Judges and Social Workers are routinely complicit in child abuse.
Let us consider all of the kinds of difficult private law cases involving children-related issues in the family courts. The courts have used the following phrases. These phrases have been used haphazardly and non-uniformly. I would like to reduce all this equivocation into a codified structure, so that we can see, with clarity, exactly what the problem is.
TYPES OF CASE
Parental Alienation cases;
Intractable Contact Disputes;
Cases involving ‘implacable hostility’;
Cases involving the ‘Parental Manipulation’ of children;
FEATURES OF THESE CASES
i. False allegations against the non-resident parent (‘NRP’)
ii. The resident parent (‘RP’) deliberately frustrating contact;
iii. The RP ignoring/defying court orders and/or suborning children into doing so;
iv. The RP encouraging children to fear or despise NRP;
v. The RP adopting a false belief system about the non-resident parent and instilling (by act or omission) that belief system in the children. Is RP ‘mad or bad’? That is, does the resident parent (‘RP’) genuinely believe the other parent to be ‘dangerous’ when he is not (in which case RP is ‘mad’ – deluded’), or does the RP know damned well that the NRP is a good parent and just makes up these allegations to keep NRP away (in which case RP is ‘bad’ – that is, probably narcissistic). Finally, and crucially, does it matter whether RP is mad or bad? Either way, the children need to be protected from the RP.
vi. ‘Over-sharing’ of information about the court case by the RP with the children;
vii. Children rejecting an NRP with whom they used to have a good relationship;
viii. RP rewarding child when child disparages NRP, and chastising child if child praises NRP;
ix. Child gives weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalisations for their criticism of the targeted parent: When they are asked to report specific incidences or explicit examples which support their accusations, they are unable to document credible, significant, or factual examples;
x. Child exhibits a lack of ambivalence: very likely, PA children will report a long list of deficits about their NRP while minimising or refuting any positive attribute or redeeming quality of that parent. Conversely, the child will have nothing negative to say about the RP;
xi. The independent thinker phenomenon: the child claims to be independent in making decisions and judgments about the alienated parent, rejecting accusations of being a weak and passive person;
xii. Absence of guilt over cruelty to or exploitation of the alienated parent: Child victims of the alienating parent’s campaign of denigration do not feel guilt or empathy towards the victim parent and do not feel a decrease in their self-esteem, which is part of the guilt;
xiii. Spread of the child’s animosity to the extended family of the alienated parent: PA children also inexplicably reject those relatives they had previously had a loving relationship with and turn hostile to them. So, it is not just the NRP who is rejected, but everything and everybody that has any kind of positive connection with the NRP;
Let us assert that a case that includes all of these features, from i – xiii, is called a ‘Parental Alienation’ case. I do this in an attempt to show that all of the supposed distinctions and gradations of these kinds of cases are largely illusory.
This claim can be demonstrated with the use of a simple scenario:
Let’s suppose that the two parents (F and M) split and that there is one child (for simplicity’s sake). Let us suppose that F leaves the matrimonial home, so the child stays with M (by far in a way the most common scenario). M hates F – really despises him. It does not matter why.
How likely is it that M will cooperate with contact arrangements? How likely is it that she will encourage the children to have a positive view of their father? How likely is it that she will obey court orders? Is it possible/likely that she will make up false allegations about F, given that she will surely be trying to justify her frustrating of contact orders? How likely is it that she will encourage the children to comply with contact orders that she will not comply with, particularly given her negative view of the father? How likely is it that she will protect the children from the details of the litigation? How likely is it that she will reward the child if the child reports good contact with the NRP? And how likely that she will punish? How likely is it that a child will reject a parent with whom they have always had a good relationship, unless they are being manipulated by the RP? How often, in a healthy family, do kids see one parent as all good and the other as all bad? How emotionally healthy is a child that cruelly rejects a parent for no good reason? Why is this child completely submissive to the RP on all day-to-day matters, yet regards himself as completely uninfluenced when it comes to his rejection of the NRP? How likely is it that some of these features are present without (most of) the others being present?
These questions are surely rhetorical.
This is a Parental Alienation case. And, regardless of what you call it, this is psychological child abuse. And once the judge accepts that, he has to do something, doesn’t he? What kind of a judge would he be if he didn’t? What kind of a human being would he be? How should one characterise a person that enables, and so implicitly encourages, this kind of abuse and refuses to transfer residence to the parent that is loving, caring and emotionally available? What kind of judge gives an abuser repeated opportunities to perpetuate the abuse and deepen the alienation? This judge is an individual who has ‘aided, abetted, counselled or procured’ the main ‘offence’. And that makes this judge as guilty as the ‘prime suspect’ – the alienator, the abuser. This ‘abetter’ is just as much an abuser as the narcissistic parent.
The judge is a child abuser.
Exactly the same can be said of CAFCASS officers who routinely ignore evidence that does not fit with their goal – to close the case. They are looking for the path of least resistance – and that is to be lazy, to examine superficially. To accept uncritically the weak, frivolous reasons for the child’s rejection of the NRP, to accept on face value a brainwashed child’s assertion that he does not want to see the NRP, is frightened of him, or despises him. It’s easiest to simply marginalise the NRP. Judges do this because they are cowards. Social workers do it because they are lazy. But in any event, the lazy CAFCASS officer is just as guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the abuse and so –
The CAFCASS officer is a child abuser.
The judge abuses because he is too cowardly to transfer residence. The social worker is an abuser because he cares more about closing the file than discovering the truth.
And that’s the fact, Jack.