Why is there not mass protest in the streets, screaming from the rafters?
This article intends to begin to pose answers as to why there are atrocities related to the illegal separation of children from their protective parents.
When protective parents attempt to speak of their unimaginably inexplicable situations related to family court processes that illegally have removed children and transferred custody into the isolation of abusers, the most frequent response indicates some form of disbelief… “You must have done something for this to happen… You must not have hired the right lawyer…”
Responses of this nature are humiliating, embarrassing, and guilt-provoking to the protective parent. We can continue ad infinitum to express the protective parent’s experience of shaming, guilt, and self-reproach, which is responded to by the parent’s retreat into the woodwork of isolation, communing only with those of like experience or worse, retreating into despair, hopelessness, and inaction.
In recent months, there has been a greater-than-ever presence of reporting on protective parent suicides, assisted suicides of parents dying from fatal illnesses that can be posited as being induced by the trauma imposed by family court corruption. Furthermore, it has been reported that family court corruption has led to violent crimes committed by children, as well as the murder of children by abusive parents. (For additional information on this topic, please refer to the article on our website involving collateral damages of family court custody corruption.)
The sane, literate, articulate letter written by a father who set himself on fire on the steps of a courthouse highlights the raw authenticity of rage and grief of situations where actions of such magnitude, such sinful, reprehensible actions are taken against innocent children. These are acts that never should have been allowed if the attending courts had resolved the civil actions. These acts of aggression are predictable, understood, and are often ignored by the courts.
The objective of this article, the first of more to follow, is to begin addressing the underlying issues related to personal responsibility/accountability and understanding of resistances/defenses and pathologies that block health actions on one’s own and society’s best interests. The public at large, citizens—not in denial, but in ignorance—walk blindly into a forum that they must attend to resolve a civil matter that evolves into a criminal enterprise that engulfs the lives of innocent children and their protective parents.
The “star chamber” known as the family court system across the United States is not depicted in the press or confronted in meaningful litigation and prosecution of judges, as well as a litany of court actors, as the criminal enterprise and facilitators of child trafficking. Through the family court system, children from protective parents are transferred into the custody and isolation of documented abusers. The transfer of children is facilitated by threats and intimidation against protective parents via the implementation of financial sanctions, jailing, and abuse of psychiatric examinations that are used to certify defamation and fraud and implemented by state agencies such as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, and the Department of Revenue.
While psychological evaluations are regarded as hearsay testimony, thus codifying diagnoses of those impaled by the “confidential” report, the protective parent client has limited or no access to such reports that may be replete with false information exposed only after fatal damage is exacted. As a result of these actions, family courts across the country have evolved into the embodiment of a “star chamber circus performance criminal enterprise.” In many instances, this embodiment has become more pronounced because of the years of ever-increasing visible violations of due process and unequal access to courts for litigants caught up in the “smoke and mirror” accusations related to the controversial concept of parental alienation.
The process of silencing masses of the public who must access the courts related to civil matters, divorce, and custody proceedings is necessary to move their lives along, to gain freedom, liberty, and safety for themselves and their children. This process creates a captive audience subject to what has become an autocratic, bureaucratic, money-making bureaucracy administered by state agencies that have no oversight.
Articles in the press about “cash for kids,” judges sending children to jail for resisting custody orders, and police removing children from homes of protective parents by court order (refer to website article “A Court Order and the Cops”) often fail to report that the cops appear en masse with drawn guns to remove little children and teens from their homes or intercept them in court, seizing them unceremoniously and abruptly removing them from the parent whom the child begged to remain with.
Multiple videotapings, recordings, and detailed press articles describe the agony—shock and awe that lasts moments upon hearing or reading—before the observer moves on in real-time. There is no public outcry beyond Facebook postings offering advice, support, and commiseration by peers who share the suffering and who validate the interpersonal experiences and can attest to family court fraud, criminality, on and on…
The inner circle of suffering does not penetrate the granite wall of denial of clearly unfolding family dismantling. The ever-increasing presence in the press detailing acts of children murdering parents in grotesque manners—where the detailing of the Menendez brothers’ murders was subdued by comparison. These cases, however, are increasingly making their presence known in the press, which reports grisly murders committed by children who are subjects of unconscionable torture by individual parents or parents who act in concert with each other and engage in ongoing vicious abuse.
Answering the Question:
Why is there no public outcry?
Reaction formation is a defense of denial.
Faced with shocking, frightening reality, suppression of being forced to view that which is overwhelming, and activation of flight impulses from confronting or repudiating overwhelming power and authority, this impulse to back down, to withdraw from confrontation, is especially powerful when the necessity of such confrontation seems counterintuitive, even irrational.
Interpretations that address denial of unpleasant truths to act in the service of denial constitute a regression in the service of managing overwhelming anxiety and present terror.
Creation of “alternate facts,” such as the theories embraced by Gardner, represent lies in the service of justifying and engaging in depravity, including the grooming of children for sex and the justification of raping and sodomizing children. Further, such behaviors are supported by a depraved characterization of little children as liars and sexual predators in their own right (see the article on the website—”Gardner in His Own Words…provides shade for those who wish for and seek the comfort of convenient ‘truths’”). This justification provides an off-ramp to engagement in an exhausting, threatening, and expensive adversarial process.
Over the years, the family law bar has evolved to accommodate the economic opportunities generated by the evolution of family court custody litigation. Lucrative bureaucratic, money-making collaboration opportunities were identified by state program agency developers through the flow of federal funds to the states. This monetary enrichment occurred as a result of federal grants based on support of domestic violence programs protecting women and children (refer to website articles on Title IV-D and Title IV-E).
The program of family separation has been weaponized by manipulating the definitions of “protective parent” and “abuser parent.” This manipulation was designed to create an instant pool of abuse accusations brought to the courts, thus eliminating the court’s struggle with what was and was not abuse. This “clouding” of the distinction between protective and abusive parents solved a diagnostic problem through the use of the “Gardner concept” that child sexual abuse does not exist.
