"19 More Child Homicides" New Study & MSM Articles
But Moms Are Being Misled
A new study has been published about fathers who murder their children after being given custody. The authors confirm the Custody Crisis is actually getting worse despite reforms being implemented.
“Nineteen More Child Homicides” was published last week by Women’s Aid, a UK domestic abuse [DA] nonprofit. This is the third in a longitudinal study about children murdered in the context of custody cases. It follows Nineteen Child Homicides, 2016, and Twenty-nine Child Homicides, 2004. Over the twenty-one years, the charity investigated cases in which 42 fathers murdered 56 children. There was one mother, but her case does not fit the Custody Crisis pattern.
Two MSM articles followed that, linked to the study. The Bureau for Investigative Journalism [TBIJ] called it a “devastating report” in their article: Report into murdered children links parental alienation to ‘pro-contact culture’ of family courts. Metro linked three mothers’ cases to the study: My abusive ex convinced the courts to give him custody of our daughter.
The study and articles provide valuable case data that support the cause of the Crisis is systemic male entitlement, but their flawed analyses mislead mothers and the public. However, this provides an excellent opportunity for a look into how mother-advocates [hereafter: referred to as MA’s] around the world, mostly domestic abuse/protective parent and mental health professionals, mothers’ attorneys, and influencers, are getting the Crisis wrong—and correct their narratives.
Hopefully, this exposé will help mothers understand the real reason these children were not protected and these mothers lost custody and not be drawn down the many rabbit holes at issue here. Our Sisters in Solidarity can use this analysis in the effort to raise awareness and gather more warriors for our battle to end the Crisis.
First, we’ll briefly go over the Metro article and then go into more depth with the TBIJ article.
METRO ARTICLE
The Metro article entitled “My abusive ex convinced the courts to give him custody of our daughter” profiles three mothers’ cases and ties them to the Women’s Aid study. The title itself gives a clue as to how blame is being misplaced.
It is a common misunderstanding by mothers that their ex was so charming and manipulative that he was able to “convince” the judge to believe him and not her. However, men do not need to convince judges of anything. Regardless of what they say or do, the fix is in—before women even walk through the courtroom door. MA’s should be making this clear instead of fueling this misconception.
The mother’s case that gave rise to this title involves an extremely violent and controlling ex-husband.
He then threatened to kill us, to bury me and my family, and threatened to throw acid in my face.
The abuse was founded by the court, yet the mother has still had to battle for her child’s safety for nearly ten years—and counting. She calls the court an “abusers’ playground”, but more accurately it is a “men’s playground” constructed from the top [Old Boy Network] down.
My ex absolutely loved it because he could do whatever he wanted in there. It was an exercise in humiliating and degrading me.
Another mother profiled is said to have lost custody because the severe abuse she had endured by her ex was in the past. This is a very common tactic used by judges to dismiss abuse and silence mothers and children. The judge went on to find her to be alienating and used that to issue a Restraining Order against her.
She has not seen her child for six years. Her daughter has turned 18 but has been severely alienated so has not reunited with her.
This case is a great example of how judges falsely find mothers to be alienating and then allow fathers to alienate. However, the article—per interviews with MA’s—did not use the word “alienate”. This time they chose to say the father is “poisoning” the daughter against against the mother, but there are many substitute terms they use.
The mother herself has apparently been cautioned not to use the word “alienate”. She avoids it by telling Metro that her ex is teaching her daughter to be malevolent to her.
I see that my daughter is not only also being abused, but she’s also being taught to be malevolent towards me.
It would be so much better if MA’s would just admit alienation is a valid concept and not sanction mothers’ use of it. And change their narrative to the truth: judges are lying about mothers alienating to switch custody to the father but permitting fathers to alienate.
This mother also told Metro that “the [Family Court] ordeal has destroyed her finances, as well as her physical and mental health, to the extent that she has been given support for suicidal thoughts”.
Yet another mother suffering with the complete loss of her living child and the resulting suicidal ideation. This is indisputably the worst Crisis facing women today.
TBIJ ARTICLE
The TBIJ article: Report into Murdered Children Links Parental Alienation to ‘Pro-Contact’ Culture’ of Family Courts is a review of the Women’s Aid study.
As the title indicates, a main focus is on how the concept of parental alienation is supposedly contributing to a “pro-contact culture”. However, that is not really what is going on in family courts.
The idea of a pro-contact culture is just the other side of the prioritize-child-safety coin. They mean the same thing: parental involvement is considered by family courts more important than child safety, often due to legislation that is worded directly or indirectly that way. In the U.S., the verbiage is usually something along the lines of “frequent and continuing contact”. However, these laws can be easily overridden by a judge finding the father is abusive. It’s just that judges will not do that.
The idea that parental alienation is contributing to this “contact-over-safety” problem is misleading at best. The real reason mothers are losing custody in droves is because judges are weaponizing the concept of alienation against mothers in order to empower and entitle fathers—not because there is a presumption of “parental” contact. And banning PA won’t stop them.
It’s all about power, not contact or safety. Judges will empower men to take and alienate children if they so choose and ignore the law in the process. And Family Court is designed so they can.
