"Alienated Mothers Alliance": A New Support Group

Alienated Moms Are Coming Together!

Have you been alienated from your children or do you know a mother who has been?

“Alienated Mothers Alliance” [AMA] is a new group for alienated mothers from around the world to get together. It’s for all of us who’ve experienced the same terrible fate: Family Court judges enabling our ex to alienate our children from us. It is a special place where we can share our stories and feel validated.

Our unity will help confirm and expose this horrible epidemic. By coming together as alienated mothers, it becomes a political issue with the goal of stopping it from happening.

Alienated Mothers comprise a large subset of Custody Crisis cases but have gotten little recognition or proper support.

Organizations that support mothers claim the term/concept of alienation should be banned, alienating (ugh) mothers who want to use the term because it is what they feel was done to them. This has created a female fissure, which serves the opposition: divide and conquer.

Until now, there has been no good, safe place for all alienated mothers to come together. If you are one, welcome to our new Alliance! Please fill out this form if you’d like to join. Even if you are unable to attend our zoom gatherings right now, you can still fill out the form to help us document the extent of the problem.

Now, because there are so many advocates claiming that Richard Gardner created parental alienation and that is why it is unscientific and should be banned, some context is necessary.

HISTORY OF ALIENATION

First, a working definition: To alienate means a person causes another person to be indifferent to, hostile to, or estranged from someone with whom they were previously close. In other words, it’s when a person deliberately damages or destroys a relationship between two people for his/her own benefit—often to get control, revenge, or both.

“Parental” alienation is simply when it is a parent doing the alienating of a child from the other parent. There is nothing special about the term “parental alienation”—it simply denotes that the alienator is a parent.

Alienation as a concept has likely existed ever since humans evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago. Alienation of children presumably got going only after patriarchy (literally: rule of the father) took hold circa 10K years ago, which gave men the power to use children as leverage to control and punish “their” women.

Women may have had enough power to alienate children before patriarchy took hold, but had no need, nor motive, for doing so. Women (as a class) have never been motivated to use children to control and punish men. They have been concerned with doing what is best for their children.

Women gaining the legal right to custody in the 1900’s made it only slightly more difficult for men to take and alienate children. They now just needed the imprimatur of a judge.

No problem.

All the father had to do now is accuse the mother of being some version of “mad or bad” and the judge would credit his false accusation, give him custody, and allow him to take the children away and alienate them from her if he so chose. Ironically, the most popular “bad” version used in this custody-switching scheme is the judge falsely accusing the mother of alienating the children from the father, which is what eventually leads to the misguided “banning alienation” campaign.

So, throughout history, men have always had the power to take and alienate children. Our History of the Crisis series gives examples of cases in which men were permitted to take and alienate kids: Caroline: 1800’s; Mary Lou:1970’s; and three cases in the1980’s: Dr. Elizabeth Morgan’s, Dorrie’s and Karen’s.

All of these, and countless other undocumented cases, occurred before the infamous Richard Gardner entered the contested custody scene, which is the usual starting point for advocates and activists decrying “parental alienation”.

ENTER GARDNER

In the late ‘80’s, Dr. Gardner coined the term Parental Alienation Syndrome, specifically to support expert testimony he would give in support of molester fathers. Basically, he worked for the Fathers Rights gang.

His theory, although awkward, does comport for the most part with the definition of alienation. It is his extrapolation from his theory which is absolutely false. He claimed that in the vast majority of cases the mother was falsely accusing the father of abuse to alienate the children from him.

Judges have never really believed mothers were alienating. They credited experts like Gardner in the quest to cover up abuse by the father and justify switching custody. They were doing what they have done and would continue to do anyway, with or without Gardner’s theory. PAS was just a convenient arrow in the cover-up quiver.

The important point is that Gardner did not create “parental alienation” as PPO/DVO’s [protective parent/DV orgs] posit in their effort to ban it. But it marked the start of the epidemic of judges falsely accusing mothers of parental alienation to switch custody to the father.

