When Maternal Instinct Becomes a Liability: How Mothers Are Praised for Nurturing—Until Family Court

From the moment a woman becomes a mother, she is told to trust her instincts. She is praised for noticing subtle changes in her child’s behavior, for anticipating needs before they are spoken, for staying vigilant when something feels “off.” Society celebrates mothers who are attentive, protective, emotionally attuned, and self-sacrificing. These traits are framed as virtues—hallmarks of good parenting and healthy attachment.

Until a custody dispute enters the picture.

In family court, the very qualities mothers are encouraged to embody often become evidence against them. Nurturance is reframed as enmeshment. Vigilance becomes anxiety. Protection becomes interference. Instinct is recast as irrationality. The mother who once would have been praised for her devotion is suddenly scrutinized for it.

This contradiction is not accidental. It reflects a deeper, systemic tension between how society views motherhood in theory and how it treats mothers—particularly protective mothers—in practice.

The Cultural Ideal of Motherhood

Culturally, motherhood is defined by emotional labor. Mothers are expected to be the primary caretakers, the ones who remember appointments, notice emotional shifts, manage illness, soothe distress, and keep children safe. Research consistently shows that mothers carry a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities, especially for young, disabled, or medically fragile children.

When things go well, this labor is invisible. When something goes wrong—or when a family enters the legal system—it becomes hypervisible.

In family court, a mother’s deep involvement in her child’s life is no longer assumed to be appropriate. Instead, it is measured, dissected, and often pathologized.

The Court’s Suspicion of Maternal Instinct

Family courts frequently claim to prioritize “the best interests of the child,” yet there is often discomfort with a mother who expresses concern, urgency, or fear—especially when that concern challenges the narrative of neutrality or equal parental capacity.

A mother who reports safety concerns may be described as “overprotective.”
A mother who documents medical needs may be labeled “controlling.”
A mother who questions the judgment of the other parent may be accused of “gatekeeping” or “alienation.”
A mother who advocates persistently may be framed as “high conflict.”

These labels do not arise in a vacuum. They reflect a legal culture that often expects mothers to simultaneously be endlessly nurturing while remaining passive, agreeable, and emotionally contained—even when their child’s safety or well-being is at stake.

The message is subtle but clear: be intuitive, but not too intuitive. Speak up, but not too much. Protect your child, but do not challenge authority.

When Advocacy Becomes “Uncooperative”

Perhaps nowhere is this contradiction more stark than in cases involving abuse allegations, medical complexity, or special needs.

Mothers of medically fragile children often know their child’s needs in granular detail—medications, warning signs, routines, emergency protocols. In everyday life, this expertise is essential. In court, it can be perceived as rigidity or distrust of others.

Similarly, mothers who raise concerns about abuse or neglect frequently encounter skepticism, particularly if the allegations are difficult to prove or make others uncomfortable. Rather than being viewed as responding appropriately to risk, these mothers may be seen as exaggerating, misinterpreting, or intentionally undermining the other parent.

The court’s desire for balance and cooperation can unintentionally penalize the very parent who is doing the most protective work. Advocacy is reframed as obstruction. Instinct is treated as bias.

The Gendered Double Standard

Fathers who express concern are often viewed as responsible or involved. Mothers who do the same are more likely to be perceived as emotional or unstable. Fathers who disengage may be described as “laid back,” while mothers who step back are accused of neglect.

This double standard is not always explicit, but it is deeply embedded in how behavior is interpreted. A mother’s emotional expression—grief, fear, urgency—is often taken as evidence that she is unreliable, rather than as a natural response to stress and threat.

Ironically, the same system that relies on mothers to carry the emotional and logistical burden of caregiving often discredits them when they articulate what they know.

The Cost to Mothers and Children

The consequences of this contradiction are profound. Mothers learn that protecting their children may cost them credibility. Many become quieter, less forthcoming, afraid that expressing concern will be used against them. Others continue to advocate and are labeled “difficult,” which can influence custody outcomes, evaluations, and recommendations.

Children, in turn, may lose the benefit of the parent who knows them best. Their medical needs, emotional signals, or safety concerns may be minimized in the name of perceived neutrality.

When maternal instinct is dismissed, children are often the ones who bear the risk.

Toward a More Honest System

A system that truly values children’s well-being must reckon with its discomfort around maternal advocacy. It must recognize that nurturance and protection are not signs of pathology, but of attachment and responsibility.

This does not mean that all maternal claims are automatically correct, or that courts should abandon critical evaluation. It does mean acknowledging that mothers are not unreliable narrators simply because they are emotionally invested. In fact, emotional investment is often what makes them attentive to risk.

Family courts must move beyond the false dichotomy that frames protection and cooperation as opposites. A mother can advocate fiercely for her child and still support healthy relationships. She can express fear without being unstable. She can trust her instincts without being manipulative.

Reclaiming the Narrative

Mothers should not have to abandon their instincts to be believed. They should not have to choose between protecting their children and protecting their reputation. And they should not be punished for embodying the very qualities society demands of them.

Until family court systems align their practices with the realities of caregiving, this contradiction will persist. But naming it matters. Challenging it matters. And listening—truly listening—to mothers may be one of the most important reforms of all.

Because nurturing is not a flaw. Instinct is not a threat. And protection should never be mistaken for harm.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American Psychologist, 75(6), 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000630

Birnbaum, R., & Bala, N. (2010). Toward the differentiation of high-conflict families: An analysis of social science research and Canadian case law. Family Court Review, 48(3), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01319.x

Caplan, P. J. (2019). Bias in psychiatric diagnosis. Rowman & Littlefield.

Dworkin, S. L., & Wachs, F. L. (2009). Body panic: Gender, health, and the selling of fitness. NYU Press.

Hayes, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. Yale University Press.

Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2001.tb00609.x

Meier, J. S. (2020). U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1701941

Meier, J. S., Dickson, S., O’Sullivan, C., & Rosen, L. (2019). Child custody outcomes in cases involving allegations of parental alienation and abuse: What do the data show? GWU Law School Legal Studies Research Paper.

Raitt, F. E., & Zeedyk, M. S. (2004). Maternal instinct: How evolutionary psychology undermines women. Feminism & Psychology, 14(2), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353504042919

Smart, C. (2002). From children’s shoes to children’s voices. Family Court Review, 40(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2002.tb00958.x

Taylor, S. E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential to who we are and how we live. Henry Holt & Company.