When New Jersey Senate Bill S-4510 cleared the Judiciary Committee in late June 2025, it sent a ripple of panic through the state’s legal establishment.
Kids should not be dragged through Court , period . We need Divorce to sever economic attachment, like the Scandinavian countries did . https://youtu.be/yowwswpx-O8?feature=shared
Swedish Divorce rate fell to 3%. And repeal SSA title 4 d and 4 e . Saving kids and taxpayers $15.2 billion a year .
I don't disagree that lawyers, and some other professions, are opposed to this Bill because it will cost them money that they usually make by encouraging high-conflict in divorce/separation cases at the expense of our children.
I do disagree, as do many ethical lawyers and mental health professionals, that this Bill takes any steps to resolve this. This Bill actually encourages false allegations because it gives weight to false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, known as "the silver bullet" in family court cases. Currently, just these allegations can affect a parent's custody of their children. Under this new Bill, these allegations are given more weight.
It's bad enough when one parent makes false allegations against another to gain an upper hand in divorce and custody cases (which is encouraged by many lawyers and family courts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2200iEHaw4&list=PL6cNIbildqmZ10fCXEfMDTDo8I5Il0b1U&index=13), but now giving extra weight to a child's voice in these proceedings encourages one parent to heavily influence the children against the other parent, resulting in severe psychological damage to the children.
Current child protection laws allow the removal of a child from a parent due to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. This new Bill removes the emotional abuse consideration and refuses to account for the psychological damage a parent can have on a child.
By the way, as with a lot of legislation, money is at the root of this New Jersey Bills Senate S-4510 / Assembly A-5761.
Bills similar to these are required if the state wants to receive federal funds under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. This is akin to how the states receive federal grants and awards for having child support enforcement laws under Title IV-D, which encourage lopsided custody agreements to create the need for child support.
TITLE XV--KEEPING <<NOTE: Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act. Courts. 34 USC 10101 note.>> CHILDREN SAFE FROM FAMILY VIOLENCE
SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act'' or ``Kayden's Law''.
This has been a severe overcorrection to a tragic incident that does not take our children's holistic health and safety into account, but creates a new line item on the state ledgers at our children's expense.
Thanks for the detailed and well-reasoned reply. I completely hear you—and you’re right to bring nuance to the discussion. While I focused on how these bills are often financially motivated (and weaponized by the legal system), you’re raising an equally serious point: that legislation like S-4510 / A-5761 may actually entrench the very problems it claims to solve.
The silver bullet problem is real—and I’ve seen firsthand how false allegations, especially unchallenged ones, can completely derail a parent’s relationship with their child. When the law gives even more weight to those allegations without proper due process, it doesn’t protect children—it politicizes them.
And you nailed it with the part about parental influence. Giving kids “a greater voice” in court sounds good in theory—but in high-conflict cases, that often means one parent manipulating or coaching the child, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes not. That kind of emotional coercion can do long-term damage—and courts rarely know how to handle it.
Also appreciate the link to the Consolidated Appropriations Act. It’s so important to trace these bills back to federal incentives—once again, follow the money. Like Title IV-D before it, Kayden’s Law may be less about child safety and more about unlocking funding streams, while real family trauma goes unaddressed.
Appreciate your perspective and your clarity. We need more voices calling this out from all angles.
simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or other parent or, because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 603 (1979).
Our jurisprudence holds a high regard for the family into which a child has been born. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759, 765-66 (rejecting "balanc[ing]" of the "the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child," or consideration of "whether the child would have a better home elsewhere").
Our Constitution assumes that children want to remain with their natural family. Id. at 766. The Court has never recognized a separate interest or right that is child-specific, per se; the only recognized right for children in this context is the child's reciprocal right to maintain his natural family relationship. Parham, 442 U.S. at 603 (not all choices will be "agreeable to a child," but that "does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from parents to some agency or officer of the state"); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 765. To suggest government's "special interest" in protecting children, or invoking the altruistic language of "best interest," or simply saying that "children have a right to be free from harm" are legally insufficient criteria for "children's rights" and elevating the role of the state into the lives of families. See Martin Guggenheim, What's Wrong with Children's Rights, passim (Harvard University Press 2005). All human beings have dignity and the right to be free from harm--it is not uniquely a children's right.
