Mom Awarded $8M for Alienation via Family Court—But Ex Still Has Sole Custody
A jury awarded a Colorado mother $8 million for her ex-husband’s use of false allegations to take her children and alienate them from her. He was found liable for outrageous conduct, abuse of process and conspiracy (with the stepmother). The frosting on the cake: She also received $1 million from the stepmother for outrageous conduct and conspiracy (with the father). Her fiancé was awarded $14 million for defamation for false allegations of sexual abuse.
The verdict came down in November, but the mother just decided to go public and local media is covering the scandal. It’s a huge win for this mom, but somewhat symbolic, as she still is not able to see her children.
This case shines a light on how fathers are being empowered and enabled in family courts whether they are committing sexual abuse or getting the children to make false allegations. It also provides a good example of why the concept of alienation is important to recognize rather than ban. And how reunification therapy, when done well is beneficial.
Additionally, it drives home the rightness of the Coalition’s proposed solution to end the Post-Separation Crisis [PSC]: cases being heard in a regular civil court before a jury of our peers. It demonstrates clearly the difference between real courts and faux family courts, between juries evaluating evidence and judges. Same facts, different fact finder. With a jury, women are much more likely to get justice post-separation.
CINDY’S STORY
Cindy separated from her ex in 2016 and he was granted equal parenting time with their three children, even though she was their primary attachment figure. Not to mention the research confirms that dividing kids in half is not in their best interests. Living with their primary bond and visiting with the father regularly is. But the patriarchal Family Court system does not recognize this common sense fact.
In September of 2019, Cindy’s Family Court Nightmare began. Her daughter was 13 and twin sons were just 8 years-old at the time. Cindy had just won a $10.5 million lawsuit for marital assets her ex owed her. The same month, she became engaged to her boyfriend. Apparently those rosy developments in her life enraged her ex because the very next day after she announced the engagement, he embarked on a vengeful campaign to destroy her by taking her children completely away from her.
The first step was getting the kids to believe Cindy’s fiancé had sexually abused one of the twins. Cindy claimed in the lawsuit that her ex persuaded one of the twins to report that the fiancé had put something up his butt and showed the kids pornography.
Some doctor shopping was necessary to find one who would report suspected abuse, since there was no credible evidence. Eventually he found someone to go along with the ruse and CPS and law enforcement were notified.
However, his ploy was exposed when the boy told the forensic interviewer his father had told him to say what he did and that it hadn’t really happened—this the definition of coaching, which women are regularly falsely accused of. But here is evidence the father coached him and it would be ignored.
The fiancé was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, but the wealthy father told the detective to increase it to a felony so he could use it to get sole custody of the kids. He actually said this on tape. When the detective agreed to do that, the father said, “You made my f**kin day brother, like you’re on my Christmas card list right now!”
The CPS worker was sitting in on that conversation, so she knew exactly what was going on. However, she went along with the ruse and founded the allegation of abuse by the fiancé. She also found Cindy was physically and emotionally abusing the kids, for which there was also no evidence. Funny, because CPS almost always un-substantiates sexual abuse when it is a mother trying to protect her child from the father, which the Family Court judge then uses to help justify switching custody.
But her ex didn’t stop there. He promised a large campaign contribution to the D.A. if he secured the felony conviction. However, the criminal court judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence.
Not long after that, Cindy filed a lawsuit against CPS. She settled, with CPS admitting they had made a “mistake” and retracting their finding that Cindy had emotionally abused the children and her fiancé had sexually abused one of the children.
And Children’s Hospital came to this conclusion:
In summary, neither the documentation from multiple medical examinations nor the images taken by [the father] provide any evidence that can be attributed to or support the allegations of child sexual abuse/assault.
FAMILY COURT
Judge Mary Roak was assigned the case in Family Court. From the get-go, she has zealously pursued the father-empowering agenda.
She placed Cindy on supervised visitation while the various investigations were in process. However, the supervisor would not get with the program and report that she believed the boy had been abused. She said believed the the father was motivated by revenge and coached the boy to falsely report abuse and got the other kids to believe it.
