The decision to report child abuse, especially when it involves members of the legal, medical, and government institutions meant to protect children, is a dangerous act of defiance against a deeply corrupt system. The Rubio case, and many others like it, highlight the growing crisis in family courts—where abuse is not just ignored, but actively facilitated by those with the power to intervene.
The decision to report child abuse, false claims of domestic violence, and the exposure of multigenerational severe mental illness, along with poly-addictions among one parent and that parent’s collateral family—who align to take custody of a child being exploited for medical conditions that do not exist—is a recipe for considerable conflict. In family court cases where custody disputes involve charges of physical, sexual, or medical abuse, complex psychiatric diagnoses such as Munchausen by Proxy demand substantial psychiatric expertise.
When courts reflexively deny the existence of abuse and attribute allegations to parental alienation, they enable ongoing medical and psychological torture. Those who demand an investigation into genuine abuse face severe retaliation.
The Tragic Case of Grayson Briggs: A Murder to Suppress Evidence
The murder of Grayson Briggs in Oregon exemplifies the horrific consequences of judicial negligence. His father, having recently won access to his son after six months of separation, was set to present irrefutable evidence of the mother’s multiple forms of abuse. This evidence, previously suppressed by the family court, would have likely resulted in a custody transfer. However, before the court could acknowledge the truth, the mother murdered Grayson’s father—ensuring that the damning evidence would never be heard.
This tragic case highlights the devastating impact of Richard Gardner’s discredited theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). In this instance, the court framed the abusive mother as the victim of alienation while dismissing overwhelming proof of her heinous crimes. By doing so, the system protected itself, perpetuating a cycle of abuse and enabling the financial exploitation of vulnerable families through federal Title IV-D and IV-E funding.
Silencing Advocates: The Targeting of Experts Who Expose Abuse
Defenders of abused children—whether parents, legal professionals, or medical experts—routinely become targets of state actors who vilify those demanding the introduction of legitimate evidence. Financially challenged families face insurmountable barriers in securing qualified experts to evaluate, diagnose, and testify on their behalf. Even when experts do step forward, they frequently find their credentials attacked, reputations threatened, and their ability to testify curtailed by biased court-appointed professionals. Judicial discretion, meant to serve justice, instead facilitates prejudice and enables abusers to maintain custody of their victims.
A glaring example of this judicial corruption is the Jackson v. Jackson case (Chicago), in which a court aggressively sided with a sexual predator father, aided by court-appointed Guardian ad Litem Lester Barclay and child advocate Corey Blalock. These individuals deliberately suppressed police body camera evidence of child sexual abuse. Judge Maritza Martinez further obstructed justice, prolonging the case and allowing medical experts—who had never examined the child—to issue fraudulent diagnoses accusing the protective mother of Munchausen by Proxy.
A Profit-Driven System: Judicial Collusion in Family Court
Family courts have devolved into breeding grounds for judicial collusion, where attorneys, evaluators, and court-appointed guardians profit from the destruction of families. Judges manipulate Title IV funding streams to redirect federal aid into state coffers, all while condemning children to the custody of abusers. This corruption has given rise to a lucrative industry built on the suffering of children, cloaked under the guise of judicial discretion.
The FCVFC has documented how family courts have evolved since the 1980s into profit-driven entities that systematically favor abusers. At the core of this corruption is the debunked and widely discredited theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), introduced by Dr. Richard Gardner. Gardner’s theories, which minimize and dismiss allegations of child sexual abuse, have been weaponized by attorneys and court officers who stand to benefit from denying protective parents access to their children.
Under this system, the accused abuser is swiftly exonerated without due process, and the protective parent is vilified. Instead of investigating abuse claims through discovery and evidentiary review, courts employ procedural shortcuts that dismiss allegations outright—condemning victims to further harm.
The Briggs and Rubio Cases: Institutional Failure at Its Worst
The Briggs case exposes the systemic malpractice within family courts. Court-appointed evaluator Jan Falk, an unqualified individual, publicly discussed intimate case details, violating confidentiality and exposing the family to public ridicule. Despite her gross misconduct and lack of credentials, Falk’s recommendations were upheld—resulting in devastating consequences for the child and protective family members.
The Rubio case exemplifies the systemic malpractice within family courts. In this case, the court-appointed evaluator, Jan Falk, was not only unqualified but openly discussed intimate details of the case in public settings, violating confidentiality and exposing the family to public ridicule. Despite her gross misconduct and lack of credentials, Falk’s recommendations were accepted by the court—resulting in devastating consequences for the child and protective family members.
These cases highlight how courts manipulate expert testimony, elevate unqualified professionals, and retaliate against those who challenge the system. The Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Court (FCVFC) has demanded Falk’s immediate dismissal, along with a full review of all those responsible for appointing her.
Weaponizing the Courts Against Truth-Tellers
Rather than intervening to protect abused children, courts systemically punish those who expose corruption. Judges, attorneys, and court-appointed evaluators operate within a framework designed not to protect children, but to protect the court system itself.
The American Bar Association (ABA) and judicial training programs have actively promoted Gardner’s discredited theories, training attorneys on how to manipulate parental alienation claims to discredit legitimate abuse allegations.
Judicial discretion has become a tool of suppression, allowing courts to hide behind sealed records and procedural barriers while punishing those who expose misconduct. Experts who testify against the prevailing corruption find themselves discredited, sanctioned, or barred from further participation.
The legal profession, rather than upholding its duty to justice, has become complicit in the trafficking of children into the hands of abusers.
A Call to Action
The Briggs and Rubio cases, and countless others like them, demand immediate intervention. Family court corruption is not an isolated issue—it is a national crisis. Judicial misconduct, legal malpractice, and the silencing of whistleblowers must be met with swift and decisive action:
- End Judicial Immunity in Family Courts: Judges must be held accountable when they exceed their legal authority or act with willful disregard for due process.
- Expose and Discredit Pseudoscience in Court Proceedings: The continued use of Parental Alienation Syndrome as a legal defense must be abolished.
- Protect Whistleblowers and Experts: Medical and legal professionals who expose abuse should be shielded from retaliation for fulfilling their ethical duties.
- Demand Transparency: Family court proceedings should not be shielded from public scrutiny. Secrecy only benefits abusers and those who profit from the destruction of families.
The FCVFC will continue to fight against these atrocities and push for real accountability in family courts. The systemic abuse of power must be brought to light, and those responsible must be held accountable. Justice demands it.