PPO’s/DVO’s response to Gardner’s theory was to claim parental alienation itself was not valid or scientific, rather than just his interpretation and use of it to defend molester fathers. Therefore, they said, it should not be able to be used at all in custody cases.

That is where things went off the rails.

This position created a quandary for advocates since so many mothers were actually being alienated from their children by the father after he was wrongly given custody. In the mid-1990’s, a psychologist came up with a bright idea: just call the alienating the father is doing something else.

She proposed using the term “Domestic violence by proxy” instead of alienation.

This gave the advocates a way out of their quandary. They began really pressuring mothers to use DV by proxy instead of alienation so they could continue on the path they had set out on: saying parental alienation is “pseudo-science” and should be banned.

In recent years, advocates have suggested many other replacement terms, including post-separation abuse and coercive control. The latest being embraced by advocates is child and mother sabotage.

It is understandable that mothers would glom onto these new terms, like life rafts, since they are drowning in a sea of trauma. Anything that makes them feel better about their situation.

However, there is the same problem with the new terms as with the original DV by proxy. They do not accurately portray what mothers are experiencing and the public would have no idea what mothers are talking about without a long explanation. And the fact that parental alienation is not “scientific” has made no difference whatsoever in keeping judges from switching custody.

This diagram should help make clear why these are not replacements for alienation.

The fact is, there is no other adequate or publicly recognized term that describes this concept.

MEN’S CO-OPTING OF ALIENATION

As stated, this all started with men’s groups enlisting Gardner to come up with something that could be used to discredit women. That is why the parental alienation groups are really just fronts for the fathers rights gang, whose main agenda is legislating mandatory equal parenting [read: no alimony or child support].

Unfortunately, these PA groups are luring mothers in by claiming to be gender neutral and supporting their protestations of being alienated—something mothers’ groups will not do. What most women who end up in these groups don’t realize is their underlying position is that vindictive mothers routinely coach children to report abuse by the father [i.e. make “false allegations”] to alienate children from him. Men tell these mothers that parental alienation, the concept itself, is not gendered—that both mothers and fathers can alienate—which is true. Remember, all good propaganda has nuggets of truth.

So ditching the term and demanding the banning of alienation benefits men. It’s actually what’s enabled them to co-opt the entire issue. The most damaging aspect of that is it serves do divide women, the age-old war strategy: divide and conquer.

There is no reason to continue to allow men to co-opt it. It has harmed mothers and our cause.

CO-CONSPIRATORS

So you may be wondering how are kids able to be alienated—kids who’ve we’ve been so close and bonded with their mother. Well, it takes a conspiracy: at least the father with the judge, and often mental health workers to aid and abet.

There is well-researched science behind the methodology used to alienate. Terms used for this are “undue influence” (legal), “coercive persuasion” (psychological), and “brainwashing” (colloquial). These refer to well-tested tactics that change a person’s belief system, feelings, and loyalties. This is especially easily achieved with children, as they are not fully cognitively developed and are still dependent on adults for survival. Kids are putty in the hands of the co-conspirators.

A necessary goal is to get the children to think they changed their minds (and hearts) themselves, not on account of having been manipulated. Cults are a good example.

Dr. Stephen Hassan, a former cult member, has studied this phenomenon for 50 years having been a victim of a cult. He’s created a handy chart that categorizes the methods used to do the brainwashing. It’s called the BITE model and is divided into Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotion categories.

The main requirement is to isolate the child as much as possible from the mother and anyone who supports the truth about the father’s abuse. The judge accomplishes that first step through custody/visitation orders. For younger children, that is often all that is necessary. Their survival mechanism kicks in and they become “Stockholmed”.

Depending on children’s ages and circumstances, different methods in the chart are employed, usually by insider psychologists familiar with the drill. This manipulation ultimately causes the child to dissociate off the truth about the father’s abuse and trauma bond with him. It damages or destroys their relationship with their mother.