He for quite a while spoke angrily about how mom got money she didn’t deserve. [He] was very, very angry that mom was even still around, and he was trying to eliminate her from the children’s lives. It was absolutely parental alienation.
Unsurprisingly, this supervisor was removed from the case.
Soon after, Judge Roak made findings that Cindy was “emotionally damaging” the children by continuing to disbelieve the father’s allegations of abuse. That’s a twist (but totally consistent). The mother is usually found to be “emotionally damaging” the kids by continuing to believe the father is abusive. Either way, the party line must be adhered to: mom’s the problem and dad’s the good guy. Heads he wins, tails she loses.
No matter that seven entities—the hospital, law enforcement, district attorney, criminal court judge, forensic interviewer, visitation supervisor and CPS all discredited the allegation of abuse against the mother’s fiancé. Judge Roak still gave the father sole custody and ordered no contact at all for Cindy, not even supervised.
This, of course enabled the father to complete his scheme. He up and moved the kids far away to Maui and she has not seen them since. It’s been four years.
Last year, Judge Roak upheld her ruling and continued the no contact order. She hangs her hat on an evaluator’s report, which the media focuses on, but she was not fooled. She did what she did because that is what is expected of her.
Judge Roak is doing her job well. The Old Boys are surely quite pleased and she likely has a promotion coming…
TAKE AWAYS
One take away is how Cindy’s ex felt so entitled. He seemed to know he had a very good chance of being able to use the systems to destroy Cindy. In the end, though, there was only one that went along with his ploy: Family Court. But that is the only one he needed as that is where custody is decided. That is why activism must focus on Family Court and not the other systems.
Cindy’s situation may seem different than the usual PSC cases since the father is making sexual abuse allegations, but it actually fits the pattern—just with the fiancé being part of the mother’s side. The judge still did the usual: credited the father’s false allegations and used Cindy’s contact with her children to extort and punish her.
Compare Cindy’s case with other PSC cases. There was no credible evidence her son had been abused but the judge still credited the father and blamed the mother. Most cases involve much credible evidence the father has abused the child but the judge still credits the father’s denial and blames the mother.
The fact that none of the entities involved, other than Family Court, substantiated the sexual abuse should not necessarily be relied on, since they rarely substantiate—unless it is a minority or poor man. There is often no physical evidence of sexual abuse and children sometimes retract true disclosures. But in this case the boy clearly told a forensic interviewer that his father had told him what to say. Whereas, children in PSC cases never say their mother told them to say they were abused—the judge just makes a finding the mother coached them (to alienate them) with nothing to support it. This is the #1 tactic used to switch custody.
It’s funny how Cindy’s ex was not found to be lying, coaching or alienating after he reported abuse, when he actually was. It is obvious facts and evidence don’t matter. The system is rigged.
There are two other important take aways from Cindy’s case having to do with parental alienation and reunification therapy.
PARENTAL ALIENATION
The media is focusing on Cindy’s case as a parental alienation case. One outlet described it as a jury finding “parental alienation on steroids”.
The same evaluator, whom the media has been exposing for falsely finding mothers to be alienating, is the same one who is supporting Cindy’s ex—who is truly alienating. He recommended Cindy be restricted to supervised visits in the very beginning.
Cindy’s case supports the Coalition’s position that the problem is not alienation per se, not whether the concept is valid, but how it is being used in Family Court—to empower the father. In a nutshell: Judges routinely falsely find mothers to be alienating children from fathers and allow fathers to truly alienate children from mothers. Cindy is a victim of the latter, while many mothers are a victim of both.
Although Protective/Safe Parent organizations [PPO’s] are advocating fiercely for alienation to be declared invalid and banned as the solution, that will ultimately not make any difference. The core problem is that judges can and will use anything to switch custody to the father because that is the agenda. Anything else is a red herring. See “Down the Parental Alienation Rabbit Hole”.
