In contemporary Utah divorce and child custody disputes, courts frequently order parents and children to participate in reunification therapy, family systems therapy, or other forms of therapy and counseling. While the stated goal is to address family conflict and improve relationships, these orders often represent an overreach of judicial authority into personal liberty and autonomy. Compelling individuals to engage in therapy raises serious concerns regarding self-determination, financial and emotional burdens, and the lack of clear evidence supporting the efficacy of such interventions.
A Violation of Self-Determination and Personal Liberty
Ordering therapy in the absence of voluntary consent infringes upon one’s right to self-determination. The decision to seek therapy—or not—should be a matter of personal choice, guided by one’s values, beliefs, circumstances, and desires. Compelling parents or children to participate in therapy imposes a form of state-sponsored coercion that is intrusive at best and akin to brainwashing at worst. Courts essentially mandate how individuals must think, feel, and behave within their familial relationships, stripping them of autonomy and imposing a one-size-fits-all solution that may not align with their values, needs, and/or physical and emotionally well-being.
This is particularly troubling for children, who may feel pressured to express sentiments that align with the court’s expectations rather than their authentic feelings and desires. Forced therapy undermines the principles of informed consent and voluntary participation that are foundational to effective therapeutic processes.
An Undue Burden of Time and Money
Court-ordered therapy often imposes significant financial and logistical burdens on families. Therapy sessions can be expensive, frequently costing hundreds of dollars per hour, and many families already strained by the costs of divorce may find it difficult or impossible to afford. Moreover, the time commitment required for therapy—often involving weekly sessions, transportation, and preparation—further disrupts the lives of both parents and children. Parents who are already juggling work, parenting responsibilities, and legal proceedings may find these additional demands overwhelming. For children, mandatory therapy often cuts into school time, extracurricular activities, and their ability to engage in a normal, carefree childhood. These obligations can breed resentment and exacerbate existing tensions within the family rather than resolving them.
Lack of Evidence Supporting Effectiveness
Despite the widespread use of court-ordered therapy, the evidence supporting its efficacy is far from conclusive. Many forms of therapy, particularly those applied in high-conflict custody cases, lack rigorous scientific validation. Reunification therapy and family systems therapy, for example, are criticized for being based on subjective theories rather than robust empirical research. Their effectiveness is difficult to measure, as it often relies on anecdotal outcomes and lacks standardized methodologies or rigorous, replicable studies. This makes such therapy prone to therapist bias and inconsistent results across cases.
In some cases, therapy may even exacerbate family conflicts by forcing interactions that individuals are either not emotionally prepared to handle or simply resent for being compelled to participate.
Without credible evidence that court-ordered therapy consistently delivers meaningful benefits, its imposition raises ethical, legal, and practical concerns. Courts risk subjecting families to interventions that may have little to no impact on resolving their underlying issues while simultaneously violating fundamental human rights and eroding trust in the judicial system.
Conclusion
Court-ordered therapy in divorce and custody cases exemplifies judicial overreach into the personal lives of families and their individual members. By compelling therapy, courts undermine the rights of individual people–whether parents or minor children–to make autonomous decisions, impose significant financial and emotional burdens, and mandate interventions that lack consistent evidence of efficacy.
Regardless of a court’s motives for ordering family members into therapy in divorce and child custody cases—whether they be well-meaning, lazy virtue signaling, or “drunk on power” tyrannical—ordering therapy is not the panacea many courts treat it as being.
Families should have the freedom to pursue—or decline—therapeutic services without being compelled to do so by the state. Recognizing and respecting this autonomy is essential to preserving personal liberty and dignity, and essential to preventing “mission creep” by the courts.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277