Judges Who Enabled Father to Kill His Child Fear for their Lives
Collusion by the Judiciary & Media to Protect Family Court Judges
Three Family Court judges, who enabled a violent father to kill his child by giving him custody, fear for their lives if media is allowed to name them.
Rightly so.
Sara likely feared for her life every day for four years living with her violent father, thanks to these male-entitling judges ordering (not “allowing”—as MSM puts it) her to live with him.
And now she is dead.
On Friday, following the high-profile murder trial and conviction of the father, a UK Appellate Court lifted an order that banned media from naming the three judges. But the ruling will not go into effect until this Friday, at the earliest.
One reason the case was so high profile was that the abuse Sara endured was absolutely horrific, and that captured the public’s attention. How could a father do that? But the judges knew all about the appalling abuse and still gave him custody.
This latest delay may be to give the judges time to appeal, or, more likely, to give yet more time for public attention to be distracted elsewhere. Delaying the naming of the judges until long after the murder trial, after the intense media coverage ended, was the point.
Keeping the public from knowing who gave custody to this extremely violent man has provided a cooling off period for those watching the 10-week trial. Millions were horrified and pissed off that these judges gave custody of a little girl to this horrible man. Not only did the judges give him custody, but they restricted the mother to supervised visits to prevent her from continuing to disclose her father’s abuse and keep her mother from attempting to protect her. You know—the usual.
The whole “to name or not to name judges” smacks of collusion by the entire judiciary—to protect their own. In fact, judges have never had the right to prohibit the naming of other judges, nor themselves. It is a cornerstone of procedural due process that judges are known to the public.
The order barring the naming of his colleagues was made by presiding Family Court Judge David Williams, who was obviously colluding with the three judges, his underlings, who want protection from being named and shamed. He claimed the naming would lead to a “virtual lynch mob” online.
That I think is reasonably certain in the online world where a virtual lynch mob will readily be assembled in the current febrile atmosphere engendered online…
Judge Williams took the opportunity to exonerate the judges and their co-conspirators:
In this case, the evidence suggests that social workers, guardians, lawyers and judiciary acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them.
Certainly to my reasonably well-trained eye there is nothing (save the benefit of hindsight) which indicates that the decisions reached in 2013, 2105 or 2019 were unusual or unexpected. Based on what was known at the time and applying the law at the time, I don’t see the judge or anyone else having any real alternative option…
Many media outlets joined together to appeal Judge William’s order. The three judges submitted declarations claiming that they feared for their family’s and their lives.
This appellate process was likely just another way to delay the inevitable. By the time it would be resolved, the bulk of the public’s attention would be elsewhere.
That was the agenda—to keep the judges’ names out of the public eye as long as possible. They goal was for the public to focus on the evil father, not the judges who enabled him to murder his child.
MEDIA COMPLICITY
Even the media appeared to be complicit with the scheme.
The ban on naming the judges was not ordered until two days after the murder trial ended a little over a month ago. Journalists were well aware that they could name the judges during the trial when there was the most public attention, yet they chose not to. And now they are posing as heroes for having gone to the Appellate Court to overturn a ban that was not there when it mattered most.
Worse, while the entire MSM has been publicly hand-wringing about the unprecedented ban on naming the judges, two journalists who specialize in Family Court cases reported that they have absolutely no idea what could possibly have caused three esteemed judicial beings to give Sara to her violent father. As if that never happens. And they have no idea what could possibly lead to change.
What is needed now is real effort to work out what went wrong in this heartbreaking case where a young girl’s life was taken, and what might need to change.
Really? They have to know what went wrong. Or should by now. They have been investigating and reporting on these cases for years.
They must know, or at least seriously suspect by now, why this violent father was granted custody—the same reason all the other abusive fathers got custody in the cases they have covered. They must know by now there is systemic discrimination against women in family courts. Their cases have all involved mothers who’ve lost custody and could not protect their children from an abusive ex. Not fathers.
But it appears they simply don’t dare go up against the powerful judiciary, the Old Boys themselves. It is quite disheartening that they would praise Judge Williams for making documents that contained details about the abuse public when they should have been anyway, considering much of it was already public for the trial.
We recognise and are grateful for the expansive disclosure of documents and publication permissions that were given by Mr Justice Williams…
And then to be apologetic for wanting to name the judges, making clear in an article published today in the Guardian that they do not want to blame or shame these three judges…
In today's OBSERVER Louise and I write about how our challenge to the ban on naming judges was not about shaming individuals—but rather the wider principle that those who exercise state power need to be known.
…Our appeal was never about naming and shaming individual judges; it was about the wider principle that those who exercise state power need to be known.
No blame or shame for the judges who undeniably caused Sara’s death by knowingly giving the violent father custody? Just want to report on the wider issue of powerful people (not just little old family court judges) who need to be known for some reason?
It seems they are trying to play both sides. Pick a side, please—women’s side…
SECRECY IN FAMILY COURT
The newsworthy obscuring of judges’ names comes within the context of the usual opacity in custody cases. In the here-to-fore completely closed UK family courts, there has been much activism devoted to opening them up—and some gains have been made.
This week, England and Wales are implementing the presumption that custody cases be open to the media, as long as litigants are anonymized (and the court-appointees?). The judges, of course, will be named.
This is great, but in the U.S. and some other countries, custody cases have always been presumed open, unless there is a hearing where good cause is shown to close it. However, judges often do not allow this hearing, nor any due process, before closing the courtroom, sealing the records, gagging the mother, and/or threatening her with loss of custody if she discloses anything about her case or the father’s abuse online or to the public.
