Mom Murdered after Fighting Years to "Keep & Protect"
Kayden's Law Passes in PA: More Diversion and Deception
An Illinois Mom was murdered after fighting for years in Family Court to keep and protect her three boys from her abusive ex.
Amy filed for divorce two years ago, when her children were 9, 7, and 5 years-old. She detailed her ex’s abuse abuse in her pleadings and was granted a Restraining Order.
Over the course of the next two years, her ex, Matthew, seriously harassed, threatened and stalked her. These crimes led to a whopping 10 more Restraining Orders being granted and dismissed.
Matthew would come to her house in violation of the RO. He was arrested on a felony charge when he damaged Amy’s car in one violent incident.
Amy documented every single abusive event. It did no good. The custody battle was allowed to drag on and on.
At one point, Amy requested Matthew be psychologically evaluated because of his erratic behavior. She believed he had an emotional disorder. But he countered by filing a motion for her to be evaluated saying she was the mentally ill one. No matter that there was no history of abuse or mental illness on her part, only his. But he was allowed to continue to torment her via Family Court.
MEDIATION
Amy was court-ordered to participate in mediation with the indicted felon. This is insane.
Mediation should not be required in any contested custody case, especially with a frequent offender like Matthew. Some jurisdictions have provisions for DV victims where they do not have to be in the same room with the abuser, but that is not enough. Women should not be put in the position to negotiate with their abuser. It equalizes the two sides when they are not equal.
Court-ordered mediation serves as just another tool to facilitate the Great Custody Switch. It is usually conducted in the same courthouse, and mediators, of course, know which way the wind blows. Just like the other court appointees, they are there to aid in switching custody. Court-ordered mediation is part and parcel of the structural sexism that forms the basis of the Family Court system. [We’ll delve into that issue in an upcoming column: “Down the Court Appointee Rabbit Hole”.]
The bottom line is—a mother should never be court ordered to negotiate with an abusive ex about anything. An abuser should automatically be restricted to supervised visits. No contested custody case should occur at all.
On May 22nd, Amy’s divorce was finalized. Apparently she agreed to a parenting plan. She was undoubtedly pressured in mediation—or by other appointees or her own lawyer—to agree to Matthew having custody and unsupervised visitation or she would be viewed [read: found] by the judge as some version of an “unfriendly parent” [actually codified in many jurisdictions] and she would lose custody.
What’s a mom to do?
Agree to the “parenting plan” the mediator suggests. Of course. There is no choice. It’s just another way the mother’s bond is used to extort compliance.
On May 29th, having lost his “property” for good, Matthew did what so many angry, vindictive men do after losing control of “their” woman—he murdered Amy. He came to her home and wreaked his revenge by shooting her multiple times, killing her. It is unclear whether the children were home. Hopefully not.
Contrary to the prevailing stereotype that women are vindictive after being left (scorned) by men, it is actually men who are the vindictive ones—and dangerously vengeful, as they often take out their revenge with violence and murder, like Matthew. We need to replace this false narrative with the truth. [See: Another Child Murdered by Vengeful Ex after Judge Orders Joint Custody.]
TAKEAWAYS
Amy should never have had to battle for 2 years simply to remain the children’s primary nurturer—after 12 years of having been just that. In fact, no mother should have to fight for custody of her children. Making women fight to keep their kids is oppression.
Long, drawn out contested custody cases almost always end badly for moms and benefit abusive and self-serving men. They devastate women emotionally and financially, and harm children’s emotional and cognitive development.
In a good and just society, mothers would remain the primary nurturer after separation by virtue of being their primary attachment figure. That is what nature intended when mammals first evolved 250 million years ago: that offspring remain with their mother until they are self-sufficient. The maternal bond predisposes them to nurturing and protective behaviors.
Men should not all of a sudden be able to take children away from their mother because it suits them in some way or other: to maintain power and control, get out of child support, get revenge, continue abuse, cure their loneliness, whatever.
That is obviously not in the best interests of the children, which society has deemed takes precedence after separation. But the Old Boy narratives prevail in Family Court. Women are put in the unnatural position of having to fight for custody if they separate from their partner—the man who inseminated them, the sperm donor.
The truth is, the father is a child’s secondary attachment figure, and, as such, should not have the power to override the mother, the primary attachment figure. But patriarchy gave men the power to do just that. In fact, some scholars posit that takeover was driven by “destructive envy” deriving from men being unnecessary to reproduction after the mere deliverance of a microscopic sperm.
