Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire

From protecting her kids to exploiting others: Linda Gottlieb questions Swithin's actions.

Nov 25, 2024

NOTE: I read this article earlier today. I immediately contacted Linda Gottlieb, who agreed to this outlet’s republication. My hope is that further disseminating Linda’s perspective will further the robust debate on Parental Alienation, Reunification Therapy, and Family Courts. Linda’s opinions on Tina Swithin are her own. I have not interviewed either woman, but I would enjoy the opportunity and continue to extend a standing offer. - Richard Luthmann

By Linda Gottlieb LMFT, LCSW-R

In 2009, Tina Swithin, of One Mom’s Battle (OMB), had an exceedingly contentious public custody battle. Swithin is to be commended for prioritizing her children’s best interests during the protracted Court proceedings.

Swithin has, to the contrary, reversed her behaviors. She has abandoned the child’s best interest standard when it comes to children who are Court-ordered to participate in reunification therapy. Swithin has exacerbated the harm to these children.

Here, I will discuss:

How Swithin protected her children’s best interests in her own contentious custody case.
The “child's best interest” parenting behaviors are required in contentious custody cases.
Swithin’s unlawful intrusions in Court-ordered reunification cases and her abandoning of the “child’s best interest” standard in these cases.
Potential trauma to children from public disclosure of their family drama.

Tina Swithin Knows Better

According to her posts and videos on social media:

Swithin kept her children’s identities concealed in an otherwise very public custody case.
Swithin told her children they DO NOT have to choose between their parents.
Swithin DID NOT badmouth the father to her children.
Swithin facilitated the father’s relationship with their children.
Swithin enforced the father’s parenting time.

Swithin proudly and correctly credits herself for having shielded her children from public exposure in her own custody case. Swithin writes:

“In my books, I refer to my ex-husband’s mother as “Cleo.” I refer to my children as Piper and Sarah and my ex-husband as Seth. Even though the adults in this situation have been publicly outed, I will continue to protect the identities of everyone except my ex-brother-in-law, Jason Robert Porter.”

LEARN MORE: Tina Swithin Protects Her Own Children’s Identities

The Child’s Best Interests Required in Contentious Custody Cases

There are a number of “child best interests” parental behaviors that are indispensable in contentious custody cases. These include:

Protecting children from involvement in and knowledge of parental disputes and legal matters.
Assuring children that they will continue to have a meaningful relationship with each parent – predicated on the parent being fit.
Assuring that children maintain their positive feelings for and opinions of the other parent.
Protecting children’s public exposure and concealment of how they had been adversely affected by the family drama.

Exposure of children to publicity and disclosure of their adverse experiences from the family drama is embarrassing, humiliating, and often traumatizing. Swithin is well aware of this, so she acted accordingly to shield her own children from such exposure.

FURTHER READING: Harmful Lies Perpetuated by Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle

Tina Swithin’s Unlawful Intrusions into Reunification Cases

Swithin unlawfully imposes herself in Court-Ordered reunification cases so as to sabotage the reunifications. Swithin stealthily conceals her role in the sabotage – making it appear that the children themselves are freely resisting reunification.

Swithin posts online videos of children whom she claims are victimized by dishonorable Family Court judges and “reunification camps.” These horrific videos show children violently resisting a Court-ordered removal from a parent.

These videos truly are horrific. But they do not reveal the context of the videos.

Swithin fails to state that she masterminds the videos. She encourages and counsels children to shriek hysterically and to violently resist the removal so as to appear that they are being tortured. Swithin alerts the media to film and disclose the events.

Why is it okay for Swithin to protect her own children but not these children?

The above are examples of exploitative social media posts made by OneMomsBattle (Tina Swithin). I blurred the faces of the minor children to protect their identities.

Swithin does not blur children’s faces and shamelessly includes their names and other personal information. She knew better than to do that with her own children.

Potential Harm to Children From Public Exposure & Disclosure

Minor children cannot give consent for public disclosure of their stories. Such consent must be “informed” – which means having a sufficient understanding of the consequences from such exposure and disclosure.

Alienated children cannot possibly have acquired sufficient understanding. First, human cognitive development does not mature until the mid-twenties. Second, the cognitive functioning of alienated children has been severely compromised by the alienation programming. Alienation programming is analogous to the programming in a cult.

The following are some of the serious potential consequences to children from exposure and disclosure of their family drama:

Feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, and shame.
Collateral damage to extended family members, who often include minor cousins.
Teasing and scapegoating from classmates and peers.
Inconsolable guilt from having publicly accused their innocent alienated parent of child abuse, child sexual abuse, or other contemptible behaviors.
Revealing behaviors that typically qualify as antisocial.
Revealing behaviors and attitudes that negatively reflect on them, such as disrespect, defiance, and maltreatment of a parent.
Being confronted later at college or employment interviews with their antisocial behaviors.
Giving the impression of being delusional.
Giving the impression of lacking a conscience.
Giving the impression of having an unwarranted sense of entitlement.
Giving the impression of having no knowledge of or respect for boundaries.
Giving the impression of not knowing right from wrong.

Conclusion

Alienated children have been profoundly harmed by their alienating parent. Unmediated alienation portends an exceedingly poor prognosis in life. Public disclosure and exposure carry high risks for post-traumatic stress disorder and other severe psychiatric conditions.

Tina Swithin’s unlawful intrusions in Court-ordered reunification cases have perpetuated and exacerbated the child abuse by derailing and even precluding timely and effective treatment.

Tina Swithin should receive justice according to how anyone who engages in criminal behaviors receives justice.

Linda Gottlieb LMFT, LCSW-R

Linda is internationally recognized as a parental alienation specialist. With more than 50 years of professional experience as a family therapist, Linda has helped and protected thousands of children.

Linda has testified in more than 500 adversarial custody cases and is highly regarded as an accomplished expert witness & author.