New MSM Article Documents Horrific Case—But Wrongly Blames Alienation
In a new article published yesterday, ProPublica does a stellar job of documenting facts and evidence in a horrific Post-Separation Crisis case in Colorado. However, unfortunately, it misleads the public into thinking that the mother lost custody due to “parental alienation”.
The caption from the video (linked above) incorporated into the story is: “Could Claims of Parental Alienation Cause Her to Lose Custody of Her Son?” It is one in a series of articles that have highlighted alienation as the reason mothers are losing custody—and banning it as the solution.
The article goes to considerable lengths to support the contention that alienation is why the mom, Christine, lost custody of her son. However, it inadvertently does the opposite. It actually shows clearly that parental alienation is not the problem and banning it is not an effective solution.
A big deal was made of the evaluator and his report, which was supposedly used to support switching custody to the father. But this evaluator specifically says he does not use parental alienation because it is “divisive”. Instead, he reported that Christine is “delusional” and she has created a type of folie a deux with her son in which he has come to falsely believe he is being abused.
The evaluator extrapolates this ludicrous theory to professionals who have reported the boy is being abused. He claims Christine’s delusional self influenced more than a dozen professionals into reporting that the father was sexually abusing his son, which is sexist as well as absurd, since many who reported the father’s abuse had not even spoken to her.
Still, the journalist reports, “[The evaluator’s] conclusion that this was by definition a case of alienation, not abuse, seemed to decide the issue for the court.” But, not only did the evaluator not use alienation to discredit Christine, the judge did not make a finding of alienation, nor do his orders rely on it.
The judge instead found that was Christine was “a danger to the boy’s physical and emotional health”.
This finding comes under yet another category used against mothers: the ethereal “emotional abuse”. Judges are often ambiguous in their findings, which serves to cover their butts for appellate courts.
In the sexist “moms are either mad or bad” family court scheme, Christine’s evaluator is deeming her “mad” and the judge is deeming her “bad”. They covered both bases.
So parental alienation is not the problem in Christine’s case. Had it been banned, as is being proposed in a recent report by a UN Rapporteur, that would not have stopped this judge from switching custody—nor will it stop other judges. That endeavor is not only a waste of time, it diverts women and the public from understanding the core cause of the Post-Separation Crisis: judges having the power to switch custody from loving, primarily-attached mothers to abusive and self-serving fathers, regardless of facts or evidence and regardless of which term they use to justify it.
IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST
The actual story title/subtitle is: “In the Child’s Best Interest: As a contentious custody dispute drags on for years, both sides agree on one thing: The child at the center of it is being abused. Is his mother or father to blame?”
This is also quite problematic as it labels the horror story a “custody dispute”, rather than what it really is: a desperate and unwinnable quest by a mother to protect her child from serial sexual assaults by a father. A better title would have been: “Is It in the Child’s Best Interest to Give Custody to a Father Who the Child Is Clearly Saying Is Molesting Him and There’s a Shitload of Evidence that Proves It?”
Instead, the question is posed to the reader of the article: is it the mother or father who is abusive? As if it is such a mystery.
One of the sections is titled: “Is Mom Making This Up?” which tees up a sort of false equivalency: Whoever could it be that is abusing the child? Did the mother make it up or did the father really abuse his son? It’s so hard to tell! You the reader must make that difficult call…
The overwhelming evidence of sexual abuse, along with the mother’s and son’s attestations, render that representation wholly absurd, and, although the article is obviously sympathetic to the mother, it gives an undeserved amount of space for the father to spew his hollow denials, specious attacks on Christine, and preposterous explanations for the boy’s injuries.
And there are the other usual distractions from the real problem: reporting in depth on all the peripheral players, including law enforcement and CPS—as if they have any real power. Reality check: they don’t. They always defer to the judge who is the one who switches custody. Reporting on these cases should make that crystal clear. Judges often ignore professionals who recommend protecting the child and rely on ones who support the foregone conclusion: Mom’s the problem; Dad gets custody. Christine’s case unequivocally demonstrates this.
The article also mistakenly points to a cause of mom’s custody loss being that this case is happening in a small town where investigators may know the father. Another red herring. The same thing is happening in big, medium and small cities all over the globe.
Christine’s case is actually a slam dunk. It is the perfect example of the systemic cover up of sexual abuse by judges, with the aid of their minions. You cannot get any more convincing and credible evidence supporting the child is being abused than what she has, yet the judge still gave custody to the molester father.
Reporting on Christine’s case without placing it within the pattern—the larger context of judges discrediting mothers using many types of false findings—is inaccurate as well as misleading. There are thousands of cases all over the world in which judges have disregarded and concealed evidence of abuse and given custody to the molesting (or otherwise abusive, neglectful, or self-serving) father. The Women’s Coalition has heard from over a thousand mothers whose cases involve sexual abuse and has documented over 200 of them in our survey (which is still open if you’d like to participate).
The ProPublica article is long so there is a summary below, but it is worth reading to hear the entire story and see where it gets things wrong.
CHRISTINE’S STORY
Christine was married in 2009 and had difficulty getting pregnant so she used in vitro. In 2014 she gave birth to her son. She was in her 40’s and was thrilled beyond measure. However, violence against her and her infant son started soon after.
A restraining order was granted and Christine filed for divorce. Her ex violated the restraining order and was arrested. He was convicted of DV and harassment. He was later arrested for stalking. He admitted to authorities that he had sexually assaulted a 4 year-old girl when he was 16, claiming he was the victim, since he was made to look bad for doing it and it did not hurt the little girl.
