7 Ways Children’s Brains Absorb Their Parents’ Emotions in Divorce
(And What You Can Do About It)
© 2026 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.
Divorce is a stressful time regardless of how amicable it is. For the 20-25% of people going through a “high conflict” divorce, it can be an emotional roller coaster. While the focus is usually on making big decisions (where to live, dividing up property, determining how much income each parent will have, what schedule the children have with each parent), paying attention to each parent’s emotional health is extremely important as well. Whether you are a parent going through a divorce, a divorce professional assisting parents, or a friend or family member, the information in this article can be very helpful and isn’t generally known.
In his new book, Love Wars: Clash of the Parents, A True Divorce Story, Matthew A. Tower describes many emotional scenes from his parents’ high-conflict divorce when he was 5 to 11 years old. (It’s a well-written story for teenagers and adults, which reads like a novel but it’s true!) His wrenching descriptions of being in the middle of their custody battle give us an inside opportunity to see how emotions get transferred from parent to child, which can eventually become refusal to spend time with a parent. Young Matthew experiences resisting contact with a parent because of their own abusive behaviors and also experiences pressure to turn against the other parent because of alienating behaviors.
In high conflict divorces it is common for a child to reject one of their parents in order to cope with the conflict. In this article, I want to explain why this may be primarily because of how children absorb their parents’ emotions without their parents even realizing it, and what parents and professionals can do about this. I’ll use some of young Matthew’s examples to demonstrate this.
1. Emotions are Automatically Contagious, Unless…
The idea that emotions are contagious has been around for years, but how they are contagious has not been generally understood until recently. Research says that we biologically receive other people’s emotions through two brain functions that automatically operate to protect us and help us work together with others in a crisis. One is our amygdala, especially the amygdala in the right hemisphere of our brain (we have an amygdala in each hemisphere). It automatically can be activated by simply observing another person’s facial expressions of fear and anger, or even just a photo of someone’s fearful or angry face.
The amygdala spots signs of fear in someone’s face…as quick as 33 milliseconds…so fast that the conscious mind remains oblivious to that perception… (Goleman, 2006, 39) (Emphasis added)
Another automatic receptor of emotions is our mirror neurons, which are located near our motor neurons that activate to move our bodies, including hands, arms, facial expressions and so forth.
Mirror neurons are one of the most important discoveries in the last decade of neuroscience…. Essentially, mirror neurons respond to actions that we observe in others. The interesting part is that mirror neurons fire in the same way when we actually recreate that action ourselves.
(Acharya & Shukla, 2012, 118)
Both of these happen automatically from birth. However, we also have emotion regulation, which is the way we influence our own responses. This is learned as we grow up based on what emotional responses fit the circumstances. Emotion regulation becomes more automatic over time and is learned significantly from how our parents demonstrate regulating their own emotions. For example, even a small child learns that a truck or train coming right at them in a TV screen will not hurt them, so they don’t need to react. In adolescence, if a boyfriend or girlfriend does not call right back or text right back, the teenager slowly learns that it is not a life-or-death crisis.
We also have the ability to develop cognitive reappraisal, which means that we can tell ourselves that we don’t need to “catch” another person’s emotions. “Just because she’s angry doesn’t mean that I have to be angry.” However, this also takes time to learn, including childhood and adolescence, as the brain is not fully developed until the mid-20s. The younger the child, the harder this is. Emotions are contagious unless you have well-developed emotion regulation and cognitive reappraisal skills.
2. Emotional Intensity Matters
The intensity of a parent’s emotions also matters. For example:
Infants can only cope with a certain intensity of emotional arousal before they move beyond their window of tolerance into a state of stressful emotional dysregulation. (Schore, 2019, 231) (Emphasis added)
The ability to cope with this emotional intensity can increase with age but does not go away in adulthood. Emotional intensity is a call to action at any age, but children don’t have the emotional resources to discriminate between a parent’s intensity that needs a response and intensity that they can ignore. Too much intensity and all children become dysregulated, not just infants.
At the beginning of the divorce process when Matthew was five, he remembers his parents’ arguments as overwhelming to him:
They kept screaming at each other, and I feared their anger would blow up the whole house. I had to make them stop. I tried telling them what they always ordered me to do when I misbehaved.
