Blog

Yes.

The term “neurodivergent” is increasingly being used in family law not only as a genuine descriptive category but also as a rhetorical and strategic tool. Here’s how it’s being manipulated:

As a Shield for Poor Parenting

Courts are wary of punishing disabilities. That creates openings for strategic misuse.

Some litigants invoke neurodivergence to excuse chronic lateness, disorganization, noncompliance with court orders, or worse. The framing goes something like: “It’s not that I disregard the schedule — my ADHD makes time management difficult.” Courts are wary of punishing disabilities, so “neurodivergent” can (and so often is) asserted as a means of reframing misconduct into “born this way.” But children’s needs for parental stability and overall parental fitness don’t vanish by means of diagnosis. Disabilities over which a parent has no control should be reasonably accommodated if they can. Disabilities that a parent can overcome (even if that means making effort and sacrifice for the sake of the children’s welfare to overcome them) must be overcome.

As a Sword Against the Other Parent

Conversely, parties sometimes exaggerate or weaponize the other parent’s neurodivergence:

• “She’s autistic, so she can’t empathize with the child.”
• “He has ADHD, so he can’t reliably supervise homework or routines.”
  Even if the parent functions well, slapping on the neurodivergent label can create judicial doubt.

It’s a subtle form of stigma repackaged in clinical-sounding language.

Inflating Children’s Needs to Gain Custody Leverage

If a child is labeled “neurodivergent,” one parent may push for expanded custody on the grounds that “only I” understand the child’s unique needs, while painting the other parent as inattentive or incapable. This can exaggerate real issues or create them out of whole cloth, particularly in high-conflict cases where the “special needs” narrative is a convenient custody lever.

Buzzword Credibility in Reports

Mediocre/insecure custody evaluators, therapists, and GALs sometimes lean on “neurodivergent” to give their opinions more weight. A parent who struggles with co-parenting might simply have a high-conflict personality, but dressing it up as “neurodivergence” can make the opinion sound more clinical, less subjective. Shysters know this, and they encourage their experts to use the term.

The Sympathy Factor

Judges don’t want to appear ignorant or discriminatory toward neurodivergent individuals. That can create a subtle bias: parties who frame themselves (or their children) as neurodivergent may gain an unearned presumption of victimhood, resilience, and/or special accommodation, even when the facts don’t justify it.

Neurodivergent Parents and Kids in Family Law: What Really Matters

Yes, “neurodivergent” is often bandied about in family law as a form of courtroom positioning. Sometimes the claims are legitimate and need careful consideration. But other times, it’s opportunistic, exploiting a buzzword to excuse dysfunction, discredit the other parent, or win child custody leverage. Judges who aren’t sharp to the nuance can be manipulated. Forewarned is forearmed.

Here are some practical strategies for cross-exam and rebuttal when “neurodivergent” is being thrown around as more of a tactic than a fact:

Pin Down Definitions and Specifics

• Ask: “What exactly do you mean by neurodivergent? Are you referring to a diagnosis, and if so, what is it, who made it, and when?”

Distinguish a trendy umbrella term from a concrete diagnosis. Judges often discover that the label is self-applied or casually given by a counselor, not a formal medical determination.

Distinguish Traits from Parenting Capacity

• Ask: “Can you point to a specific example where [this diagnosed condition/trait] has actually:
  • harmed the child?; or
  • interfered with the parent’s ability to perform routine parental duties?”

Lots of people have ADHD, autism, dyslexia, etc., and function as excellent parents. The diagnosis itself is irrelevant unless it translates into a demonstrable parenting deficiency.

Separate Accommodation from Excuse

• If the other side argues: “My ADHD makes it hard to be on time.”
  • Reframe:
    • Don’t plenty of adults with ADHD manage schedules and court orders?
    • What steps have you taken to mitigate this? Alarms? Reminders? Shared calendars?
    • Or are you using this label as a reason to disregard your responsibilities?”

Courts respond well to the idea that disability does not equal a license to neglect obligations or engage in misconduct.

Guard Against Weaponization

Weaponization against a child

• When one parent exaggerates a child’s “special needs”:
  • Ask:
    • “Has the child been formally diagnosed by a qualified professional?
    • Are there IEPs, treatment plans, or school records confirming this?”
  • If not, highlight the risk of pathologizing a child to gain custody leverage. Judges dislike needless medicalizing of kids.

Weaponization against a parent

• When one parent exaggerates a child’s “special needs”:
  • Ask:
    • “Has your child ever been formally diagnosed by a qualified professional with this condition — yes or no?”
    • “Can you show the Court any medical, psychological, or school records that confirm what you’re saying?”
    • “So your claim that the child has special needs is based only on your personal opinion, not on professional evidence — isn’t that correct?”
• A diagnosis alone does not prove poor parenting — behavior and outcomes matter.
• Require evidence that the condition directly harms the child.
• Don’t let buzzwords replace the best-interests analysis.
  • Ask: “Can you describe how you handle your child’s daily routines — meals, schoolwork, and bedtime — regardless of any diagnosis?”
  • (Evidence of competence) “Have you ever missed or failed to meet your child’s essential needs because of your [ADHD/autism/etc.]?”

• (Follow-up if helpful) “In fact, can you give examples of times you went above and beyond to meet your child’s needs?”
• (Strengths and adaptations) “What tools or strategies do you use to stay organized and ensure your child’s needs are consistently met?”

Undercut Buzzword Inflation in Reports

• If an evaluator or GAL uses “neurodivergent” loosely, cross the evaluator/GAL on professional standards:
  • “You used the term ‘neurodivergent.’
    • What clinical criteria did you apply?
    • Is this DSM-5 language, or your personal phrasing?
    • Are you aware that the term isn’t a recognized clinical diagnosis?”
• This exposes when a GAL or custody evaluator (or some other expert) is dressing up opinion with trendy jargon rather than grounding the report in evidence.

Show Equal or Greater Strengths

• If the label is used to diminish a parent, counter with:
  • the parent’s actual record:
    • Consistency with parent-time.
    • Meeting medical/educational needs.
    • Strong emotional bond.
  • The parent’s fitness (not a standard of perfection)

Judges often care far more about outcomes than diagnostic speculation.

Recenter the “Best Interests” Test

• Bring it back to the statutory standard (e.g., Utah Code § 81-9-102, § 81-9-104):
  • “Even if a parent is neurodivergent, the question is whether the parenting plan serves the child’s best interest — stability, safety, and ongoing relationship with both parents.”
  • “Parental fitness is a minimal standard, not an idealized standard or a standard of perfection or even aspiring to perfection.”
• That prevents the courtroom from spiraling into pop-psychology debates.

“Neurodivergence, if real, but not necessarily disqualifying. What matters is parenting behavior, follow-through, and the child’s welfare. Labels are never a substitute for evidence. Courts cannot allow buzzwords to become weapons.”

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277