Insider Docs Reports on Reunification Therapy: Misleads Moms & the Public
Insider Docs published a segment this week that addresses the subject of judges ordering children into Reunification Therapy: “The truth behind the experimental therapy that kids say starts with ‘legalized kidnapping’”. Other MSM news outlets have piggy-backed onto this reporting and it has been getting relatively wide coverage.
This is a shame because, despite being apparently well-intentioned, it gets the issue wrong on so many levels. The most basic is that it misleads women and the public about the true, gendered use of alienation and reunification in family courts around the world. It leads the viewer to believe that both fathers and mothers are being falsely found by Family Court judges to be alienating kids, and reunification programs are being used to force kids to recant abuse and live with both abusive mothers and fathers.
There can be nothing further from the truth.
FLAGSHIP CASE
The hook for this reporting is a flagship case in which a father is supposedly being falsely accused of alienation and two kids forced to reunify with an abusive mother. The reporting is through the eyes of a young teenager named Maya, who claims her mother sexually abused her. Her little brother remains glued to her side throughout the drama but does not say anything about his mother being abusive.
The reporting hinges on the night Maya and her brother were “legally kidnapped”. They had been refusing to comply with orders to reunify with their mother so a transportation service was used to force them into a car. A dramatic scene unfolds with Maya kicking and screaming and mightily resisting getting in the car. This made for a great viral video and plenty of subsequent exclamations of horror by the public.
But it was apparently all staged—she knew it would be videotaped and spread on social media, so she gave it her all. According to sources, the teen was assisted by a PPO (protective/safe parent organization) that conspired with the father and stepmother to effectuate it. To be clear, if what Maya said about her mother sexually abusing her, that would all be justified, staged or not.
The reporter lumps this flagship case of a child being ordered by a judge to reunify with an allegedly abusive mother, which is extremely rare, in with cases that are truly emblematic of the misuse of reunification being in family courts. She profiles a teenager from Utah who locked himself in his room to protest visiting his sexually abusive father. And Ally and her sister who were forced to live with their abusive father. And Ashton also was forced to live with his abusive father—and his little brother is still there!
In other words, the only cases other than Maya’s that the reporter could dig up were kids being forced to reunify with abusive fathers. THAT is the real crisis.
But the reporter describes the pattern as: a parent alleges abuse; the other parent rebuts that allegation by claiming alienation; judge switches custody to the accused parent, and kids are ordered into a reunification program to assist in the custody switch with the alienated parent. Gender neutral.
However, there is no epidemic of children being forced to reunify with abusive mothers. To report this issue as gender neutral is simply inaccurate.
ALIENATION
There is no question Maya and her brother are alienated from their mother since not wanting to see her at all, by definition, means they are severely alienated. The only question is: did the father cause the alienation, which would be parental alienation, or is the alienation a result of the mother having sexually abused Maya, i.e. not parental alienation?
As usual when MSM covers alienation—and it’s proposed cure: reunification—all roads lead to Richard Gardner. The usual narrative is that he created parental alienation out of the blue and it is, therefore, invalid—a non-existent “pseudo-concept”.
First of all, this is just absurd on its face. Gardner did not create the concept. It’s been around for centuries, if not millennia. He simply used it to fathers’ advantage. You can’t just poof a real concept out of existence because it doesn’t fit your narrative. The concept of alienation is real and creating alternative terms for it that do not capture the horror of parental alienation is counterproductive.
It is important to recognize alienation for what it is, precisely because there is an epidemic of family court judges allowing fathers to alienate children from mothers. In a Women’s Coalition survey, nearly 3/4 of the mothers reported they had been alienated from their children by the father via Family Court.
This is, arguably, the worst thing that can happen to a mother. Many compare it to the death of their child.
To the contrary, it is almost unheard of that a judge would allow a mother to alienate children from a loving father. There is not only not an epidemic of this, it does not rise to the level of a social issue.
On the other hand, mothers are often falsely accused of alienating and forced to make their children visit or live with abusive fathers, even those convicted of murder or rape. WCN&V published a post about this: Down the Parental Alienation Rabbit Hole.
So who benefits from banning alienation? Fathers (and the OBN behind them) who are doing (and enabling) the alienating.
REUNIFICATION THERAPY
Just as the concept of alienation is not the problem, neither is the concept of reunification. Both are intertwined because reunification is touted as the cure for alienation. Like with alienation, the problem with reunification is not the concept; it is that it is being misused by family court judges and their appointees.
The goal of reunification therapy, in theory, is to help children repair their relationship with a loving parent from whom they have been alienated by the other parent. Nobody can argue that would be a good thing.
But we are talking about Family Court here, about rulings judges make regarding alienation and reunification. That is where the real problem is, not with the concepts themselves. WCN&V published a column about this phenomenon: How Family Court Judges Weaponize Mind Control: Empowering Fathers, Alienating Mothers & Silencing Children.
As for the reunification programs: they are tasked by the court with reunifying children and must, whether the parent is abusive or not. So, almost by definition they are unethical. Finding fault with them is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As far as the coercion by transporters: if Maya or any other child had been wrongly alienated from a parent, some coercion is justified. Forcing children into a car is nothing if it reunites them with their loving mother. They will be grateful they were coerced. But this is a rare occurrence with family court cases so is a non-issue.
TAKE AWAY
Again: the problem is not the concepts of alienation or reunification or the “industries” surrounding them. These industries would not exist if judges did not routinely force children to live with abusive fathers.
The gendered nature of the issue is what reporters should be highlighting. But it is not just the reporters’ bad. They are being misinformed by “experts”, professionals and PPO’s.
Moms: keep focused on the real crisis: Judges are routinely falsely finding mothers to be alienating and using that to switch custody to abusive or self-serving fathers. When teens refuse to live with or visit fathers, judges order reunification therapy to coerce them to comply.
The Post-Separation Crisis is a power issue, not an alienation/reunification issue. Men are being empowered in family courts to take and alienate kids from mothers, sometimes using coercion via reunification therapy/programs, not the other way around.
Why? Because women do not have the power to stop them. Yet.
It is time. Join The Women’s Coalition.
SISTERS IN SOLIDARITY
Thanks to all the women who joined the Sisters forum yesterday! We had a great discussion about many aspects of the Post-Separation Crisis.
If you are interested in joining the Sisterhood, please read this column and watch this video powerpoint presentation. If you agree with the Women’s Coalition’s position on the crisis, fill out the form linked above and in the column.
You may also support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution at paypal.me/TheWomensCoalition
vengeance - seeking patriarchs' epidemic =
to make handmaids, er mamas, DELETED / INVISIBLE / DEAD and GONE
Patriarchy dominates family court. Children are considered male property. Family court judges enable fathers to alienate children from mothers. They punish mothers and endanger children. If mothers do not play by the OBN's rules they are further punished and coerced into doing so. Mothers face horrific consequences for trying to protect their children. Abusive fathers are rewarded. Family court judges face no consequences for endangering children. This is not a gender issue. It is a power issue. Women need to be empowered. We need a new system where judges cannot abuse their power. Civil court would better protect mothers and children. Matriarchy better safeguards women and children.