“Go to your room.” My voice was choked as I looked at each of them in turn. They paid no attention and kept on yelling, their voices growing louder, their gazes focused like lasers on each, not seeing me at all….
[Finally]
“GO TO YOUR ROOM! GO TO YOUR ROOM! GO TO YOUR ROOM!” I screamed at the top of my lungs, aiming my proton torpedoes at their fighting [he had seen the Star Wars movie], hoping against hope that I would get through to them.
The guns . . . they stopped. Mom and Dad fell silent and looked at me. Then, as if they’d reached an unspoken agreement, they walked toward their bedroom, where they resumed their arguing but in quieter voices. I could still hear them, but they weren’t shaking the walls with their screams anymore. (Tower, 2025, 24)
High conflict emotions are highly contagious. Even Matthew caught them from his parents. He caught their anger. His younger brother, on the other hand, would just burst into tears and couldn’t stop crying when one or the other parent raised their voice. He caught fear from their intensity.
Many parents are oblivious to the negative impact they are having on their children by exposing them to their most intense emotions. The take-away is that parents should learn to manage their emotions and express their most intense emotions out of hearing of the child. After all, research shows that the second most important parenting skill is “stress management.” This helps them to be emotionally available to their children and also models for their children that emotions can be tolerated and managed. (Epstein, 2010, 49)
3. Amplification and Repairing Statements
When someone tells an emotional story, research tells us that what is remembered are the peaks of emotion and the end of the story: the “peak-end rule.” Also, negative faces are more memorable than positive or neutral faces and harder to stop watching. Longer stories have more emotional impact. (Goldenberg, 2022)
When parents are venting their frustration out loud within the child’s hearing, it can have a significantly negative effect on them. Here’s how Matthew describes his mother complaining to him about this father early in the divorce:
Your father’s a horrible human being. Do you know that he was awful to you and Thomas [younger brother]? He used to hit both of you until I made him stop. And he made you both run around the racetrack until Thomas collapsed from heat exhaustion. Thank God your brother didn’t die. But the worst part is he’s been trying to steal you away from me for years. Imagine the nerve of that man, trying to break a son’s love for his mother. There is no worse crime. Matthew, your father is worse that Adolf Hitler!
The words hit me in slow motion, like bricks casually lobbed at my forehead. Worse than Hitler? (Tower, 40) (Emphasis in original)
Matthew remembered the peak and the end of what his mother said. The research suggests that the listener goes away with a more intensely negative feeling than the speaker, who may have gotten some of it off her chest. Yet the child may not know that and the parent may not realize what is being remembered the most.
The “peak-end rule” suggests that if a parent realizes they have been bad-mouthing the other parent, that they should end with a “repairing statement” – such as “I just spoke negatively about your father, but I want you to have a good relationship with him. I regret what I said before. I’m responsible for my own feelings and I can take care of myself. You don’t have to worry about me.”
4. Negative Stereotype Induction
When a person is described to someone else in very positive or negative terms, it starts to influence the listener’s overall feelings and thoughts about the person. In research on young children’s memories, psychologists questioned preschoolers ages 3 to 6 about a visit to their classroom by “Sam Stone,” who walked into their classroom for two minutes and said only “Hello” and “Goodbye.” When they were asked neutral questions afterwards about what happened, they were generally accurate in describing the visit. But when they were told a negative story about him before he visited—given a negative stereotype—then the preschoolers became very suggestible to questions such as did he break anything or engage in other negative behavior. (Ceci & Bruck, 1995, 129)
When co-parents during and after divorce give an intensely negative description of their other co-parent, it can have this same effect even at much older ages. Matthew experienced both of his parents giving the other parent a negative stereotype. In addition to his mother saying his father was worse than Hitler, she also regularly said he was a “cretin.” And his father regularly said that she was a “lunatic.”
They also included him in conversations that never should have been shared with him. At this time he was only six years old, but the following conversations should not take place with a child of divorce of any age.
One day after school, my mother walked through the door with her shoulders slumped. She didn’t look at me and just stared at the floor. Something bad must have happened….
“The judge ruled that you have to go see your father. Our lawyers drafted the separation contract, and unfortunately he’s got visitation rights every Wednesday, Friday, and every other weekend….”
….
“But don’t worry. I still have primary custody. And this isn’t a permanent arrangement. When the final hearing happens, I promise I’ll fight to keep you away from him. I don’t want you to have to suffer through any more of his crap than necessary.”