This article provides an excellent opportunity to use excerpts as examples of how the Crisis is being mis-portrayed, not just in the UK, but everywhere. Here are some quotes followed by a correction and a more accurate way to say it.
QUOTES & CORRECTIONS
The concept of parental alienation has bolstered a “pro-contact culture” in the family courts that put the lives of abuse victims in danger, new research has found.
The concept of PA has not bolstered anything; judges are misusing it.
More accurately: “Judges routinely weaponize the concept of parental alienation to switch custody to fathers by falsely finding mothers to be alienating their children.”
A devastating report published last week by Women’s Aid detailed how 19 children had been killed over nine years by adults who had been allowed contact with them despite a history of violence.
The use of the word adults is misleading. Only one mother killed her child and that case does not fit the pattern.
More accurately: “…18 children had been killed by fathers who had been allowed unsupervised visitation despite a history of violence.”
Allegations of parental alienation have surged in recent years – often made by men in response to accusations of domestic abuse.
Allegations of PA have have been epidemic since the 1990’s. And men alleging PA is not the problem; it is judges lying about mothers alienating.
More accurately: “Judges have been falsely finding mothers to be alienating children since the 1990’s in order to justify switching custody to fathers.”
“The concept of parental alienation has been deemed ‘more powerful than any other in silencing the voices of women and children resisting contact with abusive men’ in the family courts.”
The concept of PA itself is not powerful. It is neutral. Judges are powerful and they are using it to switch custody and silence women and children.
More accurately: “Family Court judges are silencing women and children by falsely finding mothers to be alienating in order to justify switching custody.”
“Our report is a devastating account of judicial and legislative ongoing failure to protect children, where the voices of the most vulnerable remain unheard in the family court system.”
Labeling it a “failure” to protect children is misleading. It is purposeful and the system is specifically designed so judges can give switch custody to fathers.
More accurately: “It is devastating that children’s credible reports of abuse continue to be disregarded and discredited by judges.”
“Time and again, the interests of perpetrators are prioritised above the safety and wellbeing of children – across statutory agencies and the family courts.”
It’s not the interests of perpetrators that are prioritized; it’s the interests of fathers.
More accurately: “Time and time again, the interests of fathers are prioritized in family courts and affiliated agencies above the safety of children.
Nazeer said the lives of children are still being put in danger by a justice system that does not understand coercive control…
The problem is not that judges don’t understand coercive control. They know exactly what they are doing.
More accurately: “The lives of children are still being put in danger by judges who are deliberately empowering controlling and abusive fathers.”
…Evidence from survivors continues to indicate that parental alienation claims are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse.
Using “survivors” instead of “mothers” is misleading; and the problem is not that judges are taking claims of alienation more seriously than domestic abuse.
More accurately: “Evidence continues to indicate that judges are crediting fathers’ false accusations of mothers are alienating and discrediting mothers’ true reports of abuse.”
“This [use of PA] reflects a deep lack of understanding of trauma among those involved in the family courts and a dangerous ‘presumption of contact’ guiding decision-making, that continues to put lives at risk.”
Judges use of PA is not due to a lack of understanding of trauma, and judges are not being “misguided” by presumption of contact laws.
More accurately: “Judges often falsely find mothers to be alienating in order to switch custody to abusive fathers, putting children’s lives at risk.”
“Too often, these mothers fear seeking help from the police or the family courts, knowing that raising the alarm may be twisted into an accusation of ‘parental alienation’.”
Mothers’ reports of abuse are not being “twisted” into PA; judges are lying about mothers alienating.
More accurately: “Mothers fear reporting abuse because judges routinely discredit them and lie about them alienating.”
There—fixed!
TAKEAWAYS
Children being murdered by fathers is undeniably the worst outcome of Custody Crisis cases. These horrific cases bring a lot of attention to the public, and even new laws passed. However, it does not help, and even hurts, the cause if mothers and the public are misinformed about why the Crisis is happening.
Misidentifying the cause of the Crisis leads to mothers wasting time advocating for ineffective reforms, like the ones proposed in this study. Those mostly come under training of judges and court-affiliates, conducting ever more studies and investigations, passing useless new laws and policies, etc. None of the proposed reforms have made or will make any significant difference because that is not why the Crisis is happening.
Notice the abundance of gender-neutral language, despite the fact that all the cases are mothers wrongly losing custody. Instead of using abusers and perpetrators, men and fathers should be used. Instead of victims and survivors, women and mothers should be used.
This speaks to MA’s getting the “what” of the Crisis wrong. There is only one Crisis: judges wrongly switching custody to fathers, not to “abusers”. There is no Crisis of judges wrongly switching custody to mothers.
There are many issues in this study and the articles that come under our Custody Crisis Rabbit Holes series. The main issues raised are explained in depth in these Rabbit Holes (linked):
Domestic Abuse: The core issue is not abuse, but power. Mothers lose custody whether they report abuse or not. Nor is the problem that judges do not understand domestic abuse.
Training and Qualification: Since the problem is not a lack of understanding of abuse, training is not an effective solution.
