The family court judge resolves disputes between separated parents and regards the child's welfare as their paramount consideration when deciding child arrangements. Or so society is led to believe.

A stereotypical image may emerge of warring couples with more money than sense or wronged fathers forced to take their ex-partner to court to have contact and a relationship with their child. You may envision a hostile mother, whose last words to her ex were,

“You’ll never see the kids again”.

This stereotypical image has been carefully crafted and presented to society in the last two decades, ever since Fathers For Justice campaigners donned superhero costumes and climbed rooftops with banners saying ‘Family Courts Do Evil’. To see through the guises, one must understand how the coercive control and domestic abuse perpetrator operates; they reverse the victim and offender to assume the role of ‘falsely accused’ and ‘victim’. When a child resists contact with an abusive parent, the perpetrator moves to rally supporters into defending them against a perceived enemy; their ex-partner. This diverts attention and prevents others from looking closely at their behaviour. The parent most likely to make vengeful threats to remove a child is the perpetrator of coercive control.

To understand why they deny their behaviour and blame and divert, we must look behind the mask – a painful place for many to go. Most domestic abuse perpetrators are not mentally ill, they hide deep-rooted feelings of shame acquired through their parent’s behaviour and social conditioning. As discussed in journalist and researcher Jess Hill’s revolutionary podcast, The Trap, shame manifests in humiliated fury. When perpetrators choose to hurt others, they believe it’s their right to do so; they feel entitled and don’t accept what they have done is wrong. The mask allows them to assert themselves in society as a strong, admirable parent and conceals the childhood trauma lurking beneath. For some beings it’s easier to deny, coerce, blame and shame others than go deep, face the uncomfortable truth, and talk about it.

 The campaign surrounding fathers’ rights and parental alienation was successful to date; the family courts vehemently defend patriarchal beliefs and present the victim as the villain, the perpetrator as the superhero and victim, and discard the child's views. The courts don’t consider if an abusive parent should have unsupervised contact with their child; they consider how an abusive parent can have unsupervised contact, and where there is a will, there’s a way. Hell mend those who raise abuse allegations in the family courts, particularly if a child gets hurt.

Family court decisions in many cases are doing more harm than good; parents who focus on their needs and lack the will or the capacity to meet the child’s needs inevitably harm. By denying domestic abuse, failing to address behavioural problems and awarding equal or sometimes sole parenting roles to unsafe parents, the family courts are conditioning children to believe it's ok for one parent to be in control and hurt others without consequence. They are exposing another generation to emotional and physical harm.

 Perpetrators and most in the family courts will not voluntarily respond to the issue of domestic abuse. Those that do are the exception, not the norm. The general denial of domestic abuse reinforces the imbalance of power in relationships and perpetuates the cycle of abuse. It’s clear to see what the family courts paramount consideration is and why they prioritise the relationship between a parent and their child over the child’s safety; they too don’t like to face the uncomfortable truth.

Society, however, is starting to see, understand, accept, and respond to coercive control and domestic abuse as governments push to reduce violence. The ideology that empowers perpetrators and discards the views of and harms children violates many human rights. It is an ideology that is unacceptable today. The response to coercive control in families in our criminal justice system is firm and trauma-informed. This contrasts with the suspicion and denial victims face in the family courts.

An adversarial system that pits controlling, violent perpetrators against their traumatised protective victims like gladiators in an arena for the entertainment of perpetrators’ legal and mental health spectators is not in the best interests of children. Gladiators fought till the death, an outcome that is horrifyingly not uncommon.

The perpetrator has a team lined up to guide them down the expensive path to custody. The victim struggles to find a team or is not in the financial position to acquire one. ‘Kill The Bitch’ was a manual written to help controlling and violent men get custody of their children, to harm their ex at their core. ‘How To Annihilate A Narcissist in the Family Court’ was written as a strategic response, a survival guide for scared and protective women, exasperated and justifiably angry at the simultaneous abuse of two oppressors, their ex-partner and the family court.

Parents who separate should not need self-help manuals to battle out child arrangements in an arena, particularly when domestic abuse is a factor. These books alone show how harmful the adversarial system is; it exacerbates the issues at hand and doesn’t resolve the problem at its root. Parents need a system that understands and accepts coercive control and domestic abuse, appropriately deals with behavioural problems and understands how controlling behaviour impacts parenting and children. Parents need a system that strives to end the imbalance of power, not one that reinforces it. They need a radical overhaul, and they need it soon.