The alienated child has been created, made possible by Family Court.

So your child has been alienated, but alienation exists on a spectrum. Here is a diagram to help see where your child may fit in the spectrum.

USING ALIENATION EMPOWERS WOMEN

Banning alienation and pressuring mothers to use a different term is a flawed and ineffective solution, and, worse, it is counterproductive. It divides women. It diverts from pursuing a more effective solution.

On the other hand, using the word alienation gives women who are victims of Family Court a voice, a platform, and power. Women can stand strong together and use it to tell everyone what is really happening in family courts around the world in a simple and clear way:

Judges are falsely finding mothers to be alienating to justify switching custody to the father who then is permitted to alienate the children from the mother.

Simple. Clear. The public will immediately grok it.

Alienation of children from mothers is arguably the most problematic, common outcome of contested custody cases and it is being obscured by the campaign to ban the term.

It’s time for women to come together as a force and use it to validate and empower us.

If you’ve been alienated, please join our Alienated Mothers Alliance.

---

IN OTHER NEWS

CUSTODY CRISIS EXPOSED!

Are Moms Mad or Bad?

Make sure and subscribe to our Youtube channel for our up and coming videocast: Custody Crisis Exposed. The first episodes will be about how women are being falsely labeled “Mad or Bad” by Family Court judges.

---

SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY

Our next Sisters in Solidarity forum will be Saturday, July 20th at 1pm Pacific; 4pm Eastern; 8pm GMT; 9pm UTC; 7am (the next morning) in Sydney, Australia.

If you’d like to join SIS, please fill out this form. More info here. You will receive an invitation to the zoom a few days before [check alternate inboxes].

---

CHAPTER 21, PART 2 IS OUT!

“The Beginnings of the Bureau of Loss” is Chapter 21 of Mother-Fucking: The Saga of One Fucked Mother. [This chapter was too long for a newsletter so it is posted in two parts.]

In Part 2 of this chapter, Legion consults with friends about how to go about hiring an attorney after Herry serves her divorce papers. She gets some unsettling advice and discovers that her friend, Margaret, lost custody of her five children during her divorce and was financially devastated. She rarely saw her children again. The father was able to “buy” the children with an upscale lifestyle but said she would not do that even if she could. Legion could not understand then how a mother could lose custody of any children, much less five. She had no idea the same fate awaited her.

In Part 1 of this chapter, Herry files for divorce behind Legion’s back and she is the last to know, which disgusts and angers her immensely. Looking back she sees the ending of her marriage was just “the beginnings of the bureau of loss”—the wreckage that would be her entire life—just as Herry had vengefully plotted. One major loss she soon would discover is that taking years off to be a full-time mother to her boys has destroyed her career prospects.

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 and violence directed at ex-wives—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 [on the web page]. 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 published every Wednesday and subscribers will find them in their inboxes, so make sure to subscribe if you haven’t yet!

TEASERS

…Except that an adult, pillared male human being who, apparently most willingly, had seeded her very essences not once, not twice but at least five separate times had then up and gone and physically kept them all as his property, domain and dominion after he first dumped the chaff which had been Margaret’s tiny frame of a hulled shell. 

“…he could … purchase their affection—he could.  So he did.  And, ah, I?  Well, I couldn’t.  ’nd … ah, and I just want to state:  I wouldn’t’ve … anyhow.”

“[T]his lawyer guy has your entire fate in his control.”  She paused but not for long, “And you owe him for it, Legion.  You owe him for him taking over, for takin’ over your entire life.  As a matter o’fact, a whale’falot you owe him.”

---

You may also give a gift subscription to a friend who is going through the Family Court nightmare.

Or feel free to support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution at paypal.me/TheWomensCoalition.

All contributions are greatly appreciated and thanks to everyone who has subscribed!

---