The Rule of Law Part I

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense. – Andrew Lobaczewski

In the family courts of the US and Europe fathers and mothers are routinely set against each other with the children becoming emotionally crushed in the ensuing battle, should they have survived the initial abuse in the first place. As always, there appear to be valid cases on both sides of the male/female divide, though judging from the carnage that results, you would never know it. There are examples of mothers who have discovered that their spouse has been molesting their child and have taken the appropriate action through the courts to grant them sole legal and physical custody.

This has turned into a tragi-farce with the alleged abusers either getting unsupervised visitation rights and more frequently, full custody. Conversely, as a possible back-lash, we are seeing some fathers being denied access to their children based on out-of-date and unfair bureaucratic laws regardless of whether they have committed a crime. In effect, the laws are biased towards the mother in some courts and biased towards the father in others, according to the specifics of national law, cultural influences and widespread corruption. Indeed, family courts seem to be presenting the worst kinds of injustices in cases that are both complex and multifaceted.

In the US, by far the most reliable source of litigation is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in Denver. A recent study surveyed 9000 custody disputes in 12 family courts across the country. Only two percent involved child-sex-abuse charges.

Although this is certainly small it is known that the psychological footprint is very large indeed from those that do. Domestic physical abuse is highly likely to involve a percentage of sexual sadism which is often mistaken for a purely violent and aggressive display of anger. We can also know that cases such as these, while physical abuse is still being reported in greater number of cases, sexual abuse has a taboo that naturally restricts the number of cases reported not withstanding the likelihood of the charges making it to court. Even before they get to the courts they must be taken seriously by doctors or paediatricians. Increasingly, many health professionals fear child abuse cases due to the complex nature of the abuse claims. In the UK, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Professor Sir David Hall, told the Royal Society of Medicine that “recent high-profile cases in which doctors had been censured had undermined confidence in the regulatory authorities.” He believed that signs of abuse might go unreported until the indications were ‘all too obvious.’ Careers are apparently coming first. ¹

Allegations of sexual abuse, paedophilia and violence are more commonly made by mothers and can be voiced without challenge or a burden of proof. During the interim, access is denied and courts appear to accept accusations regardless of the possibility that this could be the product of hate and acrimony from an embattled relationship. If the father is innocent and when the claim is finally dropped, there is no penalty for making such a vindictive claim. By then the damage is done, which may partially account for the rise in father suicides relating to unfair agency payments and the ensuing custody battles. Though correlation does not immediately lead from causation, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father.² A divorce consultant stated: “It’s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.”³
 

Though the cases are compelling it could also be suggestive of a range of societal factors as the broader statistical picture implies. America is not Britain (not quite yet anyway) and a different set of influences produce the overall data yet the dynamic remains the same. For instance, in the UK each year, some 85,000 families with children fewer than 16 undergo divorce. The standard aftermath includes disputes over how much the “non-resident parent” should see his children, which is generally the father. Children First, a 1998 Government paper, indicates that 40 percent of separated mothers admit to thwarting contact leaving fathers losing connection with their children within two years of separation or divorce.⁴ According to one reputable English solicitor I spoke to: “Some 80,000 parents issue proceedings a year, many of them fathers seeking reasonable contact with their children. A common outcome is permanent severance.” 

With family Court welfare services providing under-trained personnel to evaluate and report on the welfare of children “Normal family men are routinely assessed as unfit to have significant contact with their children; normal children are routinely sentenced to years of ‘relationship-building programme[s]’ to condition them to withstand visits from ordinary Dads.”⁵
 

The patterns of bias vary from country to country with injustices on both sides, with judges, court procedures and their agencies predominantly to blame. Many fathers cry foul and highlight the shared parenting concept that is so lacking in family courts. Yet this shared parenting is of little value if one of those parents is a closet molester. What is without question, courts - throughout America in particular - are failing children and often needlessly breaking up families. The systems are not only ill-equipped to deal with the subtleties and nuances of lengthy child abuse cases but bureaucracy and delays mean that judges are often forced to speed up the process rather than let the case proceed in a measured way. In the words of one Colorado attorney: “If we ever sat down to design the worst possible system that protects the smallest number of children, it would look a lot like the family courts look today.” ⁶ But there is much more to this than just a back-log of paper work. 

In Kristen Lombardi’s award-winning article “Custodians of Abuse”⁷ she researched the background behind family court custody battles, interviewing almost 25 experts in custody litigation. Lombardi offered some pertinent reasons as to why these courts are failing children and parents, contributing to a further layer of what amounts to long-term and state-sponsored emotional abuse. She found that family courts “...do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims. They rely on family advocates called guardians Ad Litem (GALs), whose charge is to investigate allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect and to represent the best interests of the children in disputed custody cases. More often than not, they are licensed psychologists or social workers. Sometimes, they are attorneys.” 

