Lawsuit: More Harm Than Good in Linda Gottlieb's Reunification Practices?
Tech Dad Sues Ex and Therapy Queen Over Kids' Trauma
By Richard Luthmann
In a Filed Lawsuit arising from a Family Court matter in Clark County, Washington, Filip Hanik, a software engineer, has taken legal action against his ex-wife, Teresa Hanik, parental alienation consultant Linda J. Gottlieb, and her organization, Turning Points For Families. Seeking over $1 million in damages, Filip's lawsuit contends that Gottlieb’s practices, rather than bringing healing, have inflicted further harm on his family. Filip brings the case in his capacity and on behalf of his children, A. H. and T. H.
“Defendants’ actions caused A.H. and T.H. to be detained and confined without legal warrant and inflicted emotional distress upon all Plaintiffs…[u]sing the pretext of an arbitrator's order for ‘reunification’ therapy between A.H. and T.H. and their estranged mother,” the court papers say.
The Haniks’ contentious Washington State Family Court case was submitted to a Court-appointed Arbitrator. The core of the injury claims is that Gottlieb and Turning Points colluded with Teresa Hanik to sell Filip and the Court Arbitrator a bill of goods.
For many years, Gottlieb has advocated for intensive 4-day interventions addressing domestic violence and child psychological abuse. Turning Point offers these services, often related to family court custody disputes. Theresa presented Gottlieb’s credentials and program to the Arbitrator and Filip, who agreed the outlined plan would be in the children’s best interests.
However, according to Filip, the so-called therapeutic intervention was nothing of the sort. The father says Gottlieb and Turning Points conspired with Teresa Hanik not to heal his children but to harm them.
“Turning Points and Gottlieb specialize in subjecting children to a coercive program that, through systematic psychological mistreatment, disorientation, and ‘brainwashing,’ makes the children accept the custody and control of a parent who has mistreated them. Turning Points and Gottlieb, in exchange for a fee paid by Mother, agreed to attempt to apply such coercive mistreatment to A.H. and T.H. in order to support a change of custody in Mother's favor,” the legal complaint alleges.
This case may deal a blow to reunification therapy, often Court-ordered in the aftermath of divisive custody disputes. This form of treatment aims to mend the fractured relationships between alienated parents and their children.
Linda Gottlieb’s Professional Background and Methods
Linda J. Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW, is a recognized figure in the field of family therapy, known for her work with severe family disruptions, including domestic violence by proxy and parental relationship distress. Trained by Salvador Minuchin, a notable figure in Structural Family Systems, she is a leading practitioner in this contested clinical area.
Gottlieb’s techniques, elaborated in her book The Parental Alienation Syndrome, leverage her broad experience handling complex family dynamics.
Despite her contributions to the field, Gottlieb's methods have not been without their critics. The core of the contention lies in applying her intensive intervention strategies, particularly their suitability across varied family situations marked by deep-seated issues and sensitivities.
Critics of Gottlieb's approach argue that her model may not be universally applicable, raising concerns over its potential to exacerbate rather than alleviate familial tensions. One of these critics is Jill Jones Soderman, the Founder and Executive Director of the Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC), a non-profit organization that advocates for families engaged in high-conflict custody conflicts.
The FCVFC denounces Gottlieb’s work in the strongest of terms, claiming it destroys families:
“The FCVFC views the practice of “Reunification Therapy” as not only a dangerous fraud money-making scam, but a form of child trafficking. We view the connection between the court transfer of children into the hands of abusers as a unilateral, well-organized practice of child trafficking, with connections in every case to some form of racketeering.
For this reason we write up these cases for FBI referral and referral to the Office of the US attorney general. The chain of corruption requires intensive forensic investigation.
“Devastation” cannot begin to describe the dictatorial, disrespectful, overpowering nature of the assault on children, but the term “broken” children does apply. To suggest that this system of adding trauma upon trauma is anti-therapeutic, anti-democratic, and in violation of the UN treaties defining the rights of the child.
On the other hand, there are professionals within the mental health community who regard Gottlieb's approach as groundbreaking.
Despite the debate surrounding her methods, Gottlieb remains a polarizing figure. Some champion her innovative solutions to complex problems, while others question her therapy techniques' ethical and practical implications.
The Core of Hanik’s Allegations Against Gottlieb’s Therapeutic Practices
The Hanik case scrutinizes the psychological impact of Gottlieb's reunification therapy, explicitly criticizing the 4-day intervention aimed at mending strained family relations. Central to Hanik's accusations is the claim that his children, A.H. and T.H., suffered considerably under Gottlieb's care.
