Domestic abuse under the guise of co parenting-lets talk about it

I have fought for years, 11 years to be precise … For what is best and safe for my twelve year old son. I’ve been made to feel im wrong for wanting to protect him when my overriding duty as his mum and main carer (only carer in reality) is to keep him safe! And who is it that makes me feel like this? Not just the narcissistic “co-parent” but the very people who are meant to protect you and your child- childrens services, cafcass and the family courts and judges themselves! I am in breach of a child arrangements order because my twelve year old son refuses point blank to talk to see or have any form of contact with his dad. He is too big for me to force against his will and neither do I want to. I know my son I know when he’s worried, scared, fed up, annoyed, angry, tired just a few of the feelings he has had because of his narcissist father! And I think it’s wrong it’s so so wrong that I have had to endure eleven years of abuse, threats, false allegations to whoever will listen, I’ve had three restraining orders in a bid to protect myself from any further harm he’s been charged with harassment and found guilty yet he is still allowed to do it under the guise of co parenting! Why why why?????

Psychologically unsafe, unstable and violent fathers are using the family court system to terrorise mothers. When a dangerous father can no longer wield power and control in the home, they revert to using the family court to continue their torment and abuse. Some judges and welfare reporters are abusing their position to protect and assist dangerous fathers at the expense of the safety of children.
Before entering the family court system, the narcissistic perpetrator already has two powerful weapons in his armour
• His personality. (Charm, confidence and the ability to control, manipulate and deceive)
• The victim’s fragile emotional state. (She is often suffering symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)

When facing claims of abuse, perpetrators will jump to their go-to strategy, which can be remembered by the acronym DARVO. Research by Jennifer Freyd, Professor of Psychology, has identified a pattern. Abusers will Deny the abuse ever took place, Attack the victim for confronting their behaviour and Reverse Victim and Offender to convince others that they are the victim.
The abusive father is well versed in his rights on entering the courtroom; he receives tactical advice.
“With these solicitors and these experts, you can get parenting time or custody of your child. They will help you deny the abuse and blame it on your ex. ‘Parental alienation’, didn’t you know? It’s ingenious!”

The father, the solicitors and the experts who support his cause, work together and exploit the mother’s emotional state. Parental alienation is just another name for DARVO in the courtroom; the abusive father’s weapon of mass destruction. The unaware victim quickly falls into the trap waiting for her. The perpetrator heads into the family court with one goal; to hurt the mother with her deepest fear – losing parenting time or custody of their child.( This is where I’ve gone wrong in the past he has picked on things he knows trigger me and I lose my temper in the court room out of pure frustration and fear! But I am a human being I can only take so much)

The perpetrator can’t quite believe how his luck keeps rolling in during court hearings; yet another weapon in his ever-growing Armoury the ability to frustrate the contact arrangements. For there is no remedy in law for the victim when the abusive father breaches orders and cancels the contact he so desperately sought, a common occurrence. Mothers, however, are given unattainable expectations and get reprimanded by the judge for the slightest faults, sometimes threatened with the loss of their children.

The perpetrator also uses his charm and deception to weaponize the police. He makes false claims of neglect or abuse and requests for welfare checks to be carried out, knowing they can be issued without investigation and difficult for the mother to get withdrawn. The abusive father will hurt and humiliate his victim at any given opportunity, and there are many opportunities when the judge is turning a blind eye. The abusive parent watches on gleefully as the victim begs the judge in desperation to help her. The judge promptly shuts her down, diminishes the abuse on record and ploughs ahead with the parental alienation narrative, regardless of whether the pieces of the jigsaw fit. The judge and the welfare reporter will make them fit.
The perpetrator leaves court triumphant, and the victim leaves destitute after spending thousands of pounds in a futile attempt to protect her child from harm. She is heartbroken, shocked and angry. The terrified child bravely opened up and told their experiences to welfare reporters, only to be disbelieved and have their views influenced or distorted. They now, helplessly and by order of the court, enter the possession of the controlling, dangerous parent. Parental alienation ‘experts’ recommend their own expensive, ‘special therapy’ and the judge follows their recommendations despite them being unregulated and there being no scientific evidence to show what parental alienation actually ‘is’. The experts will now attempt to erase the father’s abuse from the child’s mind. The bewildered victim can’t quite believe the harshness and brutality she and her child have faced. She feels disgusted when she realises that ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ was concocted by Gardner and facilitates the DARVO of the perpetrators of abuse in the courtroom. When credible experts cottoned on to Gardner and exposed his motives, he later stabbed himself to death in a frenzied attack; he was a very sick man. This begs the questions, Why is Gardner’s bogus parental alienation theory (or anything that implies it) still influencing court decisions? Why are courts allowing it when there is abundant credible research on domestic abuse and coercive control, and evidence proving that false allegations of abuse are rare? Changes in legislation are currently in process in the UK with the Domestic Abuse Bill (England & Wales) and the Children’s Bill (Scotland) making their way through their respective parliaments. The changes proposed are much needed and welcome; however, some of the problems mothers and children face are much more deep-rooted. The law is already supposed to prevent unsafe contact from taking place. Judges must already make contact decisions in the best interests of the child.
In Scots law, amendments were made to the Children (Scotland) Act in 2006 mandating that, in applying the best interests test, the court must have particular regard to the need to protect the child from domestic abuse.
So this begs the following questions, Why are the family courts not doing this? Why are women continuing to be silenced? Why are judges and welfare reporters reconstructing cases to fit the parental alienation narrative when it’s true purpose, a means of obscuring abuse, has been proven in academic research? Why are courts still not following the best interests mandate when twenty-one children have already been intentionally killed in the UK since 2006 by a father with a known history of violence? (Women’s Aid, Child First & BBC, Victoria Derbyshire)Why is the concept of parental alienation still being discussed in parliaments? The answer is simple.
Fathers rights are taking precedence over the best interests of the child, despite the harm it is doing. The ‘presumption of contact’ in family courts is a major problem. Women’s trust in the family courts has been betrayed, as have her, and her child’s, human rights. While of course some women can be abusive and some mother’s do behave badly, they are in the minority, and these situations often resolve themselves over time. This happens either when the boomerang effect comes into play, or when the mother is made aware of the father’s parental rights and responsibilities; something she has often never heard of. The family court system is enabling the post-separation abuse of mothers and the emotional and physical abuse of children. The system itself is re-traumatising both.
professor Freyd describes Institutional Betrayal as; “Institutions harming those dependent on the institution. Includes the failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings within the institution when there is a reasonable expectation of protection. The harm of institutional betrayal is both pragmatic and psychological.”The family courts must now recognise the betrayal and hold those who abuse their power to account. There must be recourse for the mothers and children the system has failed to protect. It’s time for equality in the family courts, and until we achieve it, children’s lives remain at stake.