WHEN A MOTHER CLAIMS ABUSE

When a child resists contact with an abusive father, the mother may raise an action in the Family Court to vary contact. When she does, her situation becomes frightening. The more she tries to prove her ex's controlling and dangerous behaviour, the more powerful he becomes.

Her evidence gets ignored; egregious abuse gets diminished; welfare reporters ask leading questions, they lure children into a false sense of security, invite them to 'open up' about the abuse and then 'suggest' an alternative scenario took place. They write damaging reports using the influenced evidence extracted.

The child protests when contact dates come around; they scream, they vomit, they refuse. If the mother dares raise concerns, it will get used as more evidence against her. She feels she has no option but to send her child for contact, remain silent, and painfully watch them suffer, hoping the phone does not ring bearing bad news. The treatment she and her child receive at times feels brutal.

She enters the court, as a respectful, law-abiding citizen, seeking to protect her child from harm, and she leaves, a 'villainess'. Her situation feels preposterous.

She asks herself,

"What on earth is going on?; Why does no one believe me? Why can't they see the truth? Why am I being punished?

THE BIAS

A bias, against mothers who claim abuse, exists in Family Courts in several particular countries around the world; countries where parental alienation has become a thing. Mothers and children get approached with unfounded suspicion, and children are suffering the cruel consequences. Welfare reporters use terms such as 'false narrative', 'false beliefs', 'implacable hostility'. What they are telling the judge is, you are the reason the child is resisting contact; you have vindictively or pathologically turned the child against their father; it's parental alienation.

Research published this year, in the USA, by Professor Joan Meier (Professor of Law, Domestic Violence lawyer and expert) found that the use of alienation in cases of abuse is highly gendered. A mother's risk of losing custody increases when she claims abuse of any form and mothers are twice as likely to lose custody when the father counterclaims ‘parental alienation' (in comparison to when the roles are reversed).

Research has taken place in several other countries, including England and Wales and it is clear to see from the studies that 'parental alienation' is being misused tactically by abusive fathers to obscure and deny the mothers claims of abuse. The result is mothers are often disbelieved. Their evidence is not given serious consideration, and children are forced into unsafe therapy, unsafe contact or even residence with the dangerous parent whom they genuinely fear. Children are losing their lives as a result.

So why are mothers and children being treated in such a manner? The answer to this question is a nauseous one.

Disgraced psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner invented 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' (PAS) theory in the 1980s. Gardner worked as an expert witness; he often supported fathers accused of molesting their children. The 'syndrome' was created based on his observations, not scientific evidence. Gardner had extreme and distasteful views on women, child sexual abuse and paedophilia. Gardner believed mothers who claimed abuse to be hysterical, vengeful liars or suffering from mental health issues. He believed children to be 'brainwashed' or 'programmed' by their mother. His warped views on child sexual abuse are evident in his self-published books and articles.

Gardner recommended coercive and punitive remedies. Mothers were punished by having custody switched to the abusive father, and children were given harmful treatment such as 'threat therapy', 'realignment therapy' or 'deprogramming' to make them believe the abuse did not take place. His methods were cruel and drove some children to suicide.

Experts have widely discredited Gardner's PAS due to the lack of scientific evidence to support his theory; however, shockingly, his influence is still strongly felt in Family Court systems today. PAS evolved into 'parental alienation' and fathers rights groups, (now ‘Shared Parenting’ proponents) have helped gain it traction in courtrooms.

THE PARENTAL ALIENATION ‘EXPERTS’

Many 'experts' in the now disreputable parental alienation industry in the UK, offer their 'unique services' to remedy the problem. Some of these 'experts' use stringent and authoritarian interventions and treatments, and openly support the work of Gardner.

Dr Adrienne Barnett (Senior Lecturer in Law, Brunel University) concluded research this year on parental alienation and its purpose in abuse cases. Dr Barnett found that 'raising PA dominates cases to the exclusion of all else'. She found evidence to suggest that some experts used in these Family Court cases are not credible or reliable; they 'expressed some rather suspect views'. She also found, the effect of experts importing Gardner’s PAS into proceedings, under the guise of parental alienation, 'can be to make the father's case almost unanswerable.'

Dr Barnett wrote, "The case law also reveals an increasing number of family lawyer PA 'specialists' who advanced PA on behalf of their clients, including in some rather inauspicious circumstances."

When an abusive father counterclaims 'parental alienation', the reality is the mother is not hostile, vengeful, or pathological; she is terrified. The child has genuine fear too. The person in the equation who is hostile, vengeful and pathological is often the abusive father in these situations. There is a pattern to their defence; Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO). Highly narcissistic, controlling individuals are skilled in masking their behaviour and portraying themselves as the victim. They manipulate and recruit others to support their position. They are deceitful, and they are convincing. Only the evidence, or public exposure of their behaviour, can point to the real truth. If a mother's evidence does not get equal consideration, then she is at a significant disadvantage.

The power the abusive father already holds is amplified further, by the existence of the bias, and the industry which encourages him to use it as a weapon. Parental alienation counterclaims to abuse are rife in our courtrooms, you just don’t hear about the devastating outcomes with judgements rarely published; journalists have heavy reporting restrictions on family court matters. The child is suffering the horrific consequences; unsafe therapy, and dangerous contact.

It is an unenviable job for a judge to spot a controlling, manipulative, dangerous perpetrator when they convincingly present themselves as a charming, victimised father, hence appointing the correct expert in potential abuse cases is crucial to get to the truth of the matter.

To make an informed decision, judges must see behind the guise of parental alienation and the powerful voice of its proponents; once they do, a safe outcome for children is achievable. A victim portrayed as a villainess exposes narcissism in court by putting labels aside and focusing on behaviour and its effects on the child. When seeking to understand parental alienation and the truth behind it, one must do the same.