For a while both parents engaged in these inappropriate discussions with the children, negatively stereotyping the other parent. For example, when he went to see his father at the home they used to have, his father peppered him with questions.
“What else did your mother say about me? What did she say about the divorce? Is she dating anyone? What did she say about the custody hearing?”
[Then], he pointed at a tiny little box of a fridge in the kitchen. “You see that? It’s all I could afford.” Then he pointed at three bare mattresses on the floor of the living room. “And that’s where we’re sleeping tonight. When you see your mother, you can thank her not having a bed here.” (Tower, 58)
Since he was only six at this time and he and his brother were going back and forth between his parents, it doesn’t appear that he absorbed these negative stereotypes. But when a child is exclusively with one parent for a long period of time, it’s not surprising that these stereotypes can start to stick.
As children grow up, it is not unusual for them to repeat these stereotypes themselves and add new details that never occurred, but that fit a person with a negative stereotype. The research from the Sam Stone experiment found that the children began to embellish their stories with nonexistent, negative details, such as throwing a teddy bear around and tearing up a book. They concluded: “Children’s inaccurate reports or allegations do not always reflect a confusion of events and details of an experience but may at times reflect the creation of an entire experience in which the child did not participate.” (Ceci & Bruck, 133)
While that study was done with preschoolers, I have observed this negative stereotype induction occur with children of all ages and even adults. In contested custody cases, I have seen experts testify to events that are quite exaggerated from the information they were given about a negatively stereotyped parent. In one case, an expert testified that a parent sat by and allowed their child to be scratched on the face numerous times by a sibling, when both parents had said that there was only one scratch and the parent intervened. In another case, an expert testified to seeing a video of a drunken parent, when in fact the parent wasn’t drunk and no such video existed.
5. The Illusion of Truth Effect
When statements are repeated over time, they come to feel true even if they are not. This is even more likely when someone only gets their information from one isolated source. “Repetition can affect beliefs about truth. People tend to perceive claims as truer if they have been exposed to them before. This is known as the illusory truth effect.” This can even occur when statements are “highly implausible or when the repeated statements directly contradict participants’ prior knowledge.” (Hassan & Barber, 2021, 1-2)
During one exchange in the middle of winter, Matthew’s parents got into an argument about Matthew’s hat and gloves and whose house they should stay with. Sitting in the car as they screamed outside at each other, Matthew looked out and saw his father holding onto his mother, leaning over her. He looked away. A minute later his mother got back into the car and said: “Matthew, did you see that? YOUR FATHER BEAT ME UP! That Neanderthal hit me!” Matthew hadn’t seen more than him holding her arms before he looked away. When they got home she showed him her arm.
Mom’s arm looked a little red, like a mild sunburn. I wasn’t sure if it was really red or just her arm’s natural color. She asked me to take some pictures of her arm to use as evidence in the police report and the lawsuit. The incident was all that Mom talked about for days on end….
She repeated the story until I started to believe her. She had to be telling the truth. No one would make up such a terrible accusation. Dad had to be guilty. Why else would she be saying it? I couldn’t let him get away with beating up my mom.
The next time my father came to pick us up, I screamed at him from the top of the stairs. “I DON’T WANT TO SEE YOU EVER AGAIN BECAUSE YOU BEAT UP MY MOMMY!” (Tower, 104)
But then he went with his father for several visits, who explained that he had not hit her and that when she raised this in court the judge laughed it out of court due to lack of evidence.
I was still angry with Dad the next few times I saw him, but he kept repeating his story, too, until I started thinking that maybe he was right. I stopped being angry at Dad and started feeling angry at Mom….
Now each of them had new favorite stories…. What the stories lacked in charm, my parents strived to make up for in repetition. (Tower, 108)
Now imagine if he only lived with one of these parents at that time and never heard the other’s side of the story. When there is emotional repetition in isolation from any contradictory information, it really does become highly contagious and feels absolutely true.
6. The Terrible Story of Dad [or Mom]
In many high conflict custody disputes at court, there is only one parent telling the child in great detail what they think about the other parent. Family court judges admonish parents not to discuss the case with the children or even around the children. But as the court custody case progresses and frustration rises for the parents and the professionals involved, the child may start favoring the more emotional parent with the more intense negative face and negative stories (remember that’s how amplification works). In this case, the child starts pulling away from the parent who is compliant with the court’s admonishment, sharing a less negative face and minimal stories about the other parent.
