Journalists Get the Crisis Wrong—Again
And How That Harms the Movement
Two more investigative journalists have written articles about contested custody cases. Unfortunately, despite apparently good intentions, both have gotten the crisis wrong, which helps perpetuate the epidemic by misleading the public and keeping activists fighting the wrong things. It’s important for victims of family court and the general public to understand the true nature of the crisis so effective solutions can be fought for and implemented, so that the crisis can be ended once and for all.
|
Investigative journalist Marisa Endicott focuses on the use of parental alienation in her article, “How parental alienation syndrome is changing custody cases across the U.S.” She highlights Jaclyn's case and interviews protective parent activists [PPA’s] and fathers’ rights activists [FRA’s], who hold opposite views on the issue, as well as a judge. The FRA’s argue that alienation is a valid and important condition for family courts to recognize, while PPA’s claim it is not legitimate and should not be used at all.
Endicott reports that some [PPA] experts worry that “abusers” are using parental alienation to get custody of children and say “abuse allegations” are commonly part of a case. Gender neutral language is used here, despite the fact that the vast majority of reports of abuse are made by mothers, with fathers claiming they are the victim of alienation. It is extremely rare for it to happen in reverse.
Endicott goes on to report that some initial research shows alienation is frequently claimed when abuse is alleged and often “sways” a judge to find the parent is in fact alienating. This is misleading again because it uses gender neutral language, but also because it implies the judge is making findings of alienation because he is being “swayed” by other court actors. In fact, judges routinely deliberately ignore evidence of abuse which shows mothers are not alienating and have good cause to request primary custody and/or restricted visitation with the father. Judges are not being swayed; they are obviously maintaining male entitlement.
One expert interviewed on the PPA side says judges need to prioritize and assess abuse first, implying that alienation should only come into play after it is determined whether there is abuse. However, judges are not getting it wrong because they have not assessed whether there is abuse first. They are deliberately conducting poor investigations and subsequently disregarding evidence of abuse so they can justify switching custody to the father. Accusing mothers of alienation is one way to justify the switch.
Another PPA notes that parental alienation is being used to shut children up. Although true, the silencing of children is secondary to enabling the switching of custody to the father. She says PPA’s are lobbying Congress for reforms, however there are no reforms within the present system which could make any meaningful difference in the epidemic, since family courts are designed so as to be able to maintain male entitlement. This is why The Women’s Coalition is proposing a new system in civil court with juries.
Ironically the FRA’s are the interviewees who get it right when they say that alienation is a form of emotional abuse, there is plenty of alienating behavior and to quibble about the exact definition is just a distraction—although they ignore the wrongful, gendered use of alienation in family courts and that the distraction clearly benefits FRA’s in that it keeps the PPA’s off balance, on the defense and focusing on the wrong things.
The simple truth about parental alienation is that women are being falsely accused of alienating to justify switching custody to fathers and men are allowed to alienate children from mothers after being granted custody. Accusing women of parental alienation is just a more legally acceptable way to deem women liars. All throughout history, women who dare challenge male entitlement have been deemed liars or mentally ill. This is continuing in family courts to this day.
Endicott reports that the pendulum seems to be swinging towards men being more advantaged to win custody after a hundred years of the Tender Years Doctrine (TYD), however, that is not what is happening. The claim that TYD advantaged women in custody disputes is propaganda disseminated by the power elite. Men legislated the TYD in the 1800’s because it benefitted them. It relieved them of the obligation of incredibly hard, unpaid, 24/7 care of young children if they decided to leave their wives at a time when women did not have the ability to leave men without being impoverished.
This propaganda must be dispelled by informing the public that women have NEVER had the power to keep custody. They still do not have the power to this day; and they will never have it until they recognize that fact and unite and demand it. Articles which perpetuate the men’s rights propaganda keep women from uniting to fight for their right to their children.
A judge interviewed for the article claimed that the problem is a result of judges, evaluators, mediators and other experts not being educated enough about abuse, but the research and evidence, which includes thousands of cases around the world which follow the same pattern, demonstrate that judges and other court-affiliated experts are simply “going along to get along” with the agenda to keep men empowered over their children and their exes.
The other thing Endicott highlights as causing the problem is parents’ access to an attorney. However, most women start out with attorneys, some excellent, and they still lose their children. It makes no difference whatsoever.
