The Family Court Model

T he Famil y Cour t Mode l: Mothers Submit to the Father or

Face Losing the Children

“In what they have in common, they are equal. Where they differ, they are not comparable. A perfect woman and a perfect man ought not to resemble each other in mind any more than in looks, and perfection is not susceptible of more or less. In the union of the sexes each contributes equally to the common aim, but not in the same way. From this diversity arises the first assignable difference in the moral relations of the two sexes. One ought to be active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must necessarily will and be able; it suffices that the other put up little resistance. Once this principle is established, it follows that woman is made specially to please man.” –Rousseau, Emile The illusion of equal rights used to camouflage extreme injustice is not a new trick. The above quote was written in the eighteenth century, before feminism forged the rights that women enjoy today. Whilst women’s rights are now ingrained within our laws and inclusive as a human right, there is still a prevalent danger that society may fall into dark altogether on women and girls, if the work done behind the scenes is not seen for what it truly is: a massive attempt to turn back the clock to a time where only men were seen and heard. Men and women are engaging in not only the most deceitful, but one of the lowest acts of all: Holding the children for ransom. The ransom is not in the form of money either; it is either the mother loses her independence or the children. He can beat her; the children and no one would know or care. With their constant campaigns that undermine services designed to protect women and children from such things; she is on her own again. With many fundamentalist groups aligned with father’s rights, they have chipped away at the laws that once protected her from becoming forced into motherhood and marriage. The illusion that a woman is free from marriage if she chooses is what adds to the trauma of rape victims. Many human rights agencies advocate well on the behalf of eastern countries that have little or no rights for women so I won’t got there in this article. I am referring to western countries such as United States, United Kingdom and Australia. In these countries, fathers have not only been able to stop abortions after a rape, but also acquire some form of custody of the child. She has no rights as to whether she can be distanced from the man who violated her body. Like every other women, she is dehumanized if she does not obey the father’s commands. The family court has evolved into tool for men to punish women if they have objected, spoke out against child abuse or

violence. It has become a place that actively reduces her to the vacant women described in Rousseau’s work. If she does not object, she is awarded with seeing her children. With divorce being a growing trend, the population that accesses the court is enough to leave societies trends wounded with inequality and spawn replications of this behavior into mainstream culture. There are many players taking a hand in not only tearing down the rights of women, but also her child’s right to have a mother in their lives, free from the coercive practices that undermine their quality of life and liberty to be free from poverty and abuse. The media has had a great monopoly upon the perception of equality in family law and often write low grade articles that deprive the reader of an objective view on father’s rights. In reality, the situation for mothers and children are far worse than can be imagined. In America where Fathers rights are more powerful, 70% of mothers have not only lost custody to the men that beat them – there are countless of murder suicides committed by fathers and even that is camouflaged as the mothers fault and a need for an enforced marriage contract. The Family Court has also become a place thriving with pedophile supportive philosophies such as, “Parent Alienation Syndrome” and “false Memory Syndrome”. Despite Psychological associations not accepting these terms and excluding it from the diagnostic and statistical manual, the impact of these labels have thrived. The court of course, more than often refers it as a “behavior” rather than of a syndrome, but often punishing the children for speaking out against horrific crimes against them. They are often sent to the abuser and the mother is made out to be crazy, simply for mentioning distress or concern for the child. Child protection agencies seldom help with bringing the perpetrator to justice and often refuse to get involved when there is custody proceedings. The mother and the child are often on their own to acquire evidence. In this process, lacking the skills of investigation, medical expertise and forensic analysis, they are heavily burdened and easily ridiculed by the way the investigation is handled. Family Courts often deny that these things occur, but many children’s rights and women’s rights advocates have spoken out against them for not taking out the procedure in ensuring the child’s safety. The information that highlights the large amount of evidence in negligence is even at a professional, shady and layered with ties that promote a great lack of transparency and accountability within its institution.

“These 'new' principles of family law compel, and are intended to compel, former wives to continue to live out the mother role as constructed by Rousseau. Former wives are not only responsible

for most of the actual labor of caring for children as opposed to caring about them, but also, and far more controversially, for the emotional labor of sustaining the relationship between the father and his children. In this way, it' is hoped, mothers will be persuaded to induce fanner husbands and partners to remain involved fathers, thus maximizing the likelihood that fathers will remain attached to families.” Mothers in Law laying Down for the fathers again – Hecate With most key stakeholders holding the belief that somehow the patriarchal family will cure all breakdowns and thus holding the mother responsible for the fathers behavior, has been nothing but a turn for the worst for separated families. In the late 70s it was mostly fathers who were abducting the children, now the majority is mothers with the highest reason being domestic violence according to an international social services agency. When a mother is on the run, the media often try to portray her as “mentally unwell” or “selfish” for leaving with the children. In some cases mothers have been able to come forward about why they ran and often its because the Family Court and child protection failed to protect them. One of the first Americans to be accepted as an asylum seeker in Netherlands was a Holly Ann Collins. She had arrived at the airport with a suitcase full of documents that proved the history of abuse and the systematic failure in protecting them. She was then granted asylum. Years later, she returned to United States to watch her daughter go to college. Her daughter had campaigned online presenting all of the court documents that proved the systematic failure and also the way she was treated by the court staff as a child. After much campaigning, Holly Ann Collins was ordered a community services order on which she chose to assist domestic violence victims. This did not prevent father’s rights groups from attacking their plights in a low attempt to persuade the public that their accounts were untrue. Holly Ann Collins is considered by family law experts as “lucky” to have received such a light sentence, yet she was defying a law that violated her and the children’s human rights. The culture of the courts reflects the similar behaviors’ to a perpetrator of intimate partner violence that if their victim were to “disobey” them, the retaliation price is often very high. A perpetrator usually acts more in a thug like way to keep the women well under control, whereas a court judge will be constrained enough not to inflict physical abuse, but the punishment usually involves isolation and secondary abuse.

In United Kingdom, they targeted the young and defenseless. They adopted out thousands of babies because of reasons that don’t justify, but a motivation to receive five thousand dollars per child. One mother was breastfeeding her baby, when a group of people ripped the baby off her. She went to the police station because she thought it was a crime. She discovered that it was the family court so driven to receive this bonus that they had “forgot” to file an order. Australia, a place guilty of stealing thousands of aboriginal children in the name of “god”, but really meant to “cleanse” the race of a beautiful culture is doing this again but on a larger front, involving many races, but targeting one gender: women.