Christine was initially granted primary custody and her ex was restricted to supervised visits and specifically prohibited from bathing him. This often precedes a mother’s loss of custody.
CPS became involved. Despite the fact the father is an admitted child molester and receiving dozens of reports from mandated reporters, CPS discredits all evidence of physical and sexual abuse, which come in steadily over many years to come. A variety of bogus reasons was given for not substantiating the abuse. There were so many reports that CPS refused to accept any more after a certain point.
Many others believed the boy was being abused. Some of the boy’s disclosures of abuse include to:
Christine: son’s countless statements to her and his injuries (never given consideration but should be heavily weighted as a mother knows whether her child is being abused)
CPS: heard directly from the boy and received over a dozen reports from mandated reporters
Therapist: toddler had “skin rashes and bruises, pants removed, pants wet” and “red irritation around his rectum and privates, which hurt when he bathes”
Physician’s assistant: boy had unusual redness and swelling around his anal area and genitals
Four mandatory reporters: boy told them that his father “hurts him” and “fools around” with his private parts
Psychologist: boy says that his father “hits me” and “pushes his ‘package’ against me”
Victim’s advocate: the child said “he touched my fanny and it hurt.”
Physician’s assistant: the child had unusual irritation and burst blood vessels around his rectum
Pediatric psychiatrist: child said he had said he had been sexually abused
Police: boy told them that he had been sexually and physically abused by his father. “[The child] was able to identify different parts of the male body and knew what a penis was.” The child said that his father “had touched him there and he didn’t like it.”
Elementary school principal: first grader said his father touches his penis and hits him. (Father was not allowed at the school because of “previous molestation”.)
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
A fraction of that evidence would have been enough for a jury to meet the low burden of preponderance of evidence. In fact, in many criminal courts, just the child’s statements s/he is being abused is considered enough to meet the highest burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
However…Family Court judges do not really rule based on facts or evidence. They rule however they want, regardless. They generally do what the OBN [Old Boy Network] requires: maintain male privilege and power in the family, the last, great patriarchal perk—including, and especially, the oh-so-coveted prerogative to sexually abuse one’s own child.
Christine’s saga assiduously supports what is going on in family courts is not judges mistakenly believing mothers are alienating but the deliberate, systemic upholding of male entitlement. And in the process, women are being oppressed, terrorized and traumatized, while children continue to be abused and without their mother.
As noted above, Judge Cory Jackson gave sole custody to the father based on the obviously false finding that Christine is a danger to her child. She only gets to see him every other weekend, but even that is conditional on her not reporting any more abuse or attempting to protect her child. She supposedly gets him for two weeks in the summer, but that was denied her this year on bogus grounds. She is prohibited from taking him to a doctor or therapist.
All proof that what is really going on is a judicial cover up and enabling of child sexual assault at the behest of the OBN.
Judge Cory Jackson, like countless other judges, is enabling a child molester.
Women Will Not Be Free Until We Are Able to Keep & Protect Our Children
UPCOMING SISTERHOOD FORUM
Sisters in Solidarity will be engaging in outreach contacting journalists in their area to educate them about the real reason mothers are losing custody. It is important the public understands the oppression women are being subjected to so they become outraged and join us in demanding a new system.
If you are interested in joining the new Sisterhood, please read about our platform here: Sisters in Solidarity and here: The Custody Crisis: Why It's Happening & How We Can End It. There are many other articles that go to into more depth about issues relevant to the Post-Separation Crisis here: Women’s Coalition News & Views.
If you agree with our mission and goals and would like to participate in our Sisterhood Forums and other forms of activism—from simply spreading the word to protests—you are welcome to join Sisters in Solidarity by filling out this form.
If you have signed up to be a Sister Aide to devote more time to activism, you will be contacted separately about an upcoming meeting.
Our first Sisterhood Forum will happen next Sunday, August 27th at 12pm Pacific, 3pm Eastern, 7pm GMT. (You can only join until 10 minutes after the start time so please be on time.)
We will be discussing the mission of the Sisterhood. There will be a Q & A. If you would like to submit questions ahead of time please email: sisters@womenscoalitioninternational.org
You will receive an invite soon (check alternative boxes and spam). Please do not share the zoom link. The Forum is only for women who’ve signed up for Sisters in Solidarity. [Those who were involved with the Local Coalitions before Covid will also receive invites.]
Uniting as Women for the Power to End the Post-Separation Crisis
You may also support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution through PayPal.
Christine's case is so familiar. Family court judges are giving custody of children to fathers that ask for it. It does not matter if these males are abusive. Family court judges have the power to do this no matter what the circumstances. The safety of the child does not matter to these judges. Children are viewed as male property in family court. These judges allow male entitlement to direct their decisions. Family court judges enable abusive fathers to further abuse children. Facts and evidence do not matter. Family court judges discredit, blame and falsely call loving mothers mentally ill. Mothers and their children suffer. There are no consequences for family court judges. This is what is occurring in family court and why it needs to end. Family court judges must be disempowered. Mothers need to continue to come together. Women must be empowered to begin a new system. The only way mothers can protect their children is to disempower family court judges.
In re this muck, I had wondered when I first read about IT elsewhere, IF YOU, Ms Dumas, had seen this w r o n g l y described one ! JEBUS CRIKEY = T H U S IT SOOOO IS = " a desperate and unwinnable quest by a mother to protect her child from serious, serial sexual assaults. A better title would have been: ' Is It in the Child’s Best Interest to Give Custody to a Father Whose Son Is Clearly Saying He’s Being Repeatedly Molested and There’s a Shitload of Evidence that Proves It ? ' "