Family Court Corruption 2 seeks to speak to the evolution of the family court system as a product of a marketing publicity scheme which was generated to promote the private practice of a psychiatrist whose twisted, medically and scientifically unfounded personal theories captured the attention of the legal community (Bar Associations).
This concept which captured and empowered a defense by creating doubt and plausible deniability introduced a procedural tactic that significantly and fundamentally altered the conduct of custody litigation in family courts across the USA.
The collision of social mores queasiness expressed in the puritanical discomfort—related to issues of sex and violence within the family unit—found expression in the denial of the existence of such conflicts via the formulation of Richard Gardner, MD’s concept of Parental Alienation and the denial of the existence of incest as a crime.
This concept, that amorphously managed to provide a legal argument and structure to respond to issues of sex and violence, male / female imbalance of power and distribution of family assets, was implemented by the perfect storm of the unique structure of family courts. That storm being the broad powers of judges to substitute “judicial discretion” for legal practice that would demand evidence production and levels of expertise meant to protect privacy, dignity and confidentiality of litigants and children—a standard of legal practice which did not conform to the hearsay rules and flexibility which dominate family court proceedings.
Concepts related to plausible deniability, the introduction of complaints of sexual abuse interpreted to be a false claim meant to create a false advantage in the pursuit of seeking an unfair equity position on the part of the complainant were arguments holy embraced by the legal community Bar Associations across the country. The legal profession/ Bar association marketing mechanisms packaged courses and promoted conferences to that injected doubt and confusion in to an amorphous court system not structured with statutes and law that would properly limit the ability to inject fanciful scenarios, defamation, slander and the abundance of hearsay testimony allowed into the courtroom ether under the guise of judicial discretion as a factor of flexibility, governed by a “higher power “—the judge.
This marketing maneuver gave rise to permutations and alterations in the court process injecting unimagined avenues for abuse of process, procedural abuse, abuse of judicial discretion and an “old boys network” of influence and power.
The marketing empire that was created via the conference generating/ program development organization known as the AFCC – Affiliation of Family Court Conciliation ( *FN … ) provided a forum for interdisciplinary conferences attended by judges, lawyers, experts associated with custody litigation. These conferences cultivated a rich atmosphere for intellectual intercourse and creative problem resolution, at the same time creating a forum for generating conceptual maneuvers that injected arguments that effectively undermined scientific medical and psychiatric understanding of the human mind and body functioning, as well as character development, and that disputed diagnostic theories that have undermined properly vetted and approved assessment content.