Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

I am a Chid & Adolescent Psychotherapist. The podcast are educational and orientated towards parents. We cover a wide range of sometimes, tricky subjects, in the hope of reassuring parents that no matter how hard things may seem, there are things you can do. Thank you. Kim

Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour is a health podcast hosted by Kim Lee, with 275 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Kim Lee hosts Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour, a health show with 275 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

  The label part 2 (the other episode was abruptly ended)

  Sep 8, 202617 min

  Send us Fan Mail

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

  Beyond The Label

  Sep 8, 202619 min

  Send us Fan Mail This is intended for UK listeners, those in the US should review state and federal laws. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3524 Listeners in Europe might consider https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/family-matters-inheritance/parental-responsibility-child-custody-and-contact-rights_en A child refuses contact and suddenly the whole case can get swallowed by one word: “alienation.” We do not deny that manipulation can happen, but we refuse to let a label stand in for analysis. I walk through why contact refusal can stem from fear, anger, trauma, loyalty pressure, harmful parenting, or a mix of factors, and why the only responsible next step is assessment that tests explanations against evidence. We then zoom in on what a sound forensic clinical approach actually looks like in family court work: building a clear chronology, separating observation from interpretation, and deliberately examining competing hypotheses. I also point you toward the Family Justice Council guidance, including the principle that protective behavior should not be relabeled as alienating just because it restricts contact. If you have ever felt confused by dueling narratives and confident statements that do not match the facts, this framework brings you back to disciplined reasoning. Finally, I speak directly to the parent who has been accused of alienation and feels “allegation fearful.” I outline “informed protectiveness”: respond rather than react, keep a clean record that builds credibility, avoid investigating the child in ways that can trigger coaching allegations, and propose proportionate safeguards that support safe relationships. We also touch on Practice Direction 12J and why contact is not an entitlement that overrides established risk. If this helped you think more clearly, subscribe, share with someone navigating contact refusal, and leave a review so more families can find practical, evidence-based guidance.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

  Safeguarding Comes First

  Sep 6, 202620 min

  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.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

  A blunt instrument?

  Sep 6, 202620 min

  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.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Inside The Consulting Room - Understanding the Child Behind the Behaviour

  A Counter Allegation Can Turn A Safeguarding Concern Into Suspicion

  Sep 5, 202622 min

  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?

  ListenShow Notes

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.