The court system has become a farm-to-market processing center in which court litigants find themselves enmeshed in a system that is dedicated to the re-allotment of family wealth. This frightening trend looks to the most stable source of revenue resources, which is often the protective parent.
If the protective parent is dependent on public services such as EBT and Medicaid, this can be the trigger for government services to contact the abusive parent for child support. Also when the protective parent files a protective order to keep an abuser away from the child, but the abuser is called into court to provide child support, then the protective parent and the abuser are thrown together. Those who have sought help, protection from, and independence from an abuser then find themselves jettisoned into contact with that abuser.
Then the absent or abusive parent may decide to pursue custody, recognizing that custody will not only relieve the absent/abusive parent from providing child support, but can actually provide this absent/abusive parent with a source of funding through the child support that the court orders from the protective parent.
The fraudulent parental alienation theory is weaponized to justify this parent in seeking further benefits associated with custody, such as the secondary gain of revenge against a partner who fled from an abuser.
In this farm-to-market assembly-line process, the protective parent is stripped of custody and then desperately seeks to have contact with the child who is in the hands of the abuser. This makes the protective parent vulnerable to the blackmail and threats of the court, which assumes massive and overwhelming power over assets, property, and income by dictating the flow of funds through child support payments.
The court will exercise a stranglehold on the protective parent as the child support enforcement agencies are able to immediately file to gain access to liquidate bank accounts and levy liens on property and whatever assets are available.
Noncompliance can even result in stripping of one’s driver’s license, with notifications to law enforcement and the insurance company, not because of any criminal activity but because of civil issues related to payment of child support. This can be life threatening to one who depends on driving for income and family care.
Thus the flow of child support funds through the court system becomes the driving force in custody decisions, drastically altering the protections and support that protective parents and their children should be able to expect.
Many child support enforcement programs, under whatever title or statute, have become elaborate and lucrative sources of funds for the state. This has a completely malignant impact on decisions made around custody, as those decisions are made based on cash flow rather than on the best interest of the child.
The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts is exploring the number and nature of the recipients for these funds, including judges and their minions.
The cash flow incentive helps us to make sense of the homogeneous nature of courts throughout the entire country: everywhere engaging in the thoroughly dangerous process of seriously deranged custody transfers of children into the hands of the abusers.