NOTE: I am still waiting for a proponent - any proponent - of Reunification Therapy to explain it to me. Here are my published questions to Linda Gottlieb, Dr. Jennifer Jill Harman, or anyone else who is qualified to respond:
A) Why does parental alienation have a medical/clinical basis, and what is it? Opponents say PA isn’t in the DSM, but at least five of the underlying conditions defining PA are.
B) Why are those who deny PA are mistaken? Albert Einstein said in his letters that he was “alienated” from his son based on his ex-wife’s actions. Einstein is a pretty good spokesperson for your cause. Is Einstein wrong?
C) How is PA medically/clinically diagnosed?
D) How does PA as a clinical condition differ from PA as a legal doctrine?
E) What is reunification therapy, and how does it affect/treat PA?
F) What is the clinical methodology for the treatment of PA?
G) What is your response to those who claim reunification therapy is a form of coercive control and child abuse?
Introduction: Therapy as a Battleground
I am exploring parental alienation and reunification therapy for its clinical and legal justifications and foundations. It is a constant topic of discussion between Michael Volpe and myself on The Unknown Podcast.
Admittedly, I am having trouble with the legal and clinical concept that children’s voices, emotions, and evidence can be disregarded, if not outright ignored, in reunification therapy.
A child can perceive that a parent has done terrible things. Whether or not actually or legally true, the child’s perceptions are nonetheless emotionally valid.
Why aren’t a child’s perceptions and feelings addressed or given weight in reunification therapy?
And why can’t any practitioner of reunification therapy explain the clinical justification for this approach?
An email I received from "Bob Thomas" (a pseudonym) describes a personal experience with what he calls "weaponized psychotherapy." His account sheds light on the darker side of reunification therapy, a practice now widely used in custody battles involving allegations of parental alienation.
Parental alienation is often framed as one parent manipulating a child to reject the other parent. Reunification therapy is promoted as a solution to repair the relationship between the child and the alienated parent.
However, the process has come under fire for its ethical failures, including coercion, psychological manipulation, and harm to children.
Figures like Linda Gottlieb, a vocal proponent of reunification therapy, have become central to these debates, drawing both support and sharp criticism.
Thomas’s story and allegations against Gottlieb expose a pattern of practices that apparently prioritize parents' narratives over children’s well-being. This dynamic demands greater scrutiny, ethical reform, and a shift to evidence-based practices prioritizing children.
Bob Thomas’ Email
Over the weekend, I received this email from “Bob Thomas”:
------- Forwarded Message -------
Date: On Saturday, November 30th, 2024 at 8:58 PM
Subject: Do you sympathize with Linda Gottlieb...or are you on the fence?
To: richard.luthmann@protonmail.com <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>Hi Mr. Luthmann,
Sorry for the lengthy email...hopefully it will be of interest to you.
I read your Linda Gottlieb article on The Frank Report. Curiously, are you still in the investigative stage of your research into Ms. Gottlieb's controversial therapy? Or, have you finished building the legs of your case, and formed conclusions sympathetic toward Ms. Gottlieb and parental alienation therapy?
While I was a college student in the 1980s, I experienced something similar to the situations described by Ms. Gottlieb's disaffected ex-patients. I'm referring specifically to those individuals who report that her therapy violated their rights and left them feeling scarred on a psychoemotional level.
Note that Ms. Gottlieb's therapy is nothing new. It's been happening for as long as psychotherapy has been in vogue Americans.
Four decades ago, such abuses were known as "weaponizing psychotherapy." Spouses embroiled in bitter divorce battles would put their children in the middle of the crossfire, attempting to use the kids as pawns and proxies. Then, whichever spouse possessed financial power (within the family) would shop for a psychotherapist willing to uncritically accept their personal narrative of the family melodrama. That narrative, invariably, was that the other spouse is vindictive, crazy, supposedly making the children mentally ill, and alienating the kids' affection.
Next, the following events would unfold:
1) The psychotherapist would form a personal and financial relationship with the spouse who sought their services (the financially dominant spouse).
2) The psychotherapist and the parent (paying for the psychotherapy) would agree that one of the children, the so-called "black sheep" of the family, must be, in some way, mentally ill, and that this explained why the child wasn't sufficiently empathic towards that parent. Note that the therapist would do this without ever having met the child.
3) The psychotherapist and the parent would agree that the "black sheep" child should be forced into psychotherapy, ostensibly to cure the child's alleged mental illness. Again, this agreement would be reached without discussing the issue with the child.
4) The financially dominant parent would then blackmail and/or menace the child into entering therapy. This could be accomplished, for example, by threatening to terminate all funding for the child's college education.
5) Under duress, the child would agree to enter therapy.
6) Weekly therapy sessions would commence, involving the child and the psychologist. The psychologist would not tell the child what the parent had said, and in fact, would not be transparent about the justification for the therapy. Rather, the psychologist would use the so-called therapeutic techniques of suggestion, manipulation, and mesmerization to gaslight the child into thinking something's somehow "wrong" with them mentally, and from there, start the surreptitous, inexorable process of making the kid feel vaguely guilty about their relationship with the controlling parent.
7) After a few months (or more) of these stressful, vexing weekly therapy sessions, the psychologist would shift gears, so to speak, and try to brainwash the child into conjuring an "all good" understanding of the manipulative parent who had forced them into therapy.
8) Throughout all of this, week after week, month after month, the psychotherapist would regularly report back to the parent (who's paying them) about the progress of this so-called therapy.
