Family Court Is Sex Trafficking Children, Says Author & Filmmaker

Nary a week goes by without activists exclaiming somewhere on socials: “Family Court is trafficking children!” Followed inevitably by lots of reactions and comments expressing enthusiastic agreement. It is so emotionally enticing that it often serves as click bait.

Totally understandable. It feels soooo good to be able to call out the evildoers who are endangering our children—in whatever way possible.

Unfortunately, as great as that may feel, conflating what is going on in Family Court with sex trafficking confuses the issue with both victims of the Custody Crisis (who know something terrible is happening but aren’t sure exactly what) and the public (who have no idea any systemic-level injustice is transpiring behind those stately courtroom doors, much less the conscious enabling of child sexual abuse).

And an abundance of clarity is necessary if we are ever going to end the Crisis. The first step in ending any injustice is to define it clearly—then attack that which is causing it.

NEW BOOK

This use of the term “child trafficking” for what is happening in Family Court has been brought to the forefront with the recent publication of The Child Protection Racket: High-level Child Trafficking in Australia. This book is written by a South African immigrant to Australia, who made a film about sex trafficking in 2007. She was then made aware of children also being “trafficked” by Family and Juvenile Court and CPS [DCP in Australia].

The author, Ms McLachlan is a prominent author, filmmaker and self-described child advocate who is widely known and respected in the Family Court victim community. Since her reach is so wide, it is important to correct some things in her book. Although the main conflation is between Sex Trafficking and the Custody Crisis, there are other assertions that need clarifying.

This critique presents a good example for Sisters in Solidarity to counter common misinformation. And there are important things in the book that support the Coalition’s position. It’s important to know what to take and what to leave.

Before we dive in, some definitions are in order.

DEFINITIONS

Child sex trafficking is legally defined as the “recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a child for the purposes of a commercial sex act”. Because judges do not profit from individual sex acts/crimes, this legal definition does not really apply.

The colloquial use of “child sex trafficking” by activists (and the author) appears broader. Although judges are not being compensated for each child sex act/crime, they are said to be profiting monetarily from permitting the child sex acts to occur by giving custody to a perpetrator parent or foster parent.

Juvenile Court exists for two purposes: to adjudicate crimes committed by minors and for the protection of minors abused or neglected by both parents. In the latter case, CPS conducts investigations of abuse. If the abuse is substantiated, CPS files a “dependency” petition in Juvenile Court requesting an order to place the child(ren) in state or foster care. The judge makes a ruling based on “clear and convincing evidence”. CPS works under Juvenile Court judges, so they are not an entity in and of themselves. CPS is not part of the Family Court system although they often (wrongly) investigate those cases and render a position.

Family Court is for divorce cases in which finances or child custody—or both—is contested. Since at least one parent is not abusive, these cases do not qualify as “dependency” cases. In cases where one parent has reported abuse by the other parent, the judge often appoints minor’s counsel and an evaluator. S/he rules by “preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not/>50%) as to whether the abuse occurred. If abuse is found, custody/visitation orders should reflect that and the children protected via supervised visits (fat chance).

Importantly, the only actors in both systems who can “remove” children from parents are judges, not social workers, law enforcement, or any court-appointed or court-affiliated professionals. So the only ones who can be actually trafficking children is judges.

The Custody Crisis is defined as the internaional pandemic of judges switching custody from primary-nurturing mothers to abusive and self-serving fathers.

MIS-ID’ING THE CRISIS

The first problem with the trafficking concept is that it mis-ID’s two crises as one. What is going on in Family Court is being conflated with what is going on in Juvenile Court, when they are actually two very different crises.

The term and concept of “child removal” is being used by the author for both courts—removing kids from the parent they want to be with to the sexually abusive parent or foster parent who is (or may be) sexually abusive.

Although in essence true, it conflates the two crises when, in fact, the way and reason children are being removed in each system is decidedly different. Demographics and gender play a huge role but are being ignored or misrepresented.

Juvenile Court/CPS mostly deals with lower socioeconomic families [read: single mothers who can’t afford attorneys]. Whereas, Family Court deals mostly with middle class families [read: fathers who can afford attorneys].

In Juvenile Court/CPS, the State does not have to go up against a middle class father who is well-represented, much less a pillar of the community. Most cases involve a low-status father or no father, usually just a single mother who is easily defeated. Corruption of all sorts is legendary in that system and sex trafficking is likely one sort.

Family Court is a whole different ball game. Fathers with status are trying to take custody away from primary nurturing mothers. About 30% of fathers in a Women’s Coalition survey were reported to have sexually abused their children and that is consistent with other studies.

Many of those fathers could be trafficking their children to other men or using them for CSAM [child sexual abuse material]. Over half of perpetrators of CSAM in the Australian study Production and distribution of child sexual abuse material by parental figures were fathers.