The court document explicitly states, “Defendants conspired to subject the minor children A.H. and T.H. to unlawful coercion, threats, unlawful detention, and psychological torture.”
The lawsuit alleges a fundamental problem with Gottlieb’s methods: the prioritization of procedural adherence over the genuine well-being and safety of the children. It accuses Gottlieb and her team of misleading conduct. The papers say the defendants did not convey to the Arbitrator the true nature of the "intervention" they had planned. This misrepresentation, Filip Hanik argues, directly contributed to a therapy that exacerbated, rather than alleviated, his children's psychological distress.
Further, Hanik’s complaint challenges the personalized approach of Gottlieb's signature 4-day intervention, arguing that it was improperly tailored to his children's specific needs and circumstances, particularly as they relate to familial conflicts marked by allegations of domestic violence and parental alienation. The lawsuit contends that the intervention was misapplied and conducted without sensitivity to the children’s experiences and emotional states.
Additionally, Hanik points to a significant ethical lapse in the implementation of Gottlieb’s therapy, highlighting an apparent neglect of obtaining informed consent and ensuring the children’s comprehension and comfort throughout the process. According to the filings, this neglect led to a therapeutic environment fraught with psychological pressure rather than support and understanding, directly contradicting the intended purpose of reunification therapy.
For A.H. and T.H., Gottlieb’s methods allegedly resulted in "unlawful coercion, threats, unlawful detention, and psychological torture" rather than healing.
Evaluating the Impact of Reunification Therapy
Filip Hanik’s lawsuit against Linda Gottlieb and Turning Points for Families isn’t the first horror story about Reunification Therapy and the “Intensive 4-Day Intervention” program.
Last year, Olivia Gentile told the story of Ashton Goff and his little brother for Business Insider. In 2016, a judge ordered Goff, then 14, and his 9-year-old brother to attend the reunification program, Turning Points for Families, run by Gottlieb. Goff said he was forced into therapy to bond with his emotionally abusive father, and the next three and a half years were hell. He describes Gottlieb’s program as follows:
“There was no real therapy going on. It was like a vacation with supervision. We went on little field trips every day. We went to a park, we went to a gymnasium, we went to get ice cream. We looked at old pictures, and we just kind of talked about my mom.
Gottlieb said my mom had alienated me from my dad and that I needed to reconnect with him because what I'd learned about him wasn't true. But my mom never really influenced how I felt about my dad.
With Gottlieb, I was allowed to voice my complaints, but I was told they were wrong. And I had trouble expressing myself because my dad was there, and I was scared of him.
The workshop doesn't repair anything — it just forces you back into a situation where you're afraid. It's forced compliance through fear.”
Afterward, Goff lived with his father. He had to change schools. He wasn't allowed to talk to his old friends, his mom, his cousins, his grandparents, or anyone associated with his mom. He was terrified of living with his dad.
“Sometimes he would just bust through my door and start yelling at me for no reason, saying I'm on drugs, I'm gay, all these things. I was shoved, hit, and sent to my room for days. He threatened to kill me.”
When Goff was 17, his father told him he had to go to Family Court and testify against his mother. His father pressured him to claim he wanted to live with him forever. Goff didn't want to do it, so he ran away.
Finally, the Family Court judge caught on and said Goff didn't have to return to his father’s home.
Ashton Goff’s case is just one of many. Mia and her younger sister Ava are survivors of Linda Gottlieb’s reunification camp offered through Turning Points for Families. At age 16, Mia testified before the California State Senate about her experience:
My name is Mia, and my sister Ava and I have been victims of a reunification camp. From the beginning, I’ve been told that every parent should have the right and opportunity to have a relationship with their child - regardless of what damage they’ve done. While that’s correct to a certain degree, the thing people forget is relationships can’t be forced. No one can force a genuine connection with someone, not even a biological parent. Especially when abuse has occurred with that parent and the child is completely opposed to it. Things happening naturally and organically is the only way it will work. Not by shipping children off, unwillingly, to force them into compliance.
At Linda Gottlieb’s camp, Turning Points for Families, I was told that I was "alienated" from my biological father and the way they were going to fix that was by sending me to a camp with my abuser and cutting off all communication with my support system and family. So their plan was fixing “alienation” with alienation.
