"Gaslighting" Isn't "Abuse" for Child Custody Law Purposes

This brief report from Reason presents a court ruling with minimal editorializing or charged language. The article states a factual legal holding without advocacy tone. However, Reason's libertarian editorial perspective typically favors legal narrow-tailoring and skepticism of expansive abuse definitions in family law contexts, which subtly frames the ruling favorably without explicit endorsement.

Primary voices: state or recognized government

• This article does not address the reasoning behind the Oregon court's distinction between 'gaslighting' and legally cognizable 'abuse'
• This article does not provide context on how other jurisdictions treat psychological manipulation in custody proceedings
• This article does not include perspectives from child welfare advocates or domestic violence experts on the implications of this ruling