The Santosky Court's "refusal to consider the rights of the children [was] analytically correct, since such consideration would involve the assumption of unproven facts. The refusal demonstrates the Court's commitment, as a policy matter, to the autonomy of the family unit." Barbara Shulman, The Supreme Court's Mandate for Proof Beyond a Preponderance of the Evidence in Terminating Parental Rights, 73 J. Crim. & Criminology 1595, 1606 (Winter 1982).
Our jurisprudence does not see the child in isolation, but as an extension and ward of his parents, not the state. Parham, 442 U.S. at 602-03 (parents are presumed to "act in their child's best interest"); Pierce, 268 U.S. at 535; Meyer, 262 U.S. at 401. Children are not merely autonomous individuals needing the cacophony of alternate voices (e.g., state social services, guardian ad litems, educators, etc.) contending to speak on their behalf. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 213; Parham, 442 U.S. at 606 (rejecting childhood by committee approach); Guggenheim, What's Wrong with Children's Rights 95 (e.g., assigning independent counsel for a toddler to advance the child's so-called interest is a legal fiction, as that grown-up lawyer assigned is merely advancing what that grown-up envisions as best for the child).
Our Constitution rejects the notion that children receive independent consideration "absent a finding of neglect or abuse" by their parents. Parham, 442 U.S. at 604.
The State and the parent do not stand in equipoise, or have an equal interest in the child. Vivek S. Sankaran, Parens Patriae Run Amuck: The Child Welfare System's Disregard for the Rights of Non-Offending Parents, 82 Temple Law Review 55 (Spring 2009) (showing a historical rejection of broad parens patriae doctrine as case law on parental liberty interest was developed in Meyer, Pierce, Prince, Yoder). "The State's interest in caring for ... children is de minimis if [the parent] is shown to be fit." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 657-58 (the State "spites its own articulated goals" of child protection when it presumptively and arbitrarily removes children without a due process hearing).
Kids should not be dragged through Court , period . We need Divorce to sever economic attachment, like the Scandinavian countries did . https://youtu.be/yowwswpx-O8?feature=shared
Swedish Divorce rate fell to 3%. And repeal SSA title 4 d and 4 e . Saving kids and taxpayers $15.2 billion a year .
Swedes just do everything better, don’t they? They definitely seem to be a happier country. Family values don’t matter in this country anymore.
Michael,
I don't disagree that lawyers, and some other professions, are opposed to this Bill because it will cost them money that they usually make by encouraging high-conflict in divorce/separation cases at the expense of our children.
I do disagree, as do many ethical lawyers and mental health professionals, that this Bill takes any steps to resolve this. This Bill actually encourages false allegations because it gives weight to false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, known as "the silver bullet" in family court cases. Currently, just these allegations can affect a parent's custody of their children. Under this new Bill, these allegations are given more weight.
It's bad enough when one parent makes false allegations against another to gain an upper hand in divorce and custody cases (which is encouraged by many lawyers and family courts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2200iEHaw4&list=PL6cNIbildqmZ10fCXEfMDTDo8I5Il0b1U&index=13), but now giving extra weight to a child's voice in these proceedings encourages one parent to heavily influence the children against the other parent, resulting in severe psychological damage to the children.
Current child protection laws allow the removal of a child from a parent due to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. This new Bill removes the emotional abuse consideration and refuses to account for the psychological damage a parent can have on a child.
By the way, as with a lot of legislation, money is at the root of this New Jersey Bills Senate S-4510 / Assembly A-5761.
Bills similar to these are required if the state wants to receive federal funds under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. This is akin to how the states receive federal grants and awards for having child support enforcement laws under Title IV-D, which encourage lopsided custody agreements to create the need for child support.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ103/html/PLAW-117publ103.htm
TITLE XV--KEEPING <<NOTE: Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act. Courts. 34 USC 10101 note.>> CHILDREN SAFE FROM FAMILY VIOLENCE
SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act'' or ``Kayden's Law''.
