Yet another UK Family Court judge is using mainstream media to launch a nation-wide manhunt for a protective mother, and to spread lies about her so the public will help him catch her.
As usual, mainstream media is doing Judge David William's bidding and covering only his lies and distortions, while completely omitting Ellie’s side of the story, which is in court documents and in a letter sent to her mother just before she fled into hiding.
View Ellie’s heart-wrenching letter here:
The Women’s Coalition is launching a counterattack to this public lynching of a wonderful mother, just like in the Samantha Baldwin and Rebecca Minnock cases [see link below]. Both cases engendered much public outrage about judges taking children away from loving mothers and giving them to controlling and abusive fathers. Help make this post go viral too!
SHARE, comment on and like this post!
COMMENT on media stories in support of Ellie.
TELL family, neighbors, friends the truth.
URGE the public not to turn Ellie in if they see her.
Ellie is a great mother who has done everything right. She reported abuse by the father to the court and social services, and she made Olly visit his father as she did not want to be in violation of the custody order, even though he said his father abused him and it caused him great distress.
The father, who claimed he “knew people” told Ellie he was going to get Olly placed in foster care to make her “ruin her life”. There was an upcoming hearing where she believed that was going to happen. Not surprisingly, Judge Williams made Olly a ward of the court after she fled.
Judge Launches Mother Manhunt: Asks Public’s Help
Mainstream Media Spreads Judge’s Lies to Help Catch Mom
“I will never let any harm come to Olly.”
- Ellie, Olly’s mother
JUDICIAL LIES via MSM:
1) Judge Williams said he is “gravely concerned” for the boy’s safety.
Truth: Williams knows the child is in no danger with Ellie and that she left to protect him from his father. He is just using that lie to get the public to want to turn her in.
2) Judge Williams says his level of concern for Olly is so high, he is making him a ward of the court, which means foster care.
Truth: If the father was safe or wanted him, he would have given the father sole custody. Apparently, the father does not want Olly, just to ruin Ellie’s life, so Judge Williams is simply doing what the father wants.
3) Judge Williams says the mother “vanished” before a “critical” hearing.
Truth: Williams gives the impression that Ellie vanished because an upcoming hearing may not go her way. But Williams neglects to mention that he was going to take Olly away from Ellie at that hearing and place him in foster care because that is what the father wants.
4) Judge Williams says Olly will suffer long-term emotional consequences from being “abducted”.
Truth: Williams knows that Olly will suffer far greater emotional damage from being taken away from his loving mother and placed with an abusive father or in foster care. He doesn’t care. He is doing what the father wants.
5) The media posts terrible pictures of protective mothers so the public will be less likely to empathize or sympathize with them and more likely to turn them in. This is proof the media is deliberately skewing the story, which is entirely unethical.
This case is just one in the epidemic of judges disregarding unfitness and abuse by fathers, while making false, negative findings about mothers who are simply trying to keep or protect their children after divorce or separation.
This new mother manhunt is also another example of how the power elite perpetuates patriarchal control in the family through courts, social services, law enforcement and the media. Hopefully it will help raise awareness with women about how they still do not have the power to keep or protect their children after divorce. Women must unite and demand a new system free of discrimination.
*The Women’s Coalition and all its 21,000 followers stand with Ellie and hope she and Olly remain safe in hiding for a very long time!
NOTE: A High Court Justice, James Holman, is harassing Ellie’s mother and sister. There was a hearing on Wednesday where he berated them, calling them liars and threatening them with jail if they do not say where Ellie is. He lied and said Olly would not be taken away from Ellie if she returns so they would help get her back. TWC will be making another post about that part of this case.
Samantha Baldwin’s case:
NOTE: TWC is not linking to any of the mainstream media false accounts but you can google "Ellie Yarrows" to see them.
[Pictured: Ellie and Olly; Judge David Williams]
Dear Mr. Zucker,
The Women’s Coalition is submitting this complaint regarding a recent episode of “This Is Life” entitled “Divorce and Child Custody: Men Cry Foul”. In this segment, Lisa Ling supports the false assertion that men are being discriminated against in Family Court, not women. She disseminates other fathers’ rights propaganda and promotes their agenda.
Ms. Ling justifies her one-sided portrayal by saying in the beginning of the piece that it is about fathers’ problems in Family Court. But it is not just a human interest story; it is a political piece, serving to disseminate fathers’ rights propaganda and promote their agenda of mandatory equal parenting. As such, Ms. Ling was ethically obligated to ensure the public was given information that is accurate, fair and thorough, but she did not. She is supposed to act independently, but instead did fathers’ rights activists’ bidding. She is supposed to seek the truth, but disregarded valid research supporting that it is women who are being discriminated against, not men. She is supposed to minimize harm, but she has done great damage to women and children with her negligent, biased and inaccurate journalism.
We are disappointed in CNN for broadcasting this segment and are requesting you compensate for airing this harmful episode by providing The Women’s Coalition with funding for a short film documentary, which will get the truth to the public. With this documentary, you will not only be helping CNN’s reputation for good journalism, you will become a hero to millions of women and children around the world.
Cindy Dumas, M.A.
To sign onto this complaint, send your name to: WomensCoalitionIntl@gmail.com.
In a recent episode of “This Is Life” entitled “Divorce and Child Custody: Men Cry Foul”, Lisa Ling pushes propaganda straight out of the fathers’ rights playbook and promotes their agenda of mandatory equal parenting, which is extremely harmful to women and children.
