Children who have been sexually abused by a parent or other family member face a deep form of shame and betrayal. This is compounded when they disclose their abuse and are met with disbelief or blame instead of protection, validation and support.
But even in cases when abuse is reported and legal action is pursued against the offending parent, these protective steps are often not able to keep children from having to interact with their abusers. That’s because family courts often mandate so-called reunification therapy, a dubious practice that pushes kids to reconnect with the abusive parent despite the potential harm and re-traumatization this can cause. Family court judges need to keep survivors safe by granting custody to the non-offending parents and stop requiring any sort of contact with parents who have sexually abused their children.
The challenges for non-offending parents who aim to prevent further abuse are many. The legal process of reporting child sexual abuse often leads to fraught and financially costly custody battles and is re-traumatizing to the children and to the non-offending parent, who is often a survivor of domestic violence perpetrated by the abusive parent as well. Child protective services workers act from a “reunification is best” standpoint and aim to “heal” families by requiring counseling where children and the offending parent attend together. In some cases, this reunification therapy is mandated even when a restraining order has been granted against the abusive parent.
My experience working with these families as an advocate is that children in these cases often tell the non-offending parent they don’t want to see the abuser. It’s difficult for the non-offending parents to explain that they can be held in contempt by the court if they fail to deliver their children to these mandated sessions.One mother told a guardian ad-litem — a court-appointed legal advocate who is supposed to represent the interests of the children — that her daughter was crying and begging not to go to the reunification therapy sessions with her father, who had sexually abused her. The mother said she could not keep taking her to these sessions. The guardian ad-litem told her that if she could not take the child to the session herself, she should call an Uber for her 5-year-old daughter. Ridiculous and unsafe.
To be sure, reunification therapy can sometimes be appropriate to heal families when a parent who has hurt or neglected their child has made real changes. For example, a parent who previously struggled with substance use, but has gotten clean, goes to therapy, and shows remorse may be ready for this therapy, and the children may be ready to see them again. Sexual abusers who receive sex offender treatment areless likely to reoffend. If the abuser seeks help, and the child wants to see them again, courts should then consider the child’s wishes and safety, perhaps allowing for reunification therapy or supervised visitation.
However, parents accused of sexual abuse often deny the abuse and claim the non-offending parent has coached the children to lie, even though children rarely lie about sexual abuse. Intrafamilial sexual abuse rarely results in convictions, since many children, especially young children, are not prepared to testify, and if the child has not had a rape kit done within 3-5 days of the last penetrative sexual abuse, there will often be little to no physical evidence.
Sexual abusers in these cases will not face any consequences, including court mandated treatment. When family courts force children who have been sexually abused by a parent to attend reunification therapy and visits with the abusive parent, despite the child’s clearly stated desire to not interact with that parent again, they are asking these children to condone and forgive their sexual abuse.
In part due to advocacy from teenagers who have spoken about being forced to attend harmful reunification therapy and visitation with abusive parents, new laws have been passed federally and in several U.S. states to prohibit family courts from forcing children to interact with abusive parents and attend harmful “reunification camps” — highly profitable and morally unethical groups, which attempt to brainwash children into recanting allegations of abuse.
These laws require those who make custody decisions to receive training about the signs of abuse. In 2022, the federal Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized to include Kayden’s Law. This law, named after a 7-year-old girl who was murdered by her father during his court-mandated unsupervised visitation, encourages states to adopt laws requiring that family courts consider past evidence of domestic abuse in custody decisions. It also includes “limiting the use of reunification camps and therapies which cannot be proven to be safe and effective.” Other states have passed similar laws. California passed “Piqui’s Law” in 2023. The law is named after a 5-year-old boy who was murdered by his father during a family court case. A similar bill is now pending in Massachusetts: H.2037, “An Act Relative to Domestic Abuse Protection, Katherine’s Law”.
We wouldn’t send a soldier with severe PTSD back to war. Why are family courts sending children back to parents who have sexually abused them?
In some cases, the state pays for victims’ compensation for children who have been abused, and then at the same time forces the children to attend reunification therapy with, visit or even live with a parent they have accused of sexually abusing them. Family court judges need to believe children who say they have been sexually abused by a parent and stop mandating these harmful interactions in cases where children express that they do not want to see their abuser.
About the Author: Lindsay Hawthorne is a child sexual abuse prevention advocate and a 2025 Public Voices Fellow of on the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at The OpEd Project.
