Send us Fan Mail

I made an agreement with myself not to post my music on this page, but having had so many people who have heard it encourage me to do otherwise, I thought I would.

I really hope that it is something that touches you in some way. The new website, kim's- music.com will have the full album, ‘Reflections’, the remastered tracks available. Coming soon....

If you like this song, you are very welcome to share it, and it is free.

Thank you for listening

Send us Fan Mail

Safeguarding gets treated like background noise when parents are locked in a contact dispute, but I want to bring it back to where it belongs: front and center. When a child says no to contact and allegations fly, the most important question isn’t who tells the better story. It’s whether the child is suffering harm, or facing a meaningful risk of harm, and what needs to happen before anyone talks about “restoring” contact. 

I break down why emotional harm is so easy to miss in family court cases and why it rarely arrives as one neat disclosure. Instead, it shows up through patterns: anxiety, withdrawal, aggression, disturbed sleep, school difficulties, or intense distress around transitions. We talk about how to read those signs responsibly, why a single behavior proves nothing, and how a solid chronology can reveal whether concerns are isolated, cumulative, or repeated without support. 

We also get practical about systems. CAFCASS, the family court, and children’s social care have different jobs, and families can fall through the gaps when each expects the other to “own” risk. I explain why “no further action” is not a universal declaration of safety, how coercive control can continue after separation through handovers and contact arrangements, and why supervised contact may reduce immediate harm without addressing the underlying behavior. I also outline what makes a safeguarding referral clear and fair, and why confidentiality stops where safety starts. 

If you work with separating families, or you’re living through a child contact refusal, listen closely and share this with someone who needs it. Subscribe, leave a review, and tell me what safeguarding question you wish professionals would ask first.

Send us Fan Mail

A few sentences in a CAFCASS report can change a child’s daily life for years, which is exactly why we slow down and question how those sentences get written. When family court decisions hinge on a Section 7 report or a safeguarding summary, the assessment can feel like it carries the weight of a full investigation, even though it often happens in a tight time window after conflict has already escalated. We talk about the “snapshot” problem: a parent can present as calm and still be unsafe, while a parent who looks anxious might be reacting to prolonged fear, not instability. 

We also dig into one of the hardest flashpoints in child contact cases: when a child resists or refuses seeing a parent. Guidance recognizes multiple possible causes, including domestic abuse, coercive control, harmful conflict, harmful parenting, and in evidenced cases, alienating behavior. But a child saying “no” is not proof of alienation, and it is not automatic proof of danger either. The real task is to understand meaning, using chronology, collateral records, developmental insight, and independent professional views. We challenge the way labels like “high conflict” or “aligned” can replace real analysis, create false equivalence, and hide what actually happened. 

Finally, we name the risk on both sides: confirmation bias. Once a professional locks onto an early story, contradictory information can get pushed aside. The standard we argue for is professional humility, transparent reasoning, and a willingness to say what remains uncertain. If you care about child welfare, family law, and better decision-making in the court system, this conversation is for you. Subscribe, share with someone navigating a contact dispute, and leave a review with the question you want professionals to ask first.

Send us Fan Mail

A single label can hijack an entire family court case. When a parent raises safeguarding concerns like domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual harm, or frightening behavior, it is alarmingly common to see a fast pivot to a counter allegation: parental alienation. We talk through how that pivot happens, why it is so persuasive on paper, and how it can quietly turn the focus away from the child’s lived experience and onto suspicion of the reporting parent.

We walk step by step through the core fork in the road when a child refuses contact. Sometimes refusal is a protective response to something harmful or scary. Sometimes a child has been influenced to reject a parent who has not harmed them. Sometimes family dynamics are messy enough that both stress and influence exist at the same time. The only way through is a forensic, evidence-led approach: build a clear chronology, separate what was observed from how it was interpreted, and insist that any explanation must be testable, challenged by contradictions, and open to revision.

We also get specific about language that can distort reality. “High conflict” and “mutual allegations” can blur the difference between ordinary disagreement and coercive control, where fear, surveillance, threats, humiliation, or punishment restrict a parent’s freedom and shape a child’s world. We explain why “not substantiated” does not mean “false,” how reports can accidentally harden allegations into “facts,” and why clinicians must stay in their lane by describing psychological presentation rather than making findings of fact.

