Groundbreaking Study Confirms Judges Are Knowingly Enabling Molester Fathers

And: Update on Rachel's Case

In a new, groundbreaking study from the UK’s University of Manchester, researchers have empirically validated that judges are knowingly giving custody to fathers who’ve molested their children, some of whom are convicted child molesters. Thereby, judges are knowingly enabling paternal predators.

The study, published in the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, is sardonically entitled ‘Let’s excuse abusive men from abusing and enable sexual abuse’: Child sexual abuse investigations in England’s private family courts.

This study sets itself apart from others on this topic as it more extensively exposes the many ways judges are systematically and methodically switching custody to predatory fathers. More importantly, it recognizes that the Custody Crisis is, at its core, a power issue.

Although this study concerns cases involving child sexual abuse, it can be extrapolated to cases involving physical and emotional abuse, as well as spousal abuse. These make up about 70% of contested custody cases [some FC attorneys contend it’s more like 90%].

This research is validating for women victims of Family Court. It can be so difficult to convince friends and family that judges would cover up abuse by a father and lie about a good mother. Normal people simply can’t wrap their brain around the fact that otherwise respectable, even esteemed, judges would deliberately empower fathers to continue to sexually assault their children.

Now there is empirical validation for these mothers. This study serves to mother-validate, greatly necessary in the mother-blaming culture of Family Court and society.

Unfortunately, the conclusions and solutions proposed do not do the impressive data collection justice, so we will focus on the data. The strategies and narratives used to minimize and repudiate paternal abuse, along with the negative effects on both mothers and children, are divulged in detail and will be included here in full.

Let’s dig into it…

A “FOCAULDIAN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS”

The study employed a feminist-informed “Focauldian Discourse Analysis”—a mouthful that just means the researchers focused on exploring how discourse, i.e. language and communication, reinforces societal power structures and practices—basically looking at an issue through a power lens.

Power can be resisted, and knowledge transformed, seen in examples such as the #Metoo movement, and so efforts must and should be sought to highlight power relationships and social norms.

In their investigation of how molesting fathers are consistently being given custody and access to their victims, they focus on the underlying, pro-father narratives, which are built around the preservation of men’s power in the family after divorce. They befittingly use the term “patriarchal violence” to describe abuse by fathers.

The researchers interviewed 45 mothers, 10 of whom were selected for in-depth analysis. In one case the father had been criminally convicted of sexually abusing an unrelated child but no report of abuse by his child—yet.

The investigation centered around five themes that boil down in plain English to: 1) reports of sexual abuse vs. court’s minimization and spin; 2) actions that excuse and conceal the abuse; 3) narratives that discredit and silence; 4) negative financial and social consequences; and 5) negative mental and physical consequences.

THEMES DATA

1) Reports of abuse

Rubbing, hurting, injuring, licking, gyrating, touching, groping, penetration, rape, child rape in the presence of child siblings, masturbating to pornography in the presence of a child, sexual abuse, producing child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) and uploading to internet/livestreaming CSA (with recordings submitted to the court), downloading CSAM, producing adult bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism (BDSM) materials in children’s bedroom and uploading/livestreaming online, covertly recording a child in their bedroom, child sex offending convictions, CSA during supervised contact sessions, and paternal grandfather CSA

Court minimizations and spin

PA/emotional/ psychological abuse (and PA as more harmful than CSA); projection of mothers’ own history of CSA (whether real or fabricated by court actors); fabricated or fabricated induced illness (FII); ‘hebephilia’ and ‘low risk to younger children’; penetration only ‘inappropriate but no penetration’; a ‘joke’ or minimised in other ways; ‘just a boundary violation, but not sexual abuse’—‘the innocent father’; commonplace and unworthy of attention; only apparent if evidenced by physical forensic/police gathered evidence; only apparent if father is sexually gratified; CSA criminal convictions as historic, irrelevant or as minimal risk

2) Actions that excuse, conceal & punish

Silencing of mothers via threats of child removal and punishment via child removal (transfer residence from mother to alleged CSA father); Mothers/children discouraged from reporting to the police; FC judges closing down criminal investigations; Children stopped from disclosing; Supervised contact for mother (predominantly in supervision centres); Supervised contact for fathers (predominantly in own home with family members); PA ‘therapy’ for whole family.

