Attempting to Charter a Course Between Scylla and Charybdis, Protective Parents End Up Crashing on the Rocks

There are a series of judges across the country whose records of autocratic violation of litigants’ rights follow a notable pattern, associated with transfer of children into the custody of child abusers who engage in particularly obsessed violent perversions, child isolation, and punishment of children in their grip. Protective parents are subject to threats, intimidation, and coercion to cooperate with obscene orders isolating children in the custody of abusers in order to hide the abuses to which children are subject.

Attempting to charter a course between Scylla and Charybdis, protective parents who make the judgment that maintaining contact with their children even in the course of them being subjected to terrible abuse is better for the children than not having the parent present at all.

While the position of standing silent when having knowledge of terrible abuse is entirely unacceptable, the manner in which confrontation and prosecution of these crimes are undertaken is the subject of work engaged in by the experts of the FCVFC.

Under no circumstances do we support silence in the face of unconscionable harm to children.

The manner in which action is taken to expose abuse is subject to careful planning and strategy. However, in the course of our work we are experiencing interactions with parents who are so overwhelmingly intimidated by the threats and actions of thoroughly corrupt judges who are able to act with impunity against children and so threaten the parents that they refuse to cooperate without any form of exposure of horrendous abuse and remain silent, and so, in effect, work in collusion and support of the abuser.

The critical threat to the parent who witnesses such abuse and fails to report such abuse is that the parent, when that abuse is exposed, will be viewed by criminal authorities as being in collusion and will face criminal charges themselves.

Further, the compromise of any relationship with the child and wish for repair of the child’s capacity to trust or to experience the parent as a source of protection is someplace between dubious and useless and hopeless as to prospects of repair.

The isolation that family court judges empowered with discretion and the ability to file court orders that require scholarly legal confrontation in the form of appeals and federal complaints or federal civil rights actions, places vulnerable subjects in a difficult position, because the majority of family court attorneys are ill equipped academically, intellectually, and characterologically to undertake critical legal writing.

In our experience we see many attorneys willing to take on these projects, charging enormous fees, and yet who are incapable of the capacity and training to venture into this area of legal expertise.

The general public is not equipped to understand or evaluate the competence of attorneys to see the types of interventions that are required to confront in these cases for litigation and prosecution the issues that require address and redress of the crimes committed by judges and their orders that endanger children.

The failure of these judges to engage in the process of discovery is a conscious decision on their parts which is largely based on arrogance and hubris, based often on a purported adherent to the concept of parental alienation, much addressed in the news.

Parental alienation is a fraudulent debunked concept put forth by a forensic psychiatrist who sought to find a defense for a population of men who sought his representation as a forensic psychiatrist, seeking defense against accusations of engagement in incest/child abuse and endangerment. This is a concept which was adopted and promoted by amoral legal practitioners and a bar association that was willing to compromise client rights with the promise of winning cases on a false narrative, thus trading children’s welfare and safety for financial gain and professional popularity. The concept of parental alienation that was promoted in the 1970s has developed into a cottage industry promoted through the family court system and has created multiple cohorts invested in promoting a false narrative that suggests child sexual abuse does not exist and children are either liars, brainwashed, or incapable of producing reliable evidence that can be brought to a court to defend and support accusations of harm.

The specious arguments promoted and blithely put forth in truncated form have allowed a conveyor-belt style of court that sentences children to lives of endless unfolding suffering.

Speaking in general terms about parental alienation and family court corruption and abuse is not an adequate form of communication for the public to understand the depth and breadth of harm perpetrated by judges and their court appointed factotum. Therefore the FCVFC has undertaken to report in some detail individual cases and the actions of individual judges, reporting with some factual detail the magnitude of criminality and venality associated with these cases. The public needs to be aware of the existence of these judges and the patterns of the intense malevolence and destructiveness of their rulings. They are in fact emblematic of a pattern of family court corruption that has become a pandemic plague secreted in the functioning of family courts across the country.

 Corruption that authorizes and enables crimes like these to be committed under the color of law is facilitated by the financial largess afforded under federal financial aid funds regulating state funds for aid programs for needy and dependent children.

The well-meaning and exceptionally beneficial intent of these programs has been captured by state courts and the Department of Revenue that controls funds for custody, child support payments, and other sources of child support payments in custody litigation but also has access to federal funding driven to state coffers to benefit children defined as “in need of special protection.”

When a court defines a child as needing protection as a result of parental abuse, access to federal funding that is not disclosed by back bench manipulations factors into custody decisions that enable the definition of abused children to be defined not by law and evidence but by a court system that plays fast and loose with charges of abuse brought by parents in custody litigation.

The Richard Gardner, MD, debunked concept of parental alienation has been instigated and generated into a multi-phased cottage industry supported by so-called experts who have profited from it. This concept was introduced to the marketplace in the early 1970s through the writings of Richard Gardner as a forensic psychiatrist seeking to find support for his defense of a series of a men who were charged with incest in criminal court. This theory then became adopted as a means of expediting complex custody cases and finding a one-size-fits-all fabricated conveyor belt of a solution not only to dispose of complex litigation but also to then weaponize the concept in a manner that generated fees for lawyers and related experts.

The popularity of this false narrative as a result of its commercial value has taken on a life of its own.

The court system that was at one time struggling with complex issues of law and the intimate interpersonal conflicts that arose in family courts which then reasonably supported the mechanism of judicial discretion, then injected the propensity of inclined judges to take advantage of discretion which has led, over the period of the 1970s to today, to weaponization of the incentives of discretion to develop into a full criminal enterprise where judges can not only dismiss charges of egregious abuse but also deny their existence and capitalize on what has become the capacity of state agencies to profit from custody transfers by redefining victims as abusers, accusations of abuse as lies, and children as empty vessels having no ability to communicate the horrors to which they are subject.

The judges who have become appointed or elected to the family courts have increasingly over the years taken on the character of those who conform, agree with, and are willing to function in a family court which is more akin to a criminal enterprise than to a court of public protection and interest in the welfare and protection of families and children. That evolution between the 1990s and today’s court culture, asserted to contain judges whose pattern of transfer of children into the hands of abusers and willingness to consciously and directly facilitate that transfer, is the subject of intense scrutiny, investigation, and drive to prosecution of specific judges.

Several of these judges have been profiled in articles on this website and will be further profiled in articles to come.

Share This: