Understanding “Resist and Refuse” (R/R) in Family Law

Understanding “Resist and Refuse” (R/R) in Family Law: When Children Push Away a Parent

Imagine a parent who has always been deeply involved in their child’s life — helping with homework, cheering at soccer games, reading bedtime stories. Then, after separation or divorce, that same child refuses contact. What once felt steady now ends in tears, arguments, or avoidance. For many parents, it’s a bewildering and heartbreaking shift.

In family law, this pattern is known as “Resist and Refuse” (R/R) or Resist/Refuse Dynamics (RRD) — a situation where a child actively resists or refuses contact with a parent, even when that contact is court-ordered or encouraged. These cases are among the most complex and emotionally charged in custody disputes, carrying serious implications for children, parents, and professionals alike.

Alienation, Estrangement, and Resist/Refuse: Clarifying the Differences

Misunderstanding these terms can complicate interventions. Here’s a clearer framework:

Estrangement: The child distances themselves for legitimate reasons, such as a parent’s abuse, neglect, or emotional inconsistency.
Alienation: The child’s rejection is driven largely by manipulation or undue influence from the favored parent, without genuine cause.
Resist/Refuse Dynamics: Often a mix of both, influenced by multiple factors — parental conflict, a child’s personality, and the broader family history and environment.

Recognizing which dynamics are at play helps professionals avoid premature judgments and focus instead on understanding underlying causes.

Why Resist/Refuse Happens

Resist/refuse dynamics rarely stem from one cause. Common contributing factors include:

Child factors: Age, personality, and coping skills shape how children respond to family conflict.
Parental conflict: Ongoing disputes create loyalty binds that can lead a child to withdraw or choose sides.
Rejected parent’s behavior: Emotional distance or emotional reactivity (e.g., expressing anger), rigidity, or inconsistency—often unintentional—can reinforce avoidance.
Favored parent’s influence: Negative comments or subtle alignment with the child’s resistance can deepen the divide.
External pressures: Extended family, friends, or professionals may unintentionally validate avoidance. Competing priorities (such as sports or social activities) can also contribute.
Litigation stress: The adversarial nature of custody disputes often escalates a child’s anxiety and resistance.

The goal isn’t to assign blame but to understand the entire system influencing the child.

The Urgency of Early Intervention

Time rarely heals these dynamics, and in my experience, it often entrenches them. The longer resistance persists, the harder reunification becomes, and the more children struggle with identity, loyalty conflicts, and long-term relational issues.

For the rejected parent, the pain can be profound — grief, helplessness, and self-doubt are not uncommon feelings. Structured support, including reunification therapy and parenting coordination work, can repair relationships by creating safe, supported opportunities for reconnection — never by coercion.

Case Examples (Identifying Key Patterns)

Conflict-Driven Refusal: A 12-year-old boy rejected visitation after repeated exposure to parental conflict. Statements like “Dad stresses me out” and “Dad cheated” and “Dad doesn’t pay us what he’s supposed to” reflected his alignment with one parent’s narrative. In this case, through co-parenting sessions and reunification therapy, conflict decreased, and gradual, supported contact helped restore his relationship with his father.
True Estrangement: A 15-year-old girl resisted contact with her mother after years of emotional neglect. Therapy validated her experiences while helping her mother build more responsive relational skills. Here, reunification was approached slowly and respectfully.

It is important to note that each case underscores the need for individualized assessment inasmuch as there is not one-size-fits-all to these sorts of situations.

Therapeutic Strategies That Work

Space for the Child’s Voice: Therapists help children articulate fears and pressures without coercion, clarifying whether resistance is safety-based, conflict-driven, or influenced by others.
Support for the Rejected Parent: Therapy focuses on resilience, consistent gestures of connection, and strategies for low-pressure contact.
Guidance for the Favored Parent: Therapy helps them recognize behaviors — often unconscious — that reinforce resistance and support encouraging the child’s bond with the other parent.
Reunification Therapy: Gradual, structured contact helps rebuild trust while addressing communication patterns and family and parent-child narratives that maintain resistance.
Emotional Regulation Skills: Teaching children to manage anxiety and ambivalence reduces distress and empowers them to engage more freely.
Parallel Parenting Support: For high-conflict families, parallel parenting—with consistent routines and clear boundaries—reduces confusion and emotional strain on children.

How Courts and Professionals Respond

Courts increasingly view R/R as a critical custody concern. Responses may include:

Appointment of guardians ad litem or child attorneys.
Court-ordered reunification therapy or parent coordination therapy.
Close review of compliance with visitation orders.
Temporary or supervised contact when safety concerns exist.

Courts must balance the child’s expressed preferences with the need to determine whether those preferences reflect fear, pressure, or manipulation.

Practical Guidance for Parents

In my experience, forcing visitation through police involvement usually makes things worse. While emotionally distressing, calling law enforcement to physically compel visitation can severely damage trust and heighten fear or resentment in the child. I have repeatedly seen, firsthand, that reintegrating children after forced encounters often takes much longer, as the stress and conflict reinforce their sense of insecurity. Instead, use the court system or therapeutic support to address noncompliance constructively.
Avoid negative or retaliatory remarks about the other parent: Even when the other parent’s behavior feels harmful or unfair, speaking negatively about them — directly or indirectly — places the child in the middle and deepens feelings of loyalty conflict. This further alienates the child from the rejected parent and may make reconciliation more difficult. Modeling maturity and emotional regulation helps children feel safe with both parents.
Document neutrally: Record refusals factually, without criticism.
Avoid escalation: Arguing or forcing compliance amplifies resistance.
Seek early intervention: Engage professionals before conflict patterns harden.
Be consistent: Gentle persistence and reliability communicate care even amid rejection.
Protect your own wellbeing: Resilience allows you to stay emotionally available when your child is ready to re-engage.

Final Thoughts

Resist/refuse dynamics represent some of the most painful and complex challenges families face after separation and divorce. They require sensitivity, structure, and clinical insight — not blame or quick fixes.

With timely, evidence-based intervention, children can rebuild trust, parents can re-establish connection, and families can move toward stability. Healing takes work — but with the right support, it is entirely possible.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and guidance for consideration only. Every family’s situation is unique, and the legal and therapeutic approaches that may be appropriate can vary significantly. Parents should always follow the advice and direction of their attorneys, mental health professionals, and other involved specialists when making decisions in their specific case.