3) Narratives that discredit and silence

Othering of mothers: mother as liar/alienator/harmful and not protective; Responsibilises mothers: “mother is projecting her own anxiety and/or history of sexual abuse onto child”; Reminds mothers/women/children of their subjugated and inferior status in society; Controls, silences/removes voice and punishes mother and child; Isolates mothers and children from support e.g. supportive health/social professionals/police; Bolsters fathers’ rights, credibility and character and reduces culpability; Weakens mother/child credibility/position and responsibilises mothers and children with proving victimhood

Child as ‘liar’/untrustworthy/uncredible; Woman as monster; Mother as ‘hostile/acrimonious’, ‘over-anxious’, ‘disordered’, and the ‘real’ abuser via PA; Shifts the court’s gaze from CSA to PA and from father to mother; Reduces accountability of court actors; Reduces need for a fact finding/court resources; Minimizes seriousness of CSA; Removes rights of mother and child

4) Negative financial and social consequences

Depletes mother’s/child’s economic and social resources via requirement for: paid supervision in contact centres, further court applications/appeals process, payment towards PA ‘therapies’, removal of school/GP/social worker support; Resistance may occur in: Continuing to advocate for child and lose child/face further punishment and reduced rights and/or reduced contact/time with the child; Engage in PA ‘therapy’ and/or falsely confess to PA to increase chances of maintaining residency/increase contact; children prohibited from disclosing mechanisms such as diary-keeping/worry boxes or accessing therapy outside of PA sector; mothers who maintain CSA claims often transition into being ‘fabricators’ of false illness, and positioned as psychologically/emotionally harming children

5) Negative impacts

Mothers: stigmatisation, self-blame, guilt, sadness, anger, shame, fear, isolation, grief, resistance, advocacy, trauma/health responses

Children’s trauma responses: Bedwetting, nightmares, self harming/attempting /threatening suicide, suicidal ideation, feeling voiceless/silenced from disclosing, neurodiversity/autism/ADHD diagnoses, eating disorders, anorexia nervosa and obesity, educational attainment/behavioural problems e.g. withdrawal, delayed speech (age 0–3) selective mutism (older children), convulsions/fitting, chronic digestive problems/stomach pain/nervous diarrhoea, chronic headaches and migraines, skin conditions e.g. psoriasis and eczema, hopelessness/powerlessness, low self-worth/esteem/confidence, feels unseen and unheard by others/professionals, feelings of being judged, distrust/rejection of authority figures/adults/professionals, confusing moral framework (belief in just world)

[CSA = child sexual abuse; CSAM = child sexual abuse material; FC = family court; PA = parental alienation] DA: domestic abuse; PLP = private law practice = Family Court [bolding and emphases ours] [spelling British]

MEMORABLE QUOTES

The study best speaks for itself through direct quotes.

No matter what type of evidence was put forward (even [videoing and livestreaming of the sexual abuse]), …the courts always minimised the CSA harm caused to the child and mother by the father and overemphasised the rights of fathers.

The systemic minimising of harm caused a child by the sexual abuse served to both reinforce the father’s position and power and dilute the mother’s.

[T]he undoing of perceived harm from CSA was simultaneously an armament of bolstering the position and rights of the father and weakening and othering the same in the child and mother…

All of the mothers and children were victims of DA, rape or other abuse, which they felt was also repeatedly diminished by the courts. Mothers felt court actors were actively colluding in reinforcing patriarchal violence in related jurisdictions.

Salter et al. reported parental figures (typically fathers) are a key producer of CSAM and are often involved in ‘networks of offenders who engage in organized, sadistic’ abuse…

Mothers felt court actors were actively colluding in reinforcing patriarchal violence in related jurisdictions. Two mothers reported that family court judges had closed ongoing criminal investigations into CSA...

This silencing of mothers and children was widely reported.

Fathers’ actions and behaviours were repeatedly minimised and made invisible if harmful.

Children and women have much less social power and are actively disempowered societally and in PLP.

A FEW PROBLEMS

There are just a few problems with the study. It falls into the PA trap which, unfortunately, confuses the issue. It prominently positions PA and concludes it should be banned. This fallacy is gone over in depth in Down the Parental Alienation Rabbit Hole but it bears addressing briefly here.

The investigation finds that a mother is often accused of being “the ‘real’ abuser via PA”. This could have been stated much more clearly: Judges are falsely accusing mothers of alienating when the father is truly abusing the child.

You can do this thought experiment to demonstrate why banning PA will not make any difference. Everywhere you see PA in this study, insert CI [custodial interference]. Easy. Judges don’t need PA to discredit mothers. They can use anything.

It is not helpful to focus on which lie the judges use—PA, emotional abuse, mental illness, whatever—to switch custody. It just distracts from the fact that judges are lying about women to achieve their goal.

Further, the study does not address a most important fact—that once fathers get custody, judges allow them to alienate (or whatever you want to call it) children from mothers, which causes the very worst harm to both mothers and children. Best to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Additionally, the conclusions and proposed reforms are unfortunate. They consist of the tired, old: more training and more accountability and more investigations! It is curious that the data gathered undeniably confirms that judges are deliberately disregarding and even concealing evidence of abuse, yet it still proposes training as a viable solution.

We do not need more investigations by the legislature or judiciary—or anyone before taking action to stop this scheme. There is already enough evidence that women are being screwed royally in Family Court. Although this study has a small sample size, it is representative of what millions of women have reported as their lived experience for over a half century. The Women’s Coalition itself has heard from thousands of women and has reported on hundreds (if not thousands) of cases over more than a decade.