9) At some point, the psychologist would recommend that the child spend a couple of months as an inpatient at a mental hospital of the psychologist's choosing, ostensibly so the child could benefit from daily, intensive psychotherapy, to treat the kid's alleged mental illness. Hospital staff would receive the psychologist's medical notes, and relate to the child exactly as the psychologist did (i.e., vaguely implying that the kid's somehow crazy, and not nice to their parent.) Also,the manipulative parent would form a close relationship with hospital treatment staff.
10) The entire situation would end only at that future point when the controlling parent suddenly loses interest in continuing the kid's psychotherapy. Usually, the reason would be that the manipulative parent reaches a point where, personally, they feel that their narrative of the family's problems has been validated, and that the entire family - including the "black sheep" child-patient - is mentally ill, and therefore to blame for all the family problems. Often, at the same time, the legal divorce proceedings would be completed. That's when the manipulative might walk out of the child's life altogether.
I'm interested in your reaction to what I've described here.
Best Regards,
Bob Thomas
(pseudonym)
Weaponized Psychotherapy: A Pattern of Abuse?
I have no reason to discount Bob Thomas’ observations. He describes a troubling dynamic in which financially dominant parents manipulate therapy to control their children and marginalize their co-parents. He outlines a step-by-step process that mirrors complaints from others who have experienced reunification therapy under contentious circumstances.
The dark side of reunification therapy, as outlined by Thomas and reflected in the allegations against Linda Gottlieb and other practitioners, underscores the need for change. Therapy must serve children's best interests and not become a weapon in parental disputes. Reform is not optional; protecting vulnerable children from further harm is essential.
The process begins with a controlling parent—often the one with financial power—hiring a therapist who aligns with their version of the family conflict. The child is labeled the “black sheep” and pressured into therapy, sometimes through financial or other threats.
Once the child is coerced into participation, therapy sessions become a tool for gaslighting. The therapist reinforces the parent’s narrative, framing the child as mentally ill and emotionally defective.
In some cases, therapy escalates to recommendations for inpatient psychiatric treatment. Thomas recalls instances where children were institutionalized, further isolating them and embedding the therapist’s narrative.
Throughout the process, therapists routinely report back to the paying parent, feeding their sense of validation while undermining the child’s autonomy and emotional health.
This therapy often ends abruptly—not because the child has healed, but because the controlling parent feels vindicated or the legal battle concludes. Children are left scarred, and their relationships with the alienated parent are often irreparably damaged.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe that’s not reunification therapy. After all, Albert Einstein reported feeling “alienated” from his child because of the actions of his ex-wife.
But then again, hundreds of critics tell me about the harms. No practitioner of reunification therapy - not a single one - has provided a counterargument.
The Linda Gottlieb Controversy
Linda Gottlieb’s work exemplifies the broader controversies surrounding reunification therapy. A staunch advocate for parental alienation interventions, Gottlieb has built a reputation for restoring relationships between children and alienated parents.
She criticizes the approaches of others who she believes harm children and families.
Yet Gottlieb’s critics argue that her methods reflect many of the abusive dynamics Thomas describes.
Gottlieb’s approach reportedly frames any resistance from children as evidence of alienation, dismissing their legitimate concerns about the alienated parent. This framing often shifts the focus away from the child's perspective, prioritizing the alienated parent’s grievances.
Critics, like Dr. Jill Jones Soderman, the Founder and Executive Director of the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts, accuse Gottlieb and others of employing coercive tactics, including isolating children from their preferred parents and subjecting them to intense, emotionally taxing therapy sessions.
Reports also suggest that Gottlieb’s methods ignore potential abuse by the alienated parent. By defaulting to the assumption that the child’s rejection is manipulated, the therapy risks dismissing genuine fears or trauma.
Critics describe her approach as fundamentally unbalanced, lacking the safeguards necessary to protect children.
Legal and Ethical Questions
The practices described by Thomas and attributed to therapists like Gottlieb raise serious ethical and legal concerns:
Lack of Informed Consent: Children are often forced into therapy without understanding why they are there or what the goals are.
Conflict of Interest: Therapists’ financial ties to the paying parent create an inherent bias, undermining objectivity.
Psychological Harm: Gaslighting, coercion, and isolation violate the foundational ethical principle of "do no harm."
Unscientific Methods: Some forms of reunification therapy lack evidence-based validation. Courts mandate it without robust scrutiny, putting children at risk.
These failures highlight the urgent need for oversight, justification, and perhaps sweeping reform.
Systemic Challenges in Family Court
Family courts frequently mandate reunification therapy based on claims of parental alienation, but they rarely examine its ethical implications. The focus on repairing parent-child relationships often overshadows the child’s voice and needs.
Courts sometimes assume alienation without properly investigating claims. This dynamic creates a fertile ground for the kind of manipulation Thomas describes. Judges may unwittingly become enablers of harm, relying on therapists whose methods lack scientific credibility.
Reforming Reunification Therapy: Putting Children First
Reunification therapy, in its current form, appears deeply flawed. Why? Because children’s perspectives are discounted, and its proponents will not defend why.
Reform must begin with centering the child’s voice. Children should not be coerced into therapy or dismissed as unreliable witnesses to their own experiences.
Therapists must adhere to evidence-based practices and maintain impartiality, free from the influence of the paying parent. Courts need to scrutinize claims of parental alienation more carefully, ensuring that therapy prioritizes healing rather than validating one parent’s narrative.
Thomas’s story reminds us that therapy can become a tool of manipulation when misused. If they cross the line, figures like Linda Gottlieb should be held accountable for their practices.
Families in crisis deserve better—solutions that heal rather than harm.
The jury is still out on whether reunification therapy is the solution that our children deserve.
Share this post