The terrible story of dad (or mom) begins to overshadow the child’s memory of real dad (or mom). This is especially true between the ages of 9 and 13, when the child’s brain is pruning unused connections and opening up to more emotional experiences to get ready for adult relationships. Except that it is the favored parent’s emotions that may dominate such a child, forming a powerful and absolute bond. In some of these cases, the child develops an absolute dislike or hatred for the rejected parent which does not at all match their experience with real dad (or mom). This dynamic can happen to either gender as the rejected parent. This often occurs while the more intense parent is oblivious to the impact of their unregulated emotions.
In such a case, the child will need to be with the real parent for a block of time before the terrible story of that parent subsides in their mind. This is why one hour of contact a week with a rejected parent usually fails, but a several hour weekend visit often succeeds.
7. “Splitting” the Children
Sometimes a highly emotional parent will “split” the children in their mind, seeing one as a good child and one as a bad or neutral child. This is what eventually happened to Matthew, as his mother compared him negatively to his more compliant brother when he started disagreeing with her as he got older.
“Matthew, your name is Mud! You’re an awful son. You’re just like your father! You’re just like my father! Men have been giving me crap all my life, and now you’re giving me crap too….
“Thomas, you are such a good son. I adore you, Thomas,” she cooed at my younger brother. “Can I get you anything, Thomas?...Good boys who love and respect their mothers get dessert. Matthew, you’re excused. Go to your room and do your homework.” (Tower, 209)
The negative emotional impact of splitting can last a lifetime. It is not unusual that children in such high conflict situations have a hard time being close and supporting each other throughout their lives, since they were pitted against each other throughout their childhood.
The reality is that the vast majority of parents do not “split” their children into good and bad in their minds. Instead, they make efforts to treat them equally and encourage them to support each other, even in divorce.
New Ways for Families
New Ways for Families® is a short term, skills building method taught by High Conflict Institute to help parents going through a separation or divorce. It is designed to teach managed emotions and other skills in a non-blaming, non-shaming environment. In this regard, it is designed to be used voluntarily or ordered by courts for both parents, so that the children get the benefit of them getting on the same page rather than competing with each other. The skills are taught in three different formats: an online course, coaching with the online course, or counseling including parent-child sessions for each parent. By having a structured approach, skills can be more easily absorbed through repetition and parents can be helped to have more positive conversations with their children. For more information, see www.HighConflictInstitute.com.
Conclusion
There are at least seven specific ways that a child’s brain absorbs their parents’ emotions in divorce. These mostly operate outside the awareness of the parents and the child. By pointing them out here it is hoped that parents will do their best to manage their emotions, to avoid negatively stereotyping the other parent, and to avoid splitting the children. It is also hoped that professionals will make every effort to avoid expressing intense emotions at the parents and blaming them for doing something that they may not realize. Helping parents learn to manage their emotions and teaching their children to do so as well will make families and communities stronger.
References
Acharya, Sourya and Shukla, Samarth, “Mirror neurons: Enigma of the metaphysical modular brain,” Journal of Natural Science and Biological Medicine, 2012 Jul;3(2):118-24. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.101878.
Ceci, Stephen and Bruck, Maggie, Jeopardy in the Courtroom, American Psychological Association, 1995.
Epstein, Robert, “What Makes a Good Parent?” Scientific American Mind, November/December, 2010, 46-51.
Goldenberg, Amit, et al, “Amplification in the evaluation of multiple emotional expressions over time,” Nature Human Behaviour, July 2022.
Goleman, Daniel, Social Intelligence, Bantam Books, 2006, 39-40.
Hassan, Aumyo and Barber, Sarah, “The Effects of Repetition Frequency
on the Illusory Truth Effect,” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
6, art. 38 (2021): 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5.
Schore, Allan, Right Brain Psychotherapy, W. W. Norton, 2019.
Tower, Matthew A., Love Wars: Clash of the Parent, A True Divorce Story, Raja Media, 2025.
BILL EDDY, LCSW, Esq. is a therapist, lawyer, and mediator. He is the developer of the New Ways for Families method of skills building for parents in intact families and for parents going through separation or divorce. For more information see: www.HighConflictInstitute.com.
