ALERT! Help Find & Warn Mom about Trap
Ploy in Progress to Abduct Daughter at Exchange
An unidentified American mother living in the UK is set to travel this week back to California to facilitate a visit between her 6 year-old daughter and the father.
But what Mom doesn’t know is that the father has recently procured a secret family court order to take full custody of her daughter at the exchange. When she arrives at the airport sometime this week, a sheriff will be there to serve Mom with the court order and take her child—for good, not for just a visit, i.e. abduct her.
As Women’s Coalition Mothers know, she will likely never see her daughter again unsupervised—or at all—if she falls prey to this despicable trap.
A search for the mother is on! And you can help! Please email womenscoalitionintl@gmail.com if you know anything about her.
Please spread this ALERT to find & keep Mom from falling into the trap!
MOM’S STORY
Apparently Mom is from California and met the father of her child there. The relationship was brief and she did not tell the father she had gotten pregnant. Perhaps he was abusive or it was for some other reason.
Mom moved to the UK when the baby was 6 months old. She got settled in there and now her daughter is in school and has friends. Mom’s job and support system is now in the UK.
Somehow the father found out about the daughter when she was two. He’s visited her there about once a year since then. Now he wants her to live full time with him and his new wife in California, where they reportedly already have a blended family with seven children.
Regardless of whether Mom was right or wrong in not telling about the child and moving to the UK, the fact is, she is the child’s primary attachment figure. What is best for the child is to live primarily with her, not a father who she barely knows and a stepmother and seven siblings whom she has never even met.
EVIL STEPMOTHER
Since the stepmother has never even met the child, it is a stretch to call her the stepmother before she does any mothering. But she appears to be an activist for her husband getting custody away from Mom. Stepmothers often get actively onboard with FRA groups, sometimes more so than the father.
Stepmom posted anonymously in an FRA [fathers’ rights] and Stepmothers Facebook group on Friday saying that her husband had gotten a court order that gives them sole custody of the girl. She claims that they did not know where to serve the mother the papers, so the mother does not know. This is highly suspect since they are in communication coordinating the visit with her.
Stepmom posted that she is “so excited and happy for my husband and our kids”, as it will be good for her kids to have another sibling. [She’s happy for them, not herself?] She says that the daughter will turn 7 next month and the father will be so happy to have her for her birthday.
Evil Stepmom says:
Once SD [daughter] is in our hands we legally do not have to give her back to BM [mother].
She clearly states, without any empathy for the child, they will not give her back to her mother once they have her. And this is a woman with 7 children gleefully announcing to all that she will deprive another mother of her only child. Clearly Evil.
Stepmom goes on to say she and her husband don’t think it’s fair the mother has custody because the UK does not have jurisdiction. She complains that the “birth mother” won’t send the child over on a plane by herself. She thinks it’s fine for a six year-old girl to travel alone internationally, which begs the question as to her fitness to parent.
Stepmothers often use the term “birth mother” to refer to the real mother. This minimizes the importance of the primarily-bonded mother, suggesting the only difference is that she physically gave birth to her (and that is not such a big deal!).
She complains about the cost of her husband traveling to the UK to visit with her. So it appears to be partially a matter of for the evil stepmom and father, but, more likely than not, mostly about control over the child.
Of course, an evil stepmom does not remove culpability from the father. One thing is clear: neither expresses concern for the little girl’s psychological well-being or how traumatizing it will be for her to be abruptly, without any notice or preparation, snatched from her loving mother.
JUDGE’S ROLE
To order the taking of a child from her mother with whom the child has been living since birth, without the mother or child even knowing about the change of custody, is unempathetic, unethical, immoral and a violation of human rights. But not unsurprising.
Switching custody to the father at an “emergency” ex parte is a well-known custody crisis tactic. The judge deceptively states it is a “temporary” order to get around the law which prohibits switching custody at an ex parte hearing. The unstated goal is to get the child(ren) to the father where he can control and manipulate them.
