When the System Becomes a Threat: Family Courts, GALs, and Children with Life-Threatening Chronic Illnesses

Family court is intended to protect children. Guardian ad Litems (GALs) are appointed to advocate for a child’s “best interests.” Yet for children living with life-threatening chronic illnesses—and for the mothers who are often their sole caregivers—these systems can unintentionally become sources of harm rather than safety.

Children with conditions such as Type 1 diabetes, epilepsy, severe asthma, complex autoimmune disorders, or congenital heart disease rely on strict medical routines. Missed meals, delayed medications, inaccurate monitoring, or inconsistent care are not minor parenting differences; they can lead to medical emergencies, hospitalization, or death. These children depend on caregivers who understand the nuances of their condition, recognize early warning signs, and maintain continuity of care across environments.

In many families, that caregiver is the mother. She attends appointments, manages prescriptions, tracks data, communicates with specialists, and responds to emergencies—often around the clock. When family court enters the picture, however, the expertise and lived knowledge of these mothers is frequently minimized or dismissed.

One of the most dangerous failures occurs when GALs lack training in pediatric chronic illness. Without a working understanding of medical necessity versus preference, legitimate safety concerns can be misinterpreted as overprotectiveness or control. Requests for routine care—such as consistent meal timing, glucose checks, medication adherence, or avoidance of known triggers—may be framed as “conflict” rather than medical necessity. In extreme cases, a mother advocating for her child’s health is viewed as “difficult” instead of responsible.

This misunderstanding becomes especially perilous when caregiving concerns are mislabeled as parental alienation.

Mothers who raise alarms about unsafe medical practices, missed care, or noncompliance are often accused of attempting to limit the other parent’s relationship with the child. Rather than being evaluated through a medical lens, their advocacy is reframed as emotional manipulation. The narrative shifts from child safety to parental intent—placing the burden on the mother to prove she is not alienating rather than on the system to ensure the child is medically protected.

This dynamic silences caregivers and discourages reporting. Mothers quickly learn that documenting concerns, requesting safeguards, or asking for accountability can backfire. The fear of being labeled “alienating” leads many to stay quiet—even when silence puts their child at risk.

For medically fragile children, this is not a theoretical problem. Inconsistent care can cause acute medical crises, long-term complications, or psychological harm. Children may internalize the message that their needs are “too much” or that advocating for their body causes conflict. They may also experience anxiety, confusion, or fear when adults disagree about their medical reality.

GALs wield significant influence, yet many receive little to no mandatory training in pediatric illness, medical trauma, or continuity of care. When recommendations are made without consulting treating physicians or understanding disease management, court orders can inadvertently override medical best practices. Equal parenting time is treated as inherently beneficial—even when it disrupts established care routines critical to survival.

This is not a condemnation of family court or GALs as a whole. Many professionals are compassionate and committed. The danger lies in a system that grants authority without requiring adequate medical education, accountability, or safeguards for vulnerable children.

Protecting children with life-threatening chronic illnesses requires a shift in how courts define “best interests.” Medical stability must be prioritized alongside emotional well-being. Caregivers with demonstrated medical responsibility must be treated as essential sources of expertise, not adversaries. Advocacy should never be mistaken for alienation.

Mothers who speak up are not trying to control—they are trying to keep their children alive.

When systems ignore that reality, the consequences are profound. Reform must include mandatory training for GALs on pediatric chronic illness, clear standards for medical decision-making, collaboration with healthcare providers, and mechanisms to hold decision-makers accountable when harm occurs.

Children with complex medical needs deserve protection, not power struggles. And the mothers who fight for their survival deserve to be heard—not punished for caring.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012). Medical neglect in children. Pediatrics, 130(2), 398–402. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1559

American Diabetes Association. (2024). Standards of care in diabetes—Children and adolescents. Diabetes Care, 47(Supplement_1), S258–S281. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc24-S014

Benedict, M. I., Zuravin, S., & Stallings, R. Y. (1996). Adult functioning of children who lived in kin versus nonrelative family foster homes. Child Welfare, 75(5), 529–549.

Cousino, M. K., & Hazen, R. A. (2013). Parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic illness: A systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(8), 809–828. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst049

Coyne, I., O’Mathúna, D. P., Gibson, F., Shields, L., & Sheaf, G. (2013). Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (6). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008970.pub2

Drotar, D. (2006). Psychological interventions in childhood chronic illness. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11352-000

Gould, J. W., & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The misuse of the parental alienation syndrome in child custody cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.13.1.1

Kirk, S., Glendinning, C., & Callery, P. (2005). Parent or nurse? The experience of being the parent of a technology-dependent child. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(5), 456–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03522.x

McEwen, B. S., & McEwen, C. A. (2017). Social structure, adversity, toxic stress, and intergenerational poverty: An early childhood model. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053252

Meadow, R. (1995). What is, and what is not, Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 72(6), 534–538. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.72.6.534

Rosenberg, S. A., Robinson, C. C., & Fryer, G. E. (2006). Prevalence of developmental delays and participation in early intervention services for young children. Pediatrics, 117(6), e1329–e1335. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2191

Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Deatrick, J., Gruppuso, P., Tamborlane, W., & Grey, M. (2003). Mothers’ experiences raising young children with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 18(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpdn.2003.5

Woodman, J., Pitt, M., Wentz, R., Taylor, B., Hodes, D., & Gilbert, R. (2014). Performance of screening tests for child neglect in healthcare settings. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 99(8), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2013-304232