The other recent article that gets the crisis wrong will be reviewed next. It is so important for women and the general public to get the truth about what is going on in family courts. The crisis is: judges taking children away from women and giving custody to their undeserving or abusive exes. Women are being falsely found to be liars, alienators or mentally unstable to justify granting custody to the father. The cause of this crisis is entrenched systemic male entitlement and the resulting discrimination against women. This understanding leads to the recognition that the only effective remedy is an entirely new system, not reforming family courts.
Troops are needed to fight for the new system!
Join WomensCoalitionInternational.org to help fight for the new Child Custody Court system which will provide due process and prevent the systemic male entitlement leading to women losing their children.
Endicott reports that some [PPA] experts worry that “abusers” are using parental alienation to get custody of children and say “abuse allegations” are commonly part of a case. Gender neutral language is used here, despite the fact that the vast majority of reports of abuse are made by mothers, with fathers claiming they are the victim of alienation. It is extremely rare for it to happen in reverse.
Endicott goes on to report that some initial research shows alienation is frequently claimed when abuse is alleged and often “sways” a judge to find the parent is in fact alienating. This is misleading again because it uses gender neutral language, but also because it implies the judge is making findings of alienation because he is being “swayed” by other court actors. In fact, judges routinely deliberately ignore evidence of abuse which shows mothers are not alienating and have good cause to request primary custody and/or restricted visitation with the father. Judges are not being swayed; they are obviously maintaining male entitlement.
One expert interviewed on the PPA side says judges need to prioritize and assess abuse first, implying that alienation should only come into play after it is determined whether there is abuse. However, judges are not getting it wrong because they have not assessed whether there is abuse first. They are deliberately conducting poor investigations and subsequently disregarding evidence of abuse so they can justify switching custody to the father. Accusing mothers of alienation is one way to justify the switch.
Another PPA notes that parental alienation is being used to shut children up. Although true, the silencing of children is secondary to enabling the switching of custody to the father. She says PPA’s are lobbying Congress for reforms, however there are no reforms within the present system which could make any meaningful difference in the epidemic, since family courts are designed so as to be able to maintain male entitlement. This is why The Women’s Coalition is proposing a new system in civil court with juries.
Ironically the FRA’s are the interviewees who get it right when they say that alienation is a form of emotional abuse, there is plenty of alienating behavior and to quibble about the exact definition is just a distraction—although they ignore the wrongful, gendered use of alienation in family courts and that the distraction clearly benefits FRA’s in that it keeps the PPA’s off balance, on the defense and focusing on the wrong things.
The simple truth about parental alienation is that women are being falsely accused of alienating to justify switching custody to fathers and men are allowed to alienate children from mothers after being granted custody. Accusing women of parental alienation is just a more legally acceptable way to deem women liars. All throughout history, women who dare challenge male entitlement have been deemed liars or mentally ill. This is continuing in family courts to this day.
Endicott reports that the pendulum seems to be swinging towards men being more advantaged to win custody after a hundred years of the Tender Years Doctrine (TYD), however, that is not what is happening. The claim that TYD advantaged women in custody disputes is propaganda disseminated by the power elite. Men legislated the TYD in the 1800’s because it benefitted them. It relieved them of the obligation of incredibly hard, unpaid, 24/7 care of young children if they decided to leave their wives at a time when women did not have the ability to leave men without being impoverished.
This propaganda must be dispelled by informing the public that women have NEVER had the power to keep custody. They still do not have the power to this day; and they will never have it until they recognize that fact and unite and demand it. Articles which perpetuate the men’s rights propaganda keep women from uniting to fight for their right to their children.
A judge interviewed for the article claimed that the problem is a result of judges, evaluators, mediators and other experts not being educated enough about abuse, but the research and evidence, which includes thousands of cases around the world which follow the same pattern, demonstrate that judges and other court-affiliated experts are simply “going along to get along” with the agenda to keep men empowered over their children and their exes.
The other thing Endicott highlights as causing the problem is parents’ access to an attorney. However, most women start out with attorneys, some excellent, and they still lose their children. It makes no difference whatsoever.
The other recent article that gets the crisis wrong will be reviewed next. It is so important for women and the general public to get the truth about what is going on in family courts. The crisis is: judges taking children away from women and giving custody to their undeserving or abusive exes. Women are being falsely found to be liars, alienators or mentally unstable to justify granting custody to the father. The cause of this crisis is entrenched systemic male entitlement and the resulting discrimination against women. This understanding leads to the recognition that the only effective remedy is an entirely new system, not reforming family courts.
Troops are needed to fight for the new system!
Join WomensCoalitionInternational.org to help fight for the new Child Custody Court system which will provide due process and prevent the systemic male entitlement leading to women losing their children.