By Michael Phillips
For decades, family court has operated under a double standard: a parent who falls behind on child support—even due to disability or unemployment—can be jailed, have their wages garnished, or lose their license. But a parent who willfully withholds a child from court-ordered visitation? They’re often met with a shrug and a “take it back to court.”
This disparity not only violates basic fairness—it undermines constitutional protections and the fundamental rights of parents to maintain a relationship with their children.
In response to this imbalance, longtime family rights advocate Bruce Eden shared a strategy that’s starting to gain traction among self-represented parents and parental rights groups across the country: using state criminal contempt laws to enforce parenting time, just as they are used to enforce final restraining orders in domestic violence cases.
The Strategy: Using Criminal Law to Enforce Civil Parenting Rights
According to Eden, the key is having a specific, written parenting time order in hand. Once that’s in place, a parent can go to their local police department—not to file a civil complaint, but to report a crime: custodial interference or contempt of court.
Eden advises parents to ask for a detective rather than a beat officer, and if turned away, escalate up the chain—lieutenant, captain, chief, or even the mayor’s office—until the complaint is taken. He emphasizes remaining calm and professional at every step. As he puts it: “You can’t do that. You have to act professionally and calmly.”
Why does this matter? Because visitation interference is illegal in most states—but law enforcement simply doesn’t treat it that way. In many jurisdictions, it qualifies as a misdemeanor, just like violating a protective order. But only one of those violations consistently results in enforcement, arrests, and prosecution.
Selective Enforcement Is a Constitutional Problem
This discrepancy is more than a policy failure—it’s a constitutional one.
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the law must be applied fairly to all parties. When courts and police aggressively enforce protective orders (often based on temporary allegations), but refuse to enforce parenting time orders (which are final and adjudicated), they create an unconstitutional imbalance.
This is not just a civil inconvenience. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.” Denying a fit parent their court-ordered parenting time—without recourse or remedy—undermines this right and arguably violates due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
As family courts increasingly operate under opaque standards and discretionary rulings, the denial of visitation becomes a de facto termination of parental rights without a hearing, without notice, and without legal justification.
Custody Violations Are Criminal in Most States—So Why Aren’t They Enforced?
Here are just a few examples of state laws that criminalize visitation interference:
- Texas Penal Code § 25.03: Interference with Child Custody is a state jail felony.
- Illinois 720 ILCS 5/10-5.5: Unlawful visitation interference is a Class A misdemeanor for first offenses.
- California Penal Code § 278.5: Depriving a lawful custodian of their right to visitation is punishable by up to one year in jail.
- New Jersey has criminal contempt statutes under N.J.S.A. § 2C:29-9 that are routinely used in domestic violence matters—but can also be used for family court orders.
Despite these statutes, enforcement is rare. Police departments often claim family court orders are “civil matters”—even when those orders are final, binding, and unambiguous. But that’s not how they treat violations of restraining orders. That’s not how they treat non-payment of child support.
This is selective enforcement—and it sends a dangerous message: that custodial parents can break the law with impunity, while noncustodial parents are held to impossible standards.
Turning the Tide: How This Strategy Creates a Paper Trail—and Pressure
Eden’s method isn’t just about immediate enforcement—it’s about creating a written record. Every denied report, every refusal to act, every visit to the mayor’s office becomes evidence of systemic failure. That record can be presented in court to demonstrate obstruction, contempt, and state-level complicity.
Eventually, these records can be used in civil rights lawsuits, judicial complaints, and even federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law.
It also pressures judges who may otherwise ignore visitation interference to reckon with the reality that their orders are being violated—and that parents are taking action outside the confines of a broken family court system.
The Bigger Picture: Rebalancing the Scales
The bottom line is this: Parenting time orders are not suggestions. They are court orders backed by the authority of the state and protected by constitutional rights.
We can no longer allow courts and police to treat child support as enforceable law and parenting time as optional guidelines. Either both are enforceable, or neither is. Anything else is a civil rights violation hiding behind legal procedure.
This is not about revenge. It’s about restoring balance, protecting children’s relationships, and ensuring due process for all parents—regardless of gender, wealth, or marital status.
Conclusion: Equal Justice, Equal Enforcement
Until parenting time violations are treated with the same urgency and seriousness as restraining order violations or child support arrears, family court will continue to be a system that punishes people for having children while poor, disabled, or simply on the wrong end of a custody ruling.
Bruce Eden’s approach gives parents a tool—and a voice—to fight back. But the long-term solution lies in demanding legislative reform, judicial accountability, and full constitutional recognition of every parent’s right to raise their child.
Because if justice is truly blind, it’s time she stopped looking the other way.
Michael Phillips is a writer, father, and advocate for family court reform. He is the founder of REBUILT and editor of The Republic Dispatch and Father & Co.. His investigative reporting focuses on judicial misconduct, due process violations, and the intersection of trauma and law. Learn more at RepublicDispatch.com.
Author’s Note:
Special thanks to Bruce Eden whose research, caselaw review, and personal insight into family law helped shape the foundation of this article. Your work continues to educate and inspire those fighting for transparency and reform. Bruce is the Director of Dads Against Discrimination (DADS)–NJ & NY.
The Republic Dispatch 