Then there will be delay upon delay, often for years until a trial is finally conducted, when the judge will state it is better for the children to stay with the father where they are nicely adjusted. But that was never a concern when the child was removed from the mother.
As every judge around the world knows, the overriding legal doctrine, based on social consensus, is judges must do what is in the “best interests of the child”. To abruptly remove a child from her primary bond and give her to a father she barely knows and a stepmother she has never met, is not only not in the little girl’s best interest, it will obviously be extremely traumatizing.
And, of course, the judge knows that. But Family Court judges do not really care about what’s best for the child. They are interested primarily in power—and keeping and growing their power and status means keeping the father empowered in his family over his children.
NO GOOD OPTIONS
Even if Mom is found and warned, does she have any good options?
She can bring her daughter to California as planned and fight to get custody back there. But, based on thousands of Women’s Coalition Custody Crisis cases, she will likely never get custody returned to her. The father will probably claim she is a flight risk and an alienating mother (or some variation on that theme), and the judge will credit (not believe) him.
The judge will probably appoint flying monkeys to seal the deal: minor’s counsel, evaluator, therapist, et. al. They will do their job and spin the case to the father.
If it proceeds like most cases, if Mom is lucky, she will get supervised visitation a few hours a week. If she is unlucky, she will lose all contact with her precious child. And no matter what, whatever life and job she has forged in the UK, will be over.
Or: Mom can refuse to bring her daughter to California for the visit. It will probably turn into a Hague Convention case—the international treaty governing international custody cases. As many “Hague Mothers” can attest, that rarely ends well for mothers either. There is an underlying patriarchal nature in the Hague as well as in family courts.
But Mom will likely have a better chance with the Hague than a California Family Court judge. There seems to be a decent argument that, even if both Mom and child are citizens of the U.S., they have been living in the UK for a long time, so jurisdiction should be there. If the father was violent, that may be taken into consideration.
But, even if Mom wins the jurisdiction issue, a UK Family Court judge could send her daughter or the case back to California to ensure the father’s “rights”. Or s/he may grant the father equal parenting time which would force Mom back to California, as that is impossible to do internationally.
And there is always the possibility that if Mom stays in the UK, the father can get Interpol [international police] to snatch her daughter based on the California custody order. More than a few mothers have lost their children in a surprise Interpol raid of their home, seizing children from mothers with guns drawn.
The only other option, of course, is to disappear. But then Mom faces a life on the run and all the survival problems that brings with it. And, worse, the looming possibility of a prison sentence if she is caught.
There are no good options for mothers.
Regardless of whether it is an international or local custody case, there are no predictably good, safe options for mothers who are trying to keep or protect their children. But it is probably best for this mother to NOT bring her child to California, where she has already lost custody. Better to delay the visit and look for a better way.
STRUCTURAL SEXISM
The mom in this case, like all mothers whose exes want to take custody from them, are thrust into systems plagued by structural sexism. These systems dealing with custody are designed specifically so that men can stay empowered over their family— the bedrock of patriarchy.
Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family.
Kate Millet, Sexual Politics
Until women recognize the power disparity in custody cases and unite to demand a new system, the wrongful taking and endangering of children will continue.
Join Women’s Coalition International where women are uniting to gain the power necessary to implement a new system.
FINDING MOM & UPDATES
If anyone has any idea who the mother “BM” is or where she may be reached, please email womenscoalitionintl@gmail.com.
Updates on this case will be posted here on Women’s Coalition News and Views and on social media [linked below].
NOTE: Some information in this post comes from social media and has not been verified by the Coalition.
You may also support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution through PayPal:
Join The Women’s Coalition & the global dialogue on social media:
Thank YOU for the work you are doing Women's Coalition. I hope this Mom is warned before she walks into this trap - best bet to stay in the UK. My heart is already breaking for that little girl and her mom.
International cases are tough- no one wants to deprive the father and daughter. However, it is what it is for now. A six year old child needs as little chaos in their life as possible - she needs to stay with Mom.
Has anyone contacted the British ambassador? If the approximate time of travel is known it should be possible to narrow down the list of likely individuals.