By Michael Phillips and Bruce Eden
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. The bill, designed to give greater weight to a child’s preferences in custody disputes and restrict court-ordered reunification therapy unless proven safe and effective, was met with swift resistance—not from parents, but from the very professionals who profit from custody conflict: matrimonial lawyers.
The New Jersey Law Journal reported widespread pushback from groups like the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers–New Jersey, the Matrimonial Lawyers Alliance, and the New Jersey State Bar Association. Their argument? That the bill “gives too much power to children” and could “harm them” by placing them in the middle of conflict.
But let’s be real.
As Bruce Eden—longtime father’s rights advocate and civil rights litigator—points out: “This isn’t about children’s safety. This is about losing control over the court process and the revenue streams that come with it.” And he’s right. The moment a bill threatens the entrenched roles of court appointees, mental health contractors, and family law attorneys, the system’s protectors mobilize fast.
Reunification therapy is a perfect example. It’s often court-ordered without a shred of meaningful oversight or scientific consensus. Parents are told to comply with expensive, unproven services—or risk losing contact with their children altogether. But now, under S-4510, judges would need actual evidence of the therapy’s safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value. They would have to prove that a child is willing to participate.
To the legal industry, that’s a disaster. Why? Because it disrupts the business model.
“The family court system has become a captive marketplace,” Eden adds. “You’ve got court-appointed therapists, supervised visitation centers, attorneys for the child, custody evaluators—all getting paid while the child is pulled further from the targeted parent. It’s not about healing families. It’s about maintaining conflict.”
The reaction from attorneys also exposes the system’s patronizing view of children. A representative from the AAML argued that children sometimes pick which parent they prefer based on trivial factors, like who buys them more Starbucks. That’s a real quote. In other words: kids can’t be trusted to speak for themselves, but court-approved professionals can override their voices for a fee.
Let’s be clear: no one is saying children should dictate custody. But they should be heard—and their voices should matter. Especially when those children are old enough to express clear preferences and have experienced the realities of court-imposed parenting schedules.
This reform bill doesn’t eliminate the role of judges, or gut the court’s discretion. It simply demands that decisions be grounded in evidence—not assumptions. It requires accountability when ordering invasive, controversial treatments like reunification therapy. And it challenges the industry’s monopoly on “what’s best for the child.”
That’s why they’re panicking.
Senate President Nicholas Scutari and Senator Joseph Lagana, the bill’s sponsors, have taken a bold step. Whether the General Assembly follows through remains to be seen—but what’s clear is this: when real reform threatens the court-industrial complex, the masks come off.
And that should tell every parent exactly who the system is really designed to serve.
Author’s Note:
Special thanks to Bruce Eden whose research, caselaw review, and personal insight into the financialization of 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.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