This has been a severe overcorrection to a tragic incident that does not take our children's holistic health and safety into account, but creates a new line item on the state ledgers at our children's expense.
- Ron Welsh
Hey Ron,
Thanks for the detailed and well-reasoned reply. I completely hear you—and you’re right to bring nuance to the discussion. While I focused on how these bills are often financially motivated (and weaponized by the legal system), you’re raising an equally serious point: that legislation like S-4510 / A-5761 may actually entrench the very problems it claims to solve.
The silver bullet problem is real—and I’ve seen firsthand how false allegations, especially unchallenged ones, can completely derail a parent’s relationship with their child. When the law gives even more weight to those allegations without proper due process, it doesn’t protect children—it politicizes them.
And you nailed it with the part about parental influence. Giving kids “a greater voice” in court sounds good in theory—but in high-conflict cases, that often means one parent manipulating or coaching the child, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes not. That kind of emotional coercion can do long-term damage—and courts rarely know how to handle it.
Also appreciate the link to the Consolidated Appropriations Act. It’s so important to trace these bills back to federal incentives—once again, follow the money. Like Title IV-D before it, Kayden’s Law may be less about child safety and more about unlocking funding streams, while real family trauma goes unaddressed.
Appreciate your perspective and your clarity. We need more voices calling this out from all angles.
simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or other parent or, because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 603 (1979).
Our jurisprudence holds a high regard for the family into which a child has been born. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759, 765-66 (rejecting "balanc[ing]" of the "the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child," or consideration of "whether the child would have a better home elsewhere").
Our Constitution assumes that children want to remain with their natural family. Id. at 766. The Court has never recognized a separate interest or right that is child-specific, per se; the only recognized right for children in this context is the child's reciprocal right to maintain his natural family relationship. Parham, 442 U.S. at 603 (not all choices will be "agreeable to a child," but that "does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from parents to some agency or officer of the state"); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 765. To suggest government's "special interest" in protecting children, or invoking the altruistic language of "best interest," or simply saying that "children have a right to be free from harm" are legally insufficient criteria for "children's rights" and elevating the role of the state into the lives of families. See Martin Guggenheim, What's Wrong with Children's Rights, passim (Harvard University Press 2005). All human beings have dignity and the right to be free from harm--it is not uniquely a children's right.
The Santosky Court's "refusal to consider the rights of the children [was] analytically correct, since such consideration would involve the assumption of unproven facts. The refusal demonstrates the Court's commitment, as a policy matter, to the autonomy of the family unit." Barbara Shulman, The Supreme Court's Mandate for Proof Beyond a Preponderance of the Evidence in Terminating Parental Rights, 73 J. Crim. & Criminology 1595, 1606 (Winter 1982).
Our jurisprudence does not see the child in isolation, but as an extension and ward of his parents, not the state. Parham, 442 U.S. at 602-03 (parents are presumed to "act in their child's best interest"); Pierce, 268 U.S. at 535; Meyer, 262 U.S. at 401. Children are not merely autonomous individuals needing the cacophony of alternate voices (e.g., state social services, guardian ad litems, educators, etc.) contending to speak on their behalf. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 213; Parham, 442 U.S. at 606 (rejecting childhood by committee approach); Guggenheim, What's Wrong with Children's Rights 95 (e.g., assigning independent counsel for a toddler to advance the child's so-called interest is a legal fiction, as that grown-up lawyer assigned is merely advancing what that grown-up envisions as best for the child).
Our Constitution rejects the notion that children receive independent consideration "absent a finding of neglect or abuse" by their parents. Parham, 442 U.S. at 604.
The State and the parent do not stand in equipoise, or have an equal interest in the child. Vivek S. Sankaran, Parens Patriae Run Amuck: The Child Welfare System's Disregard for the Rights of Non-Offending Parents, 82 Temple Law Review 55 (Spring 2009) (showing a historical rejection of broad parens patriae doctrine as case law on parental liberty interest was developed in Meyer, Pierce, Prince, Yoder). "The State's interest in caring for ... children is de minimis if [the parent] is shown to be fit." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 657-58 (the State "spites its own articulated goals" of child protection when it presumptively and arbitrarily removes children without a due process hearing).