Ms McLachlan states this child removal/trafficking is gender neutral. But she goes on to speak almost exclusively about mothers being the victims. In one place where she tries to support the gender neutral position, she speaks of a father who lost custody, but the case did not involve sex trafficking and it is unclear which court he was in. Anyway, a few anecdotal cases do not make a crisis or a systemic issue. See: Down the Gender Neutral Rabbit Hole for a more in-depth look on the gender aspect.

TRAFFICKING FOR PROFIT

The stated reason for these unlawful and harmful child removals by Juvenile and Family Court is monetary gain. Of course, that is inherent in the word trafficking so no surprise there.

Ms McLachlan extends the profiteering motive from the system and judges to seemingly everyone involved the cases: She gives a whole list of people who are covering up the abuse, not just in the systems directly involved with the removals, but “all the way to the top” of the government.

It does not make sense that all these people are profiting monetarily from the removals. And that would mean that judges are being bribed, which is possible on an individual basis, but cannot explain the thousands of judges in Family Courts around the world who wrongly remove children from mothers and give them to abusive fathers. [See Down the Money Rabbit Hole for an in depth explanation.]

SEX TRAFFICKING OR CUSTODY CRISIS?

So is it Sex Trafficking or the Custody Crisis? Or a little of one and a lot of the other?

Here is a diagram that helps clarify relationships between Child Sex Trafficking, the Custody Crisis/Family Court, and CPS/Juvenile Court.

[NOTE: This diagram is not quantitative—it only shows approximate relationships.]

This Venn diagram represents the Custody Crisis is a crisis in and of itself and that only a small percentage of cases likely involve trafficking. Perhaps it is a larger percentage with Juvenile Court/CPS cases since there are more opportunities due to the vulnerability of the litigants.

THE BRIGHT SIDE

Despite the conflations and confusion about what and why children are being given to abusers, Ms McLachlan gets perhaps the most important thing right: Judges are deliberately covering up abuse and ordering kids into the custody of sexually abusive fathers and “shame and blame” the mother, calling her “delusional or a coacher”.

Judges and magistrates consistently ignore disclosures of rape and sexual abuse even if the children told numerous mandatory reporters. They often shame and blame the mother for example labelling her delusional or a coacher…No one seems to follow the law.

Sound familiar? Yep, the ol’ Mad or Bad Mom label.

McLachlan goes on to cite a study by a legislative body that confirms there is a “culture of covering up sexual abuse” in Family Court. She says that Independent Children’s Lawyers [minor’s counsels] and evaluators encourage “courts” to send abused children to their abuser, which is true—however, the judge would do the Great Custody Switch with or without them. They just make it easier.

In conclusion, there are two different crises: In Juvenile Court the problem is more gender neutral, but not completely, as it affects mostly single mothers. It is caused by generic corruption.

Whereas, in Family Court, the Crisis is much broader than sex trafficking. Judges are covering up abuse and switching custody to fathers regardless of the kind of abuse—and even when there is no abuse reported. This rarely happens in reverse, making it, inarguably, a gender issue. And this Great Custody Switch is done regardless of how many people do or do not profit from it.

That is because the core cause of the Crisis is persisting patriarchy manifested in Family Court as “systemic male entitlement”.

Join The Women’s Coalition to help end the crisis.

---

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.

---

CHAPTER 20 IS OUT!

“Too Bad It’s Really a Rolodex Life and Not Exactly the Coveted Rolex Life” is Chapter 20 of Mother-Fucking: The Saga of One Fucked Mother.

In this chapter, Legion is busy with the boys’ activities in their new school year, while Herry is busy plotting with Family Court attorneys to get sole custody of her boys and put blame on her. She stumbles across some terrible secrets of Herry’s past in a rolodex—Step 4 of his fake recovery. She is repelled and worries about her boys being alone with him and his brother—who had also committed crimes on their siblings (and animals) in their youth.

In the last chapter, Legion is shocked and horrified that Herry has told the boys they are not really married. She recognizes, looking back, that Herry’s newfound, born-again “churchiness” was part of his revenge prep—to look good in Family Court for his upcoming bid to take custody of the boys away from her. This awakens Legion’s disgust for organized religion and its foundational misogyny and oppression.

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

“Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are.”  Or, grope.  Or, fuck.  As in, “Tell me with whom ya’ fondle or fuck, and I’ll tell ya’ who ya’re.” 

I was played that June 1988 day like an angel’s harp bringing the mighty fine and pillared doctor the fresh swell of the melody matching his much‑anticipated freedom.  Out Dr. Herod Edinsmaier walked and right onto his own continuing and well‑worn trail; this time, though, that path of his took Herod first and straightaway to legal counsel.

---

You may also give a gift subscription to a mother who is going through her own Family Court nightmare.

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

---