If you care about child contact, safeguarding, domestic abuse, coercive control, or parental alienation claims, listen, share it with someone who works in this system, and subscribe so you do not miss what comes next. After you listen, leave a review and tell us: what question would you add to keep the child at the center?

Send us Fan Mail

A child comes back from contact and something feels off. They’re quieter than usual, suddenly clingy, angry, sick to their stomach, wetting the bed, or refusing to sleep alone. You can’t prove what it means, but you can’t ignore it either. That’s the impossible space we sit with today: the moment a parent believes their child may be unsafe, and the act of trying to protect them gets reinterpreted as parental alienation.

We talk through why this happens and why it’s so hard to untangle. A parent describing themselves as “protective” might be right, might be mistaken, or might be reacting through fear and history. But a parent claiming “alienation” is not automatically right either. Both claims need careful investigation, and we can’t assess safety by vibes alone. We dig into the Family Justice Council guidance that separates genuinely protective behavior from alienating behavior, and we explain why a protective action can’t be judged without examining what the parent believes the child needs protection from.

A big focus is coercive control and domestic abuse as patterns. Single incidents can look harmless until you see the repetition, the context, and the effect on the child. We also explore how children communicate risk without language, how adults can respond without dismissing them or flooding them with fear, and why the real question is always: what’s the story beneath the headline, and what is the impact on the child?

If this conversation helps you think more clearly about child contact refusal, safeguarding, and family court narratives, share it with someone who needs it. Subscribe, leave a review, and tell us what questions you want answered next.

Send us Fan Mail

“I don’t want to go.” Four words that can trigger panic, rage, and heartbreak in separated families, and can quickly pull schools, therapists, and the family court system into the middle. I’m Kim Lee, a child and adolescent psychotherapist, and I’m shifting the focus away from adult interpretations and back to the child’s experience. Refusal is behavior, and behavior is the headline, not the story.

We unpack the range of reasons a child might say no to contact, and why reaching for labels like parental alienation too early can block understanding. I talk through fear and safety first, including why guidance like Cafcass emphasizes considering domestic abuse and harmful parenting at the start of assessment. We explore the difference between a one off argument and a pattern that leaves a child feeling intimidated, humiliated, or unable to escape, and why what happens after an incident matters just as much as the incident itself.

We also look at less obvious drivers: a child who feels responsible for a parent’s wellbeing, a child navigating anger and grief after separation, and the “felt sense” that doesn’t shift just because an adult has explained the facts. Then we get practical and specific about what the child may be refusing: overnights, long journeys, a person in the household, or the strain of moving between two homes. I challenge assumptions about 50-50 shared care and highlight how changeovers and the conversations around them can be the hardest part.

If this resonates, subscribe for the rest of the series, share the episode with someone navigating contact arrangements, and leave a review so more parents and professionals can find it. What do you think a child is really saying when they refuse to go?

Send us Fan Mail

A child says “no” to contact and suddenly the adults are fighting over a single phrase: parental alienation. I’m Kim Lee, a child and adolescent psychotherapist, and I want to slow the rush to certainty. When we treat a child’s refusal as proof of manipulation, we can end up deciding the outcome before we’ve understood the story, and that can silence the one voice that most needs protection.

We dig into where the term “parental alienation” comes from, why the “syndrome” framing sounds more clinical than it actually is, and how that language can tilt professionals toward fixing a supposed condition rather than investigating what happened in the family. I talk about why calling a child’s rejection “unjustified” is a major conclusion, and what it should require: real history, the chance for a child to speak freely, and a careful look at the relationship before court became involved.

We also look at guidance and practice: the World Health Organization’s ICD-11 and the Family Justice Council’s position that parental alienation is not a diagnosis. From there, we move to a more useful lens focused on evidence and alternative explanations, including the rejected parent’s behavior, attachment, affinity, domestic abuse, harmful parenting, and safeguarding concerns like emotional harm. The most important question I keep coming back to is this: are we seeing alienation, or are we seeing protection?

If this helps you think more clearly about child contact refusal, family court disputes, and child welfare, please follow the show, share the episode, and leave a review. What do you think adults too often miss when a child refuses contact?

Send us Fan Mail

From the new album- 'Reflections'. Coming soon from kims-music.com. Release date soon

Send us Fan Mail

Send us Fan Mail