Patriarchy was born out of an envious attack on mothers.
Sebastian Kraemer [The Origins of Fatherhood: An Ancient Family Process]
The Old Boys have been trying to disappear the concept of primary attachment since the ‘70’s. That is not surprising as it interferes with their agenda to empower men after divorce. Let’s not let them get away with that.
Let’s fight to maintain our role as the primary attachment figure and nurturer.
Let’s take back the power that was wrongfully taken from us 10,000 years ago—after 300,000 years of human history before that.
Let’s unite and take back our power to keep and protect our children. The power that is rightfully ours. That is what is truly in children’s best interest.
Come join us at The Women’s Coalition.
RIP Amy
IN OTHER NEWS
Kayden’s Law Passes in PA
There was much fanfare this week in the protective parent community as Kayden’s Law passed in Pennsylvania. There are many such laws named after murdered children that have been passed or are being advocated for.
As noted in our last column, 3 More Kids Murdered & 1 Attempted—Despite "Safe Child" Laws, women are being diverted and deceived. These laws will do nothing to end the Crisis. They pacify women by making them think something is being done about the horror that is Family Court. They take advantage of women’s need for hope: that with their passage, what happened to them will not continue.
But it will. Because these laws do not address the actual cause of the crisis. The only ones benefiting from them are those at the top promoting them, not the mothers or children they purport to.
The fact is, judges do not need more laws telling them to prioritize child safety. The best interests doctrine and other laws cover that.
Nor do judges need more laws or training in domestic violence, child abuse, parental alienation, reunification, narcissism, or anything else to recognize an abusive father when they see one.
They have a perfectly good mother testifying as to what their ex has done, and other corroborating evidence is right in front of their face—all of which they deliberately disregard. Then they lie about mothers being “mad or bad” to justify the Great Custody Switch.
Yes, judges lie. Every day. Around the world. About good, loving mothers.
No, judges do not need training.
Judges know exactly what they are doing.
And they will continue to do it.
Because they can.
Because they have been given the power.
Because that is their job.
That is exactly what Family Court is for.
To keep men entitled and empowered in “their” family after divorce.
And so the Custody Crisis will continue unabated.
Until women stop being diverted by false explanations and useless solutions and instead band together to attack the real cause of the Crisis: the Family Court system rigged to entitle and empower men.
SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
Thanks to all the moms who joined our forum yesterday. We had a great discussion. The hot topic for June was the “Evolution of the Custody Crisis”.
If you’d like to join SIS, please fill out this form. More info here.
CHAPTER 19, Part 2 IS OUT!
“She and I Aren’t Really Married” is Chapter 19 of Mother-Fucking: The Saga of One Fucked Mother.
In Part 2 of this 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.
In Part 1 of this chapter, Legion is forced to endure a summer road trip with her abusive mother who harangues her about separating from Herry. She regrets having agreed to her boys spending every weekend with Herry, only later realizing that was the first step in his undermining of her relationship with her boys. As part of that erosion process, Herry tells the boys that Legion and he are not really married.
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. 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
Simply stated, it meant that … I was bad. And that they, too, Jesse, Mirzah and Zane, as growths out of and extensions from me, were also bad. That is what “not married” meant.
This incredibly excessive churchiness of Herry’s would look so, so good on a pillared father in family law court going after sole custody of Mirzah, Jesse and Zane along with the maximum child support charted by statute—as if he were loaded for bear.
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!
Family court judges have the power to endanger women and children. Their opinion is what matters. The best interests of the child do not matter. Patriarchy dominates family court. Children need their mothers for emotional and physical nurturing. Family court judges give child custody to fathers that request it. It does not matter if they're married to the mother, are the biological father, have psychiatric issues and/or are abusive. Family court judges knowingly give custody to abusive men and face no consequences. Children are considered male property. Family court judges falsely call good mothers bad and/or crazy. These judges seal records. New laws require lots of time and energy. Laws won't make a difference. New training programs won't make a difference. Male entitlement rules family court. Family court judges intentionally endanger women and children. Mothers and their children need protection. They will not be safe as long as family court exists. Women must continue to unite and fight for a new system. Family court judges must lose their power. Family court must end.
Rest in peace, Kate Rafferty.