST be fixed. Instead, it’s yet another sign that courts are out of touch with reality and married entirely to their outdated and broken traditions rather than science.
Because if family court actually wants safer courtrooms, better compliance, clearer testimony, and the best possible outcomes for kids, it needs to stop treating dysregulation like insolence and start treating it like data.
Why Family Court Triggers Fight-or-Flight
1) The stakes are primal
Custody, parenting time, protection, housing stability, finances, reputations, and contact with children sit in the same emotional category as survival. When the outcome feels existential, people do not and typically cannot stay calm on command.
2) Chronic uncertainty is its own kind of threat
Family court is not one event. It is a long corridor of waiting, continuances, unclear standards, shifting expectations, and decisions that can feel opaque. That kind of prolonged uncertainty is strongly associated with stress and health harm in adversarial processes, especially when combined with domestic abuse histories or coercive control dynamics.
3) “Prove it” dynamics deliberately punish trauma responses
Trauma does not always present as neat, consistent storytelling. It can show up as hypervigilance, shutdown, memory gaps, emotional flooding, and behavior that looks completely erratic to an outsider. Courts mistakenly treat these natural stress responses as credibility problems instead of the predictable effects of trauma exposure. Research and court-focused scholarship have been pushing trauma-informed approaches precisely because traditional courtroom expectations misread trauma.
4) High-conflict cases create a constant state of activation
When litigation becomes the relationship, every exchange becomes a potential exhibit. People start living like everything is evidence because, in practice, it is. That can intensify reactivity, paranoia, and compulsive documentation. Scholarly work on high-conflict custody contexts underscores how complex these cases are, especially when abuse allegations and evaluation processes are involved.
The Health and Safety Costs Are Real
Family court stress is not only “emotional.” It shows up in bodies.
There is a growing body of research describing the physical and mental health toll associated with family court proceedings, including stress symptoms that can interfere with parenting capacity and day-to-day functioning. Everything in the lizard portion of someone’s brain is saying, “FIGHT FOR YOUR FAMILY.” And by doing that, it makes it harder to focus, keep their cool, and make logical next steps.
And when domestic or family violence is part of the picture, the mental health burden commonly includes depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms, which can intensify under adversarial conditions and repeated contact requirements.
When a system repeatedly and unapologetically triggers fight-or-flight, it should expect people to act like they are under threat. Because everything about the situation is telling their brain that they are.
And those responses? They trickle down. It poisons the community around the people, to include the impacted children. It’s making communities sicker, not better.
Courts Misread Distress as Defiance
Here is the pattern that plays out every day:
- A parent is terrified, overwhelmed, and sleep-deprived.
- They interrupt, over-explain, cry, dissociate, snap, forget dates, bring a binder the size of a microwave, or send too many messages.
- The court labels them “unstable,” “histrionic,” “uncooperative,” or “alienating.”
- The label becomes the judge’s ENTIRE lens.
- The lens becomes the outcome.
This is so unproductive and incredibly backwards. Pro Tip to all of the Judges and Court Administrators out there: if you want regulated behavior, you need regulated environments. No excuses.
What Research Suggests Helps: Procedural Justice and Trauma-Informed Practice
Procedural justice: people do better when the process feels fair
Decades of research on procedural justice show that when people experience legal authorities as fair, respectful, neutral, and allowing them a meaningful voice, they view the system as more legitimate and are far more likely to cooperate.
Family court, to be kind, is a legitimacy factory, for better or worse. When people feel steamrolled or mocked, they escalate. That is basic human nature and there is no way around it. And when they feel heard and treated with dignity, they regulate faster.
Implement Trauma-Informed Courts and STOP Re-Traumatizing People as a Default
Trauma-informed approaches in courts focus on recognizing trauma exposure, reducing unnecessary triggers, and improving the way judicial officers and staff interact with distressed litigants. Major court-focused organizations have developed trauma-informed court frameworks and assessments, and academic work continues to push for integrating trauma-informed care into family court operations.