And mothers like Cindy, who have been truly alienated from their children, are not being validated when alienation is touted as fake. This makes them vulnerable to the parental alienation groups that put out misinformation about the Crisis. They contend mothers are alienating children when they are actually reporting real abuse by the father.
These groups lure women into their fold by pretending to be gender neutral, but most are affiliated with fathers’ rights activists or experts who aid in the Family Court agenda to keep men empowered in the family. Alarmingly, Cindy has been invited to speak at a parental alienation conference in Norway later this year. Hopefully she will change her mind when she hears the truth.
REUNIFICATION
Cindy is hoping to begin reunification therapy with her children. They have been subjected to isolation from her and the truth for such a long time that this kind of therapy, when done well, is often necessary. It can ease the transition and help restore the bond between mother and child.
The PPO’s are on a tear to get this therapy banned, as well. But, like with alienation, it is not the concept or the therapy that is the problem; it is the way it is being used in family courts. Judges are wrongly ordering children into reunification therapy to coercively persuade them to accept living with an abusive father.
The thing is, judges rarely order reunification with mothers because they are the ones enabling the alienation in the first place. Without their orders, or lack of enforcement of orders for the kids to see their mom, the alienation would not be possible. Reunification is almost exclusively used to coerce children to go along with the agenda.
So, the problem is not alienation or reunification. It is the way both are used in Family Court to achieve the agenda of maintaining men’s control post-separation.
WHAT’S NEXT
Cindy feels great about the jury verdict.
I felt listened to. I felt vindicated. I couldn’t get anybody [in Family Court] to listen. I had 7 people [in the jury] listen…who agree [the fiancé abusing the boy] never happened.
But now she’s back in Family Court. Ughhh…
The twins are 13 now and her daughter will be 18 and aged out of the system in September.
Cindy understands the children have been influenced against her, so she is not going for custody immediately. Instead, she is asking for reunification therapy. Hopefully she will get a good therapist.
Cindy promised her daughter she would be her bridesmaid, so she’s waiting for her to come back. Then she can—finally!—happily marry her fiancé with her daughter by her side.
Hopefully she will get to reunify with her kids soon.
I’m going to put my family back together. It’s hard, but I’m going to do it…
I hope to one day see my children and tell them what happened, and I hope they don’t feel in any way that they’re responsible for this.
In the end, the father got what he wanted—to destroy the mother by taking her kids. And the only way he could inflict that ultimate horror is because Family Court is designed to enable men to do just that. So the only way to end this Crisis is to dismantle the Family Court system and implement a new one. Join the movement at Women’s Coalition International.
IN OTHER NEWS
SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
The next Sisters in Solidarity forum will be on March 16th at 1pm Pacific; 4pm Eastern; 9pm GMT/UTC.
If you’d like to join SIS, please read this column and fill out the linked form. You will receive an invitation to the zoom.
THE SAGA OF ONE F**KED MOTHER
Chapter 9 of Dr. Blue’s book is out this week. Don’t miss it!
All previously published chapters are included in the Women’s Coalition News & Views Section: “The Saga of One F**ked Mother” accessible on the top bar of our home page.
You may also give a gift subscription to a mother who is going through her own Family Court nightmare and doesn’t understand why.
Or you can support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution at paypal.me/TheWomensCoalition.
All contributions, large and small, are greatly appreciated!
FYI this paragraph was added after this column was published:
The fact that none of the entities involved, other than Family Court, substantiated the sexual abuse should not necessarily be relied on, since they rarely substantiate—unless it is a minority or poor man. There is often no physical evidence of sexual abuse and children sometimes retract true disclosures. But in this case the boy clearly told a forensic interviewer that his father had told him what to say. Whereas, children in PSC cases never say their mother told them to say they were abused—the judge just makes a finding the mother coached them (to alienate them) with nothing to support it. This is the #1 tactic used to switch custody.
Good for her; we need to keep fighting back- I will continue my fight as long as I can-🥲 family court is a nightmare, and if your ex is a narcissist, you can guarantee he will use the family court system to his advantage, one day hopefully I will get to tell my story, but for now I will continue to help others out!!