This segment depicts the Custody Crisis as Family Court judges routinely discriminating against MEN, believing women’s lies about abuse, unjustly granting primary custody to vindictive women and restricting or eliminating visitation with their children, and allowing women to alienate their children from them. Mandatory equal parenting time, in which children are automatically split in half after divorce regardless of circumstances, which reduces or eliminates child support, is claimed to be in children’s best interests.
The true Custody Crisis is that judges are routinely discriminating against WOMEN, falsely deeming them liars and alienators, unjustly granting sole or joint custody to self-serving or violent men, eliminating contact or restricting visitation with their children, and allowing men to alienate children from them. Forcing equal parenting time on warring parents is not in children’s best interests and children do better living with primarily with their primary attachment figure. These laws also make it harder than it already is for women to protect children, since judges often disregard abuse by fathers.
And it’s not like Ling was unaware of this opposition. The Women’s Coalition and many of its followers contacted her during filming in March, alerting her to the research and countless horrific case studies, many involving children forced to live with their rapists. We asked her for a voice.
But she ignored us.
NOT JUST A HUMAN INTEREST PIECE
Ling tries to justify broadcasting this one-sided piece by deceptively presenting it as merely a human interest story in which she is “just trying to understand what a messy divorce looks like for dads”. However, it serves essentially as a political argument claiming men are the ones discriminated against in Family Court, not women, while spreading fathers’ rights fictional narratives. Worse, it promotes a special interest group’s controversial legislative agenda which benefits one gender and harms the other. As such, Ling did a huge disservice to women and children and violated journalistic ethics.
Therefore, The Women’s Coalition is submitting a complaint to the president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, asking him to take down the offending episode and fund a Women’s Coalition documentary on the truth about the custody crisis to compensate for the damage this piece caused to women and children.
It is such rich irony that Ling begins the episode with clips of her protesting at the Women’s March, stating women are demanding their voices be heard, while she precludes women from having a voice in that very segment. Ling contends that while women still have to fight for rights outside the home, we “may have the upper hand at home”, insinuating, of course, that we do. But that is false, like so much else in her piece. In fact, the one place women still have almost no power is keeping or protecting their children after divorce.
Ling’s first highlights men’s rights activists who “bash” women, in a transparent effort to make the men she subsequently interviews look good, since they supposedly don’t overtly bash women. However, calling women liars and alienators on international TV is arguably a worse form of bashing.
Ling declares first thing that 80% of mothers have custody, misleading the public into thinking women are winning 80% of custody battles, which is false. The reason women have primary custody 80% of the time is because most fathers agree to it—no need for a judge. In cases where fathers fight for it, they win sole or joint custody most of the time regardless of past parenting involvement. Approximately 75% of custody cases involve domestic violence and/or child abuse, but fathers win in over 75% of those cases. When sexual abuse is reported, fathers get custody 85 - 90% of the time, even a small fraction are false reports. That means an awful lot of children are being forced to live with abusers and rapists.
FATHERS #1, 2 & 3
The first father she interviews had a Protective Order issued against him, with detailed incidents of domestic violence and child abuse. However, Ling minimizes the abuse and discredits the ex-wife, without ever asking the father if he perpetrated the reported incidents or speaking with his ex. Ling leads the public to feel sorry for this father not having his children half-time, but that is apparently because he works and lives far away, not because of a biased judge.
Perhaps the most damaging part of the interview with father #1 is that Ling suggests the restraining order was wrongly issued since the evidence of his abuse did not meet the criminal burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The criminal burden is high because the accused faces prison, so it is not applicable to protecting children in civil court. It has always been the societal consensus that the civil “preponderance of evidence” burden is appropriate in Family Court cases. For Ling to support that fathers’ rights ideology endangers children.
The second father Ling interviewed complained about how he was so depressed he attempted suicide, but admitted that was caused by the failure of his marriage, which was due to his affair, not by a biased judge barring him from his children. He said everything had gone great with his children for years after the divorce, until he was jailed for not paying child support.
The third father, who was never married to the mother of his baby son, has regular visitation—every other Wednesday and weekend. There was no indication the baby was being harmed by this parenting arrangement as Ling portrayed. He didn’t like paying child support and was fighting for equal parenting time, which would have eliminated the child support.
NONE BARRED FROM KIDS
So, despite Ling’s portrayal of judges regularly barring children from good fathers, not one of the three men Ling interviewed are. And it would not have been unreasonable if the father with a DV restraining order had been restricted to supervised visitation, but he was free to visit with his children as long as he informed the mother in writing. However this was portrayed as a terrible thing.
Although some of the men at the beer-guzzling get-together claimed the courts had taken their children and their exes had alienated them, there was no way to know for sure since Ling did not provide backstories or input from the exes.
All three of the men were unhappy about the child support they had to pay and the loss of control in their family. The fathers’ rights core agenda is to enact mandatory/forced equal parenting legislation, which they euphemistically call “shared” parenting. This legislation not only gets men out of child support, it gives them more control over their children and over their women after divorce.
So it comes down to men trying to keep power and control over women, while women are trying to do what is best for their children. The truth is that judges are routinely empowering men and disempowering women. The family is the last great frontier of women’s empowerment, unlike what Ling claims as the mouthpiece for fathers’ rights activists.
Shame on Lisa Ling for betraying & harming women and children.
NOTE: The full episode is not yet available on CNN’s site, but can be viewed on a men’s rights youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITN0ABmtck4&t=543s
LINK to COMPLAINT
Cindy Dumas, M.A. has been researching, writing, and raising awareness about the Custody Crisis since 2003, when she was unable to protect her children from their abusive father. She fled into hiding when Family Court failed her and was tricked into returning home, when her children were given to their abusive father.