This is not at all about letting people “get away” with misconduct. If you are a judge making it about that, you need to stop right there and get some perspective. This is not at all about you. It is about designing proceedings that do not predictably light people on fire.
What Family Court Should Change Now
1) Make “voice” real, not ceremonial
If litigants get two minutes to speak after waiting six hours, that is not voice. Build structured opportunities to be heard, with time limits that are consistent and explained in advance. Procedural justice is not a vibe; it is a set of concrete behaviors.
2) Reduce chaos, reduce escalation
Small operational changes lower threat response fast:
- predictable start times
- fewer last-minute adjournments
- plain-language orders that parties can actually follow
- one-page “what happens next” handouts at every hearing
These are safety features.
3) Train for trauma, coercive control, and high-conflict dynamics
Family courts routinely handle cases involving abuse histories and coercive control. Misreading those dynamics can be dangerous for both adult victims and children. Training should reflect that reality.
4) Stop treating dysregulation as credibility evidence
Judges and referees can and SHOULD note behavior without turning it into a moral diagnosis. Doing anything else means you are part of the problem and should rethink your career. A trembling, crying, angry person is not automatically lying. They might be flooded. Courts should be trained to separate demeanor from facts, especially where trauma exposure is likely.
5) Build de-escalation into the courtroom
Courtroom scripts can change outcomes:
- explain what is happening before it happens
- state expectations calmly
- use respectful correction instead of humiliation
- offer short breaks when someone is clearly flooded
These practices are consistent with trauma-informed judicial approaches being studied and taught.
6) Treat safety as a design requirement
A Quiet Question the System Never Asks Out Loud
But there is one uncomfortable question that lingers underneath all of this. One that comes up over and over again through family court cases.
If family court reliably destabilizes people, dysregulates them, exhausts them financially and psychologically, and then documents their distress as evidence of instability, is it possible that the system has little incentive to change?
Family court is often the front door. Criminal court is the hallway behind it.
When people are pushed into fight-or-flight long enough, mistakes happen. Protective orders get violated accidentally. Communications cross lines. Emotional reactions get reframed as threats. Traumatic response is framed as aggression. Contempt findings stack. Police get involved (and that is NEVER good). Charges appear where there were once civil disputes.
None of that requires a conspiracy. It only requires indifference to predictable outcomes.
If courts actually acknowledged how trauma, uncertainty, and prolonged stress distort behavior, they would have to redesign procedures, slow things down, and invest in safety and regulation. That would interrupt a pipeline that quietly converts family distress into criminal exposure.
It is worth asking whether the failure to address family court harm is not an oversight, but a convenience, and whether a system that profits from escalation can ever truly claim surprise when people crack under pressure.
People in distress do weird things, but institutions and systems that ignore that truth do dangerous ones.
Pulling It All Together
Family court is asking people to perform calmness while actively dismantling all of the conditions required for that calmness.
If the system wants truth, stability, and child-centered outcomes, it has to stop acting confused when distressed people behave like *gasp* distressed people.
Courts have a lot of leeway. Judges have a lot of discretion. Be brave. Be trailblazers. Do something new, because clearly the old, broken way is NOT working.
Court does not have to be “soft” to be humane. It just has to be structured, predictable, and psychologically informed. That is how you get safer rooms, better information, and fewer meltdowns that the system later punishes.
Sources
- Dalgarno, E. (2024). Health-related experiences of family court and domestic abuse. Taylor & Francis Online
- Chadwick, G. R. (2024). Coercive Control in High-Conflict Custody Litigation. Family Violence Appellate Project
- Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
- Tyler, T. R. (2015). Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement (procedural justice framework). Yale Law School
- National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). Trauma-Informed Courts.
- Duke Judicial Studies. Research on Trauma-Informed Judicial Practice. Bolch Judicial Institute
- Wiley (2025). Reimagining family courts: Integrating trauma-informed care.
- Douglas, H. (2017). Domestic and family violence, mental health and well-being (review).