So custody cases are, effectively, closed everywhere, whether the policy is for them to be open or closed. This is specifically to protect and empower men in their role as fathers. It’s so the public cannot see how judges are wrongly giving children to abusive and unfit fathers.
This is justified by the age-old, patriarchal narrative that “family matters” are private. This doctrine underlies the Family Court system and serves to keep men empowered and enabled to use violence to control and exploit “their” women and children. And shame shall befall any woman who makes the dirty doings of the father public.
TAKEAWAYS
The takeaways will be short and sweet today.
It does not matter whether judges are named or not.
It does not matter whether family courts are open or closed.
It does not matter whether there is transparency or accountability in family courts.
It does not matter what reforms are made within the Family Court system.
Judges will still give fathers custody, abusive or not.
Why?
Because Family Court is designed so judges can do whatever the hell they want.
Transparency and accountability will not make a difference, because judges would rather weather a bit of temporary negative publicity and a slap on the hand, and continue to comply with the Old Boy agenda to keep men in power in their family. Their careers and warm seats at the Old Boys’ table depend on that, not on the public’s perception.
That means the only thing that will end the Custody Crisis is to get cases Out of Family Court and Into a Real Court, where judges have no more power than a Real Judge and a Jury is the Fact Finder.
Join The Women’s Coalition where we are fighting for a new system.
RIP Sara & Condolences to Mum Olga
One more thing: It’s good you are getting News and Views from independent media on platforms like Substack, where journalists and just regular folk do not feel constrained by the powers-that-be and will print the truth, regardless if it angers them.
So please consider subscribing if you haven’t already!
IN OTHER NEWS
DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT
Mothers who’ve lost custody or have not been able to protect your children are welcome to join our Discrimination Lawsuit.
We will be posting weekly updates about our Discrimination against Women in Family Court lawsuit here on Women’s Coalition News & Views, so be sure and subscribe or check in if you have signed up for it.
UPDATES
We are now accepting mothers who want to be anonymous. Just put that in the comment section of the form or write aka after your name.
Since there are women around the world interested in a lawsuit in their country, there is now a form for you to join. We will be extending our efforts as soon as we establish a case in the U.S.
Also, we are now accepting any attorney willing to file the lawsuit in each state, not just civil rights attorneys. We have a civil rights attorney who can help them with the filing.
There are a lot of women who could not make January’s Sisters in Solidarity forum, so the February 15th forum is also going to be open to anyone who’s signed up for the lawsuit or is interested in joining it. Questions about it will be addressed.
Please encourage all mothers who have been discriminated against in Family Court to read the column for more info and sign up for the lawsuit by filling out this form for the U.S. and this form for other countries.
We have a gofundme set up that will be used to pay the attorneys. Please consider donating if you can and ask others to as well. The more we get, the more states we can file in. You can also donate by starting a paid subscription to Women’s Coalition News & Views or through our Paypal Giving Fund.
Big thanks to all who’ve contributed to this important cause!
SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
Sisters in Solidarity is the activist arm of The Women’s Coalition.
Our next Sisters in Solidarity forum will be Saturday, Feb. 15th.
If you’d like to join SIS, please fill out this form.
You will receive an invitation to the zoom a few days before [check alternate inboxes].
More info about SIS here.
CHAPTER 28: NEXT SECTION IS OUT!
In this next section of Chapter 28, Legion goes to the Flunks’ house to see her boys one last time, still not knowing where Herry is taking them. But he arrives with only two of them—Jesse had run away in defiance of being taken away from his home and his mother. Herry has not told the boys where they are going so Legion would not find out. She hugs and kisses them goodbye, promising she will find them wherever they are.
Jesse is soon captured and whisked away with his brothers to parts unknown. This, despite the fact that Herry had sworn in a court affidavit that he would never take the boys out of Iowa if he were given sole custody. Legion is beginning to see that Family Court judges allow men to do whatever they want, including—and especially—keeping the kids isolated from their loving mother.
In the last section, Herry enlists a couple from Legion’s Quaker community to aid him in his scheme to torture her—the “Flunks”. They make sure she cannot even hug her boys when they show up at events. Herry relishes this power to make her suffer—for refusing to abide his authority, his sexual addiction and his abuse of her and the boys. But at least Legion is still seeing her boys occasionally on the sly. Then she gets a call from the Flunks telling her to come to their house to see her boys one last time—for only 15 minutes—to say goodbye.
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 [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 so make sure to subscribe if you haven’t yet!
TEASERS
With backpack and some belongings then Jesse, at any rate, was gone quite missing by the time Herry next returned with already snatched Mirzah and Zane to the Urbandale Middle School to pluck Jesse out as well.
“I’ll find you. I will find you. I. Will. Find. You. I love you, Mirzah. I love you, Zane. O, m’god. And I’ll find Jesse, too. Tell him I love 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 Paypals Giving Fund.
All contributions are greatly appreciated & thanks to everyone who has subscribed!
Family court judges do not rule in a child's best interests. Children are dying. Sara should be alive today. Olga should be able to hug her child. Family court judges often give custody to males that request it. It doesn't matter if they're abusive. Patriarchy controls family court. Children are considered male property. Facts and evidence don't make a difference. New laws and training programs won't help. Family court judges have the power to do what they want. They face no consequences. Women do not have the power to protect their children. They have no enforceable rights in family court. Women are coerced. Loving mothers are frequently deemed unfit and have their children taken. The time they are separated is irreplaceable. Women are emotionally, physically and financially drained. Many are dying. Mothers and their children suffer. They deserve protection. Women need to work together. They must continue to unite and fight for a new system. Family court judges abuse their power. A jury would give women and children a chance at justice. Family court must end.
My son should be alive today.