A custody battle is a form of domestic violence. It’s harassment….period.
In many states, a rapist can sue the victim for custody or parenting time and win, forcing the victim and child to a lifetime of trauma.
Perpetrators of domestic violence often take revenge on their former partners for leaving the relationship and use custody battles to seek revenge and maintain control over their victims. (Stark, Coercive Control; Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? and The Batterer As Parent)
After leaving, a domestic violence victim is most at risk for the two years immediately following the end of the relationship, however a campaign of harassment can last for years, culminating in an abusive custody battle.
Even though there may be a property settlement agreement or consent order defining child custody, courts can and do eradicate the bargained-for terms of these agreements, which abrogates contract law. A family court judge will think nothing of violating a mother’s due process rights – disallowing evidence and witnesses, dismissing attorneys directly before trial, and completely ignoring the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), inter alia. Motives are often political, involving bribery, racketeering, human trafficking, child prostitution, and child pornography, the latter of which 60% comes from the United States. Child Protective Services (CPS) is part of this racket, as Nancy Schaefer would have been able to tell you, were she not murdered for exposing them.
Bribery is not just the classic slipping of money under the table – it can be anything from business deals, to offering a retiring judge a post-retirement job, to paying off a judge’s real estate properties.
Contrary to de jure law and public policy, there is a de facto policy of discrimination against women and children, especially domestic violence and child abuse/neglect victims, in the family courts. Family courts often engage in domestic violence by proxy, flying in the face of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1994) .
The segregation of mothers and their children has been achieved via Richard Gardner’s highly-controversial, pseudoscientific theory Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which has been rejected repeatedly by the American Psychological Association (APA); and fails Daubert and Frye standards.
Gardner was a misogynist who claimed that when the child(ren) do not want to spend time with the father, it is because the mother is alienating him from the child(ren). This is bogus, a bill of attainder against women. It is natural for a child to prefer the mother, it is simply nature. Look at everything from puppies and kittens to cubs and ducklings.
Moreover, if a child is being abused, that child would naturally not want to be around their abuser. This is simple human nature and a basic human right. It is common sense.
Legitimate scientific studies such as the ACE Study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Saunders Report commissioned by the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) have proved that removing a child from the mother and primary attachment figure is a health risk and that the problem is most often a male perpetrator of domestic violence.
The term “high conflict’ is a misnomer and redirect for what is really domestic violence (Stark). The first thing a court will do is gaslight a domestic violence victim by claiming no domestic violence exists. Father’s rights groups, a.k.a. men’s rights groups, love this concept, as it is a nexus sprung from Parental Alienation Syndrome, because it is way to blame the victim and seek custody to maintain control and dodge paying child support, as well as subjugate women in the larger scope of things.
What is happening in actuality is not Parental Alienation Syndrome targeted at the father, but Tangential Spouse Abuse (Stark and Lischick) and Legal Abuse Syndrome (Huffer) targeted at the mother. The objective is clear.
Father’s rights groups will often pose as families rights groups, but this is simply a ruse. Rest assured, these groups are more intent upon idolizing football players and rap artists for “keeping her in line” and employing Screw the Bitch tactics than anything else.
The two most common accusations a mother will face in a custody battle are 1) Parental Alienation or PAS claims in order to subvert domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and 2) False accusations that the woman is mentally ill, in order to destroy her credibility.
Both fall under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), not because the mother is actually mentally ill, but rather because giving the impression that someone is mentally ill garners protection for that person under the ADA. Under Title II of the ADA, judges are not immune from suit. This is important because family court racketeers often hide behind the cloak of judicial immunity.
Richard Gardner is the champion of the pedophile. He testified in over 400 custody cases. Gardner (1991, p. 118) suggests that Western society’s is “excessively moralistic and punitive” toward pedophiles. Gardner maintains that “the Draconian punishments meted out to pedophiles go far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.” The current prohibition of sex between adults and children is an “overreaction” which Gardner traces to the Jews.
Organizations such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) spread Gardner’s theory like wildfire, training judges, custody evaluators and social workers to disbelieve mothers and children when they report abuse, and worse – separate them as punishment. And what better way to enable pedophilia and other human rights violations than remove the mother as the child’s most natural and fervent protector?
One need only look at a mama bear with her cubs as a prime example of the nature of mothers (and what happens when you mess with them).
PAS opened up a Pandora’s box of corruption – What better way to torture a mother than take away her child? To run a Kids for Cash racket? To distract and control women?
Men’s rights groups are intent upon resurrecting Lord Hale’s Law and the Rule of Thumb, which resonates with the antiquated notion of women and children as chattel.
Mothers are persecuted and marginalized without a legitimate basis, trying to protect their children. Victims may flee to another state with their child(ren) for protection, then face kidnapping charges of whom she bore and nurtured. In actuality, what the mother is doing is self-defense, as self defense includes the defense of others. Public policy on domestic violence states that the mother should not face repercussion, however despite this being the 21st century, mothers are vilified by the court for running off with “his property.” Family court proceedings, though considered civil, are in actuality, quasi-criminal where the mother is selectively prosecuted. This also speaks to Miranda rights.
Child Support and Financial Gaslighting
It is a truth universal, that men do not want to pay child support. It is not uncommon for mother and child(ren) to be denied proper child support in order to bring about bankruptcy of the mother, thus placing them in an untenable financial predicament, then claim she is financially unstable, and give custody to the monied spouse or partner.
It is not uncommon for the judge and father’s attorney to collude in hiding financial information or tweak a financial picture to benefit the male, even when tax returns clearly show otherwise. This is financial gaslighting and is absolutely illegal. In some cases, judges go so far as to order the mother or wife to unwittingly commit insurance fraud by ordering her to amend tax returns and lie to health and car insurance companies, placing her in an untenable predicament.
There are father’s rights organizations, backed by Fatherhood.gov, where men can “donate” items such as cars and boats bought with marital funds, which sets up the bribe. These financial manipulation networks help men evade taxes, circumvent paying money to a soon-to-be ex, and predetermine the outcome of the case.
Wall Streeters are most apt to engage in this racket, employing methodologies concurrent with the 1991 book Screw the Bitch: Divorce Tactics for Men by Dick Hart and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War as popularized by Gordon Gecko’s “Greed is good” phraseology in the 1987 film Wall Street.
This idolization mixed with the greed of the family court system, has resulted in the degradation of human decency and phenomenal financial losses of those affected by Ponzi schemes, foreclosure fraud, and family court fraud and racketeering in violation of the RICO Act of 1972.
Corruption and Social Engineering are nothing new
Don’t assume everyone knows the truth or rather, wants to know it. One of the most common misconceptions is that courts don’t take children away from the mother unless she’s unfit. This is an absolute myth. The reason for this is that the family court crisis is largely absent from the media. Why? Because every media outlet has a legal department acting on behalf of the legal community, not the public interest, advising reporters not to cover family court corruption, and instilling the fear of being sued, despite First Amendment protection of the freedom of the press.
Hitler wrote, “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” – Mein Kampf
Juvenal wrote, “Who will guard the guards themselves?” – Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–8)
Corruption and moral turpitude are running rampant in the family courts. The interests of children should be of paramount importance, but have given way to an abomination of a cottage industry exploiting children for profit and bankrupting the American public. You may wonder how this affects you if you don’t have children, however as you will see, it affects all of us because our civil and constitutional rights as a whole are being destroyed. It is happening in family courts across America, the implications of which are pivotal to the future of this country.