Abusers vs. The Abused
There is no logic in tip- toeing around the subject of who these movements are and what they really are about.
On one side we have the movement that promotes the following messages:
- Children are brainwashed by their mothers(Parent Alienation Syndrome)
- Statistics on violence against women are false(RADAR)
- Pathways to full custody for fathers(Shared Parenting)
- Mothers are mostly abusers(RADAR)
- Abused Children and Mothers are liars(false allegations)
On the other side we have a protective movement that promotes the following messages:
Fathers are responsible for the most dangerous forms of abuse that lead to death and disability.
- False allegations are a small factor in the Family Courts
- Violence against women and children is on the rise and acknowledged by Untied Nations as a world wide issue across all cultures and classes.
- Shared Parenting is inclusive of violent fathers
- Fathers are responsible for the most dangerous forms of abuse that lead to death and disability.
- Most allegations are not investigated in Family Courts and this process is often halted and sometimes legally barred from access to investigations in other courts.
The Family Court supports:
- Reporting cases to the media that are aligned with the first movements interests.
- Patriarchal models of family where the mother must do all of the work to foster relationships between the child and father even if they are abusive.
- That the Father is always right and the mother is mentally ill if she disputes this.
- Full custody to abusive fathers if the mother voices her concerns.
- Unsupervised access to fathers regardless of criminal histories of pedophilia, murder, drugs and violence.
- Punishing the child for speaking about abuse.
- Punishing the mother for trying to protect her child.
Family Court psychologists support:
The Family Court supports patriarchal models of family where the mother must do all of the work to foster relationships between the child and father...
- Using diagnosis's that have not been approved by any scientific organization in the world.
- Recommending abusive practices such as Gardner's, "Threat therapy" which involves threatening the child with isolation from key-stakeholders that can document and provide evidence of abuse.
- Nineteenth century recommendations on the model of family.
- Coercive control of the mother for the sole goals and purposes of ensuring that she will eventually break down.
- Using tests that are confirmatory bias towards mothers.
We have three movements that are aligned against one movement. This one movement has managed to not only survive but thrive regardless of the stakes. The reason why they have survived is that all actors strive to ensure that the facts that are circulated are correct and the motives are child focused with a secondary concern for mothers. In cases of family violence, the issues of abuse for both the mother and child are intertwined. The priority for the safety of both members are crucial, but not nearly enough to reach the status of protected from further violence and permanent damage from the current climate.
It is largely a case of organizational abuse where women and children in already vulnerable situations go to the family court believing wholeheartedly that these courts will provide orders to protect them. The problem is that most of the key-stakeholders are men that are fathers and some who have abused or are currently abusing. The best way to understand how these interests have dominated the family law practice is to look into previous cases of genocide and how large organizations aligned to commit it. One of the most well known cases is the holocaust, where thousands of members of the jewish community were murdered.
The problem is that most of the key-stakeholders are men that are fathers and some who have abused or are currently abusing.
It all began with the gold star, documenting how many there were of them and then isolating them into an area where they were tortured, murdered or enslaved. The techniques that were used back then were primitive, but effective in carrying out their goals. Today, we have a more complex world with more of an ability to monitor the masses more effectively.
Networking to achieve goals are now at our fingertips and thanks to facebook - we can track who is loyal to who. Compilation of information in the wrong hands could lead to future genocides. Most of our private information is available to anyone and in some countries people can find out where you live just by googleing your name. In the family court system, women are required to inform the courts if there is any violence or child abuse often at the beginning. The catch is that throughout the proceedings, lawyers (including yours), child protection workers and family consultants will work in unison to undermine your claims and even destroy the evidence that you have provided them.
On a mental level, they will they will often say that you don't have evidence even if you have provided them hospital reports, affidavits from specialists and the abuser has a criminal history. Sometimes, they might include processes that don't exist or obey only processes that were pushed in by the abusers movement. Most Family Courts have too much power to make decisions upon their own accord similar to the old, "at her majesties pleasure" which leaves a lot of room to instigate what some have considered an act of torture. Each case is often isolated to lead the victim to believe that they are the only one and that they will "help" protect the child. It is often too late before the victim discovers that the members worked together to not only diminish your ability to protect yourself and your child, but to ensure that either no one will know or that no one will believe you. That is why a majority of mothers that lost custody were for the reasons of mental illness and is not consistent with the average statistics of mental illness out side this organization.
A majority of the cases are only diagnosed by one practitioner - the family courts practitioner. In the process of pursuing information on what appears to be deciding on the best interests of the children, the information that is most valuable is often how much you might be aware of psychology, whether you could prove them wrong and how many people outside of the court community knows about your case.
a majority of mothers that lost custody were for the reasons of mental illness and is not consistent with the average statistics of mental illness...
In cases like these, one of the first instincts are to go to an authority about it. Most authorities are so ignorant or involved that these cases are often ignored. Thus continues the monopoly. The next instinct is to contact the media, but family courts can either order suppression of the case by using the child as a justification or in some countries use a general law that prohibits any discussion without the courts approval. This means that only cases that compliment the courts interests are getting out in the mainstream media. It also means that deaths that were a result of court orders are also withheld, causing more pain to families. So what we have here is a silent genocide. where children and mothers are being killed and no one knows who and why they are dead. The manipulation that goes on to ensure that grieving families do not speak out is abhorrent, but all too common. Like the Holocaust, the ones that are not dead are often tortured by their abuser and isolated from the only one that can help them - the mother.
Each time protective groups try to advocate they have the family courts abusers lobby group either bullying the media or threatening the advocates into silence and oppression. Maternal alienation was a grooming strategy that began with pedophiles in order to lock in the abuse. It is now a widely used systematic tactic to not only alienate the children from the mother, but deprive them for life. This is because they know that the earning potential when a protective mother has lost custody is more than the father as we know that fathers often give up a lot sooner and thus not as much revenue from court attendance and lawyers. They know that a protective mother will continue to return to the courts begging them for the children, especially when concerns for the child is amplified by the abuser. Keeping this extra business concealed from the public is a major priority that these courts will often attend to and worth investing in. It does not surprise me to see shared parenting councils have a public relationship with chiefs of courts or the government funding fatherhood programs that they know continue to harvest family violence. The downfall is that they often expect that survivors will indulge in the feeling of being beaten down or that they will forever be afraid of the laws that violate universal laws. More and more mothers are now discovering that breaking this silence is saving not only their children's lives but also the lives of others. People who never knew what the inside of court room doors are beginning to know what is actually happening.
The united nations is beginning to work on divorce for families affected by violence and reporters have learned that the courts cannot stop them from reporting if everyone reports it in synchronicity on the internet.
shared parenting councils have a public relationship with chiefs of courts or the government funding fatherhood programs that they know continue to harvest family violence