TAKEAWAYS

The data from this study clearly support that there is an identifiable pattern of discrimination and oppression of women in Family Court, aided and abetted by court-appointees, social services and law enforcement.

This research confirms judges are lying about women who report sexual abuse of their children by deeming them liars. All in the service of the agenda: empowering and entitling men in their role as “father”.

It also demonstrates how judges have the ultimate power in custody cases. They shut down criminal investigations and get social services to change their findings. They appoint legal and mental health professionals who help steer the case to the father. They replace mental health professionals who support protecting children with ones who will silence them. All to support the Great Custody Switch.

Importantly, the study also reports how judges are concealing evidence of abuse. In other words, they are covering up the sexual abuse itself. Because judges around the world are doing the same thing, it is likely the largest cover up of sexual abuse on the planet.

A POWER ISSUE

This groundbreaking study supports The Women’s Coalition’s position that the Custody Crisis is a power issue: judges having the power to empower our ex-husbands to take our children and women not having the power to keep and protect them.

What is really needed now is for women to unite and shout out the truth to the world: Judges are lying about us in order to give custody to the father.

And demand real change—a system in which judges do not have the power to discredit us and take our kids. A system in which judges cannot ignore and conceal evidence and spin the case against us. A system that provides due process and equal protection, which means a system in which a jury of our peers looks at the evidence and does the fact finding, not judges.

The only way women will get this fair process for determining custody is for cases to be heard in a regular civil court with the right to a jury.

Join The Women’s Coalition where we are demanding a new system!

If you were not able to protect your child from sexual abuse in Family Court, please fill out our survey to help us document the crisis.

NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, all WCN&V columns are written by me, Cindy Dumas, M.A. I am a victim of the Custody Crisis. Custody was given to the child molester father who continued his sexual abuse causing us to have to flee into hiding. A brief recap of my story here: savingdamon.com [don’t worry if it says not safe, it is]

---

UPDATE

GREAT NEWS!

In our last column, we covered Rachel’s story, the mom who was sent to jail for opposing the court-appointed, abusive Reunification Therapy with the child-rapist father.

There was a hearing this week and the judge rescinded the rest of her jail sentence, the five more weekends and suspended his order to reunify the children with their father until after the criminal case against the father is resolved.

MSM is reporting this is because Rachel got an attorney who gave new information to the judge. But the real reason? Is because of the widespread MSM coverage and the massive outpouring of support for Rachel that engendered. Just regular old media coverage usually doesn’t help much, because the long-term advantages to judges of going along to get along with the Old Boys almost always outweigh some temporary bad press.

And, although it is wonderful the children do not have to reunify right now, the judge just postponed his order pending the outcome of the father’s criminal indictment. The father could plead guilty tomorrow and be given only a short sentence or probation after which the kids could be ordered to reunify again. They could even be ordered to visit him in prison. Mothers and children are not ever safe as long as we are subject to the dictates of family court judges.

---

BOOK 3 IS OUT!

BOOK 3—The Show [Charade] Begins!

Book 3 of Mother-Fucking: The Saga of One Fucked Mother is aptly entitled “The Opera: We Were Mothers Once, and Young”. The Family Court Charade begins.

In this section, Legion relives her legal struggle in both Family and Appellate Court to keep and protect her children. She employs a simile—an Opera—to tell this part of her story. The Opera is divided into an Overture and Three Acts—representing the three trials. There are five Parts: the First Act has one Part—the first trial; the Second Act has two parts—the second trial and first appeal; and the Third Act has two Parts—the third trial and second appeal.

CHAPTER 26 is “The Overture”. Legion describes her frustration with the legal process and how it works against her receiving a fair outcome. She says the readers will be her jury since she has not been afforded one: “‘You the Audience of Readers will be … tah–dah … This Opera’s Jury,’ my overturing arietta concludes.”

One problem she identifies is that transcripts are only available in her jurisdiction if an appeal is filed, and they are expensive. Of course, she is the one who has to pay the big bucks to get them transcribed. She wonders how a judge can remember what is said during the trial when he is making his findings without a written record and with no notes to refer to. Worse, she will not be able to use the first trial transcript in her appeals which greatly disadvantages her.

With her kids having been taken away, Legion already feels like her life has been stolen from her. She asks herself, like so many loving mothers who find themselves trapped in the Family Court nightmare—how could this possibly happen?

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

None of the strips in these piles and mounds is ever retyped up into 8½  x 11 sheet pages—transcribed, that is, into a broadly and perhaps universally understood language of any kind—except that, first, someone files an appeal and then someone, usually that same someone or somebody of her family, friends and supporters, … pays!  

…And so I do not have the lines, then do I, from Act One—since there was no appeal of it these pages of trial transcript, er, lines of testimony, they don’t even exist!?  Verstehen?   

The lies do get into the mix of things from whence comes from out of that judge after so much time has passed … the final order?  Can the decree then—the law—be nullified on, tah‑dah, ‘a technicality’?  Or, is one just, well, ya’ know, … fucked?!”

---

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!

---