My experience at this reunification camp has greatly affected my life. Linda’s agenda has affected my life. Being left alone with no one to support me and help me through this trauma has affected my life. On top of all that my mental health has plummeted, but no one cared because as long as my biological father got what he wanted and Linda could say that her program was working, it didn’t matter what was really going on. It didn’t matter that even after the camp and after the 90-day black-out period, I still didn’t want anything to do with my father. Linda and those who supported this weren’t happy because they didn’t get the results they wanted. You should be asking yourself, why the results weren’t what Linda Gottlieb said they would be? Because this “program” does NOT work. No child I’ve ever talked to has said that being forced to reconnect with their abusive parent has actually made them want a relationship.
What’s worse than having your basic human rights taken away by being sent to this place, is what happens at this camp. You’re forced to stay with an abusive parent who doesn’t actually care about your well being, and you are forced to listen to this person claim to love you, make up excuses, blame you, call you crazy, belittle you, and tell you what you’re feeling is invalid and wrong. “Not normal” is what I've been told, as well. What is not normal, is this entire process. No child should be put through this abuse and left to unpack lifelong trauma…
By allowing these reunification programs and camps to be legal, you’re allowing children’s rights to be stolen and you are condoning human trafficking. By not taking a stand against reunification camps, you are supporting the mental and emotional abuse of children, and you are complicit in our lifelong trauma. No amount of therapy will alleviate what we have lived through.
No real, loving parent would torture their child by sending them to these awful places. There are not enough words to express how deeply this experience has damaged my life…Having no sense of control, even over your own freedom, no option or choice but to do what these so-called “professionals” are telling you is “in your best interest,” sent me down a spiral of darkness, loneliness, fear, anxiety, and depression. By allowing these camps to continue you’re saying “yes,” to controlling and manipulating children. You’re agreeing with the abuse that is taking place and because of this, you have ownership in the trauma inflicted on me, my sister and countless other children…
You can’t let kids continue to run away to avoid being sent to reunification camps. Kids are barricading themselves in homes, terrified that they will be taken by transport agents and sent to reunification camps, and fearing that they may never see their family again…
There aren't enough words, nor are there enough descriptors for me to fully express how this experience has affected my life. It has been almost six months since I was removed from my preferred parent, my mother. I am a 16-year-old girl, and I desperately want to be reunited with my mother. I want to resume a normal life versus the one that I have been court-ordered into. My sister and I are being robbed of a relationship with our mother, and our childhoods have been stolen. This is cruel and it should be illegal.
Thank you for your time, Mia, age 16.
The experiences of Ashton and Mia appear to track with the allegations made in the Hanik lawsuit.
“Defendants conspired to subject the minor children A.H. and T.H. to unlawful coercion, threats, unlawful detention, and psychological torture.”
This grave accusation suggests that the drive for reunification overshadows the actual needs and well-being of the children involved—Hanik's legal challenge deep-seated concern regarding the methods employed by Gottlieb.
Moreover, the case highlights the lack of standardized protocols within reunification therapy. Therapists like Gottlieb hold significant discretion over the course and nature of the interventions. This discretion, while allowing for tailor-made approaches, also raises concerns about the consistency and safety of the therapeutic processes, mainly when powerful dynamics such as parental alienation are at play.
The assertion that the Defendants did not convey “the true nature of the ‘intervention’ they had planned” raises the need for transparency and accountability within reunification therapy. The lawsuit encourages reevaluating how therapy goals are communicated and agreed upon, ensuring that all parties—especially the affected children—understand and consent to the therapeutic approach.
The lawsuit also raises ethical questions. Do the current frameworks and practices adequately protect children from further trauma? Do they genuinely facilitate the healing of family relationships or inadvertently compound existing issues?
Regarding the systemic issues in Family Court, Hanik's case requires a thorough review. Mental health professionals and the legal system must scrutinize interventions. These should not only focus on repairing broken bonds but also be based on a deep understanding of each family's unique situation. They should be free from coercion and align with the children's needs and best interests.
The Hanik case against Linda J. Gottlieb and Turning Points for Families promises a critical reassessment of reunification therapy's methodologies and its role in resolving complex family disputes.
We contacted Gottlieb and Turning Points for Families for comment about the Hanik lawsuit and the general allegations that their Reunification Programs “do more harm than good" and are “anti-therapeutic." As of press time, no response was received.
Parental Alienation is real. It's Coercive Control and Psychological Control.
Linda saw my 4 kids and my oldest tried to take his own life several months later. He hasn’t spoken to me for two years. Thank goodness the others have made their way back to me, and that he is still alive. We are waiting for the damage she did to be repaired.