Parental Alienation: The problem is not the word or the concept. It is that judges are falsely finding mothers to be alienating and allowing fathers to alienate.
Rights & Laws: Laws are not the problem. The problem is judges can do whatever they want, regardless of laws.
Remember the main replacement narratives mamas:
Judges know exactly what they are doing.
&
Judges can do anything they want.
Hopefully, this Women’s Coalition analysis will help mothers understand what is really going on in family courts and help our Sisters in Solidarity counteract the many misleading narratives floating around the Mamaverse. You can join SIS where we have monthly forums if you want to help end the Crisis (see below).
You can become a Women’s Coalition Warrior and help fight for a new system where women have the power to keep and protect their children.
*LINK to the study: Nineteen More Child Homicides [a pdf file]
IN OTHER NEWS
SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
Our next Sisters in Solidarity forum is Saturday, July 19th. It is open to mothers who’ve joined SIS or the discrimination lawsuit.
JULY FORUM
July 19th: 1pm Pacific; 4pm Eastern; 9pm London; Sydney: 6am the 20th
More info about Sisters in Solidarity
JOIN the Discrimination Against Women in Family Court Lawsuit:
U.S. fill out this form
Other countries fill out this form.
More info about the discrimination lawsuit
NEXT SECTION OF THE SAGA OF ONE F**KED MOTHER IS OUT!
CHAPTER 28: The Opera: Act III; Pt. 5 [cont. 9]
…While Legion awaits the Appellate Court ruling, she muses about how she’s identified in her brief at least 40 errors the Family Court judge had made in the course of the custody case. She’s also detailed how she put on a dozen witnesses at trial and “mountains” of evidence that far exceed the mere preponderance required to show Herry is an abuser and alienator. How much clear evidence of abuse by the father and the judge on the public record are the Justices willing to tolerate?
While awaiting for the ruling, Legion is pleasantly shocked when Herry agrees Jesse can come home to her—under strict conditions in which he maintains custody and control. This is likely because Jesse’s mental health had been deteriorating and has created a problem for him. Legion is elated.
In the last section, Herry is enraged and humiliated by Legion getting one over on him by having visited with the boys—twice—without his knowledge! So he strikes back by sending her a scathing letter, blaming her for Jesse’s mental health difficulties. But this sociopathic and cruel father is obviously cognizant that he is the one causing Jesse’s distress by keeping him away from his mother.
The big day arrives and Legion presents her oral argument to the Appellate Court. She is hoping against hope they will do the right thing and return her boys to her.
CHAPTER 28 of Mother-Fucking: The Saga of One Fucked Mother begins with Act III, Part 4 of “The Opera” from Book 3. The Opera has three Acts with five Parts—one for each of the three Family Court and two Appellate Court trials. Chapter 28 covers all of Act III: Part 4: the third Family Court trial, and Part 5: the second Appellate trial. This is a long chapter and will be published in newsletter-sized bites.
Dr. Blue’s novel is based on her own experience of the Custody Crisis. It uniquely conveys how Family Court judges are “mother-fucking” women—a form of systemic oppression—as protagonist Legion is systematically and methodically deprived of her children and money and reduced to “one fucked mother”.
Chapters are stand-alone interesting so you can begin reading anywhere. A Cast of Characters follows to help readers at any point. All published chapters are included in the Section: “Saga of One F**ked Mother” accessible on the top bar of the home page of Women’s Coalition News & Views. Sequential chapters are emailed out every Wednesday so make sure to subscribe if you haven’t yet!
TEASERS
HOW COME JUDGE BUTCHER DIDN’T MENTION IN HIS DIATRIBE OF A RULING, ANY, NOT EVEN ONE, OF THE INCREDIBLE NUMBERS OF INSTANCES OF ALIENATION AND ABUSE BY DR. EDINSMAIER OF ME AND THE BOYS…
HOW MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS JUDICIAL ABUSE AND INEQUITABLE TREATMENT–– ––REGARDING i) THE “HANDLING” OF WOMEN AND ii) THE HORRENDOUS ABUSE OF CHILDREN BY YOUR LOWER JUDGES–– ––ARE YOU, THE COURT OF APPEALS, WILLING ***TO HAVE GO INTO THE RECORD*** AS ACCEPTING AND TOLERATING?
Finally, then, Jesse was … home!
I took in the deepest of breaths, over and over, just to make sure that my whole body was correctly registering the wonderment of all of Jesse actually being right next to me.
You may also give a gift subscription to a friend who is a victim of the Custody Crisis.
Or feel free to support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution through the Paypal Giving Fund.
All contributions are greatly appreciated!
Added: Remember the main replacement narratives mamas:
Judges know exactly what they are doing.
&
Judges can do anything they want.
Im the mum in the Metro article that hasnt seen or heard from my 18 year old daughter for 6 years. I did call my situation alienated but it was rewritten by journalist as theres such a push in the uk to say alienation is a pseudo science. It leaves mums like me very unsupported as PA sector has alot of abusive men in it and DA side is filled with women whove been falsely accused and say it is an abusers tool. The genuine cases are in no mans land when it comes to support