The Dehumanization of Children in Custody Battles: From Child to Exhibit

In family court, a child’s name is mentioned dozens of times. Their schedules are debated, their preferences speculated on, their mental health records picked apart by adults who have never once spoken to them directly. They become the center of every filing—and yet somehow, the least visible person in the courtroom.

Too often, children in custody disputes are not treated as people. They are treated as exhibits. Their experiences are translated into clinical language by therapists or attorneys. Their fears are reworded in court summaries. Their emotional meltdowns are reframed as symptoms of “alienation” or “instability.” And when it’s time for decisions to be made, the child isn’t in the room. Their words—if they are heard at all—are filtered through so many adult interpretations that they lose their original meaning.

This process is not only dehumanizing—it’s dangerous. When a child becomes a case file, their identity is flattened into what is convenient, legible, and strategic. Their emotional truths are weighed not for depth, but for how they fit into an argument. Court-appointed professionals may refer to children as “the minor,” reducing them to a legal category rather than a living person. Judges may assign parenting time based on calendars and convenience, not the child’s psychological needs.

In this environment, a child’s trauma can be completely overlooked. They may be returned to homes where they feel unsafe. They may be forced into therapy with a parent they fear. They may have their emotional responses dismissed as immaturity or manipulation. It becomes possible for everyone in the courtroom to claim they are acting “in the best interest of the child” while never once acknowledging the child as a full human being.

This isn’t how justice should function. Children have thoughts, memories, fears, attachments, and boundaries. They form relationships and carry trauma in ways that deserve attention and respect. They are not assets to be divided. They are not burdens to be managed. They are not “collateral damage” in a battle between adults.

To change this, courts need a complete shift in approach. Child-inclusive processes should be standard, not rare exceptions. Judges should receive training in developmental psychology. Mental health professionals should be required to meet with children more than once before making recommendations. And most importantly, children should be allowed to speak—to someone—without the fear that their words will be twisted or used against the parent they trust.

When children are treated as silent evidence instead of people, the outcome is never truly just. Family court must move beyond paperwork and procedure and start seeing children for what they are: whole, complex, and worthy of being heard.