Ad items they have their own individual areas of expertise which do not however qualify them to act as evaluators of the highly sensitive problem of child abuse. With the spread of Kinseyian sexology and Freudian psychoanalysis as the platform for most evaluations, the interviews, assessments and judgments are routinely carried out without the necessary qualifications. What is more they are taken as fact and relied on to the detriment of all child abuse victims. 

Family courts are now a law unto themselves. Judges can operate as mini-dictators where their opinions, beliefs, stereotyping and gender bias take precedent over the evidence which has shown to be true in case after case, including “judges…hold [ing] hearings in which important rulings are made with only one party present (called ex parte hearings); such hearings can violate basic constitutional rights of due process.”⁸ The courts do not have juries nor a mandated legal representation, so that the well established law for the rich and the law for the poor is reinforced by the inner circle of Elite opinion that is routinely set up to serve itself. The result of all this appears to be the reverse of the popular belief that mothers are favoured and consistently obtain custody rights in abuse cases. An extensive 1996 report from the American Judges Association backed up these findings called “Domestic Violence and the Courtroom,” which showed that “wife batterers and child abusers convince family-court officials that their ex-wives are ‘unfit’ or ‘undeserving’ of sole custody in roughly 70 percent of contested custody battles.”⁹¹⁰ Nevertheless, what is seldom mentioned is the fact that when there was a fight over the children, “…fathers won primary or joint custody more than 70 percent of the time — whether or not there was a history of spousal or child abuse…”

Little has changed in 13 years since the report. However, keeping track and sourcing reliable statistics regarding battery is fraught with difficulty. It is a high probability that this form of abuse is a significant factor in many cases. Another study by respected social scientist Murray A. Straus, appears to show that “Family conflict studies, without exception, show about equal rates of assault by men and women.” (Keep in mind that there is considerable discrepancy as to what constitutes “violence.”) Straus mentions that though women score highly on physical violence: “Crime studies, without exception, show much higher rates of assault by men, often by as much as 90 percent.”¹¹ This may account for the quote that “every 15 seconds a woman is battered by their [intimate] partner in the United States.”¹² The latter conclusion needs to be kept in mind that the crime of assault against women is overwhelmingly the province of the male. 

The extent of husband battery is also underestimated. Men do not usually report their violent wives to police. Similarly, children do not report their violent mothers to police. Meantime, women are far more likely to report men to relevant authorities. Straus believes that: “…neither side can give up their position because it would be tantamount to giving up deeply held moral commitments and professional roles. I conclude that society needs both perspectives. Neither side should give up their perspective. Rather they should recognize the circumstances to which each applies.”¹³

Currently, this recognition is constantly buried by the very same systems which pretend to facilitate mediation and justice. The “circumstances” could be said to be the carefully prepared social petri-dish where malignant strains of ponerization causes fathers and mothers to be set against each other. At the moment, mothers and fathers in different ways are undoubtedly falling under the weight of the dominant male pathology which in turn, will always favour the system itself. 

Lombardi’s research highlights the persistent patterns of family courts that seem to refuse to believe in the mothers’ claims that their children have been sexually or physically assaulted (keeping in mind that physical assault can be sadistic battery in disguise) despite enormous amounts of evidence from child protection workers. Like academic apologists for paedophile “rights” we have the same pattern appearing in the form of fathers rights. Many fathers unquestionably do have legitimate grievances to answer, but many of the cases thus far point to clear injustices being perpetrated in a systematic way against mothers and their children, where “Women are being routinely punished and abused if they bring up child-sexual-abuse allegations in the family courts.”¹⁴

Predators, PAS and “Medicalization”

Mothers are also forced to do battle with a spurious A new mental disorder called “Parental-Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) coined by Richard Gardner in 1987, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University and which has made justice in family courts even harder to come by.¹⁵ PAS has increased the persecution of children and mothers by giving a get out clause to abusive fathers and stepfathers alike. 

As with all good disinformation and para-logistical campaigns that are designed to subvert constructive pathways, PAS has elements of truth and cases to match. The theory works on the premise that vindictive mothers turn their children against their fathers and lie about abuse in order to exact revenge on the former partners and/or to obtain the upper hand in custody disputes. Though the late Gardner gave no scientific basis for his syndrome and was discredited by many mental health professionals, it remains a potent weapon for the abuser and those interested in speeding up legal back logs. That is not to say that such manipulative dynamics cannot take place, just as there are fathers who also victimized. We must also bear in mind Gardner’s belief that many different types of human sexual behavior, such as paedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia (sex with corpses), zoophilia (sex with animals), coprophilia (sex involving defecation) are seen as having species survival value and thus do “…not warrant being excluded from the list of the “so-called natural forms of human sexual behavior.” He also advocated that the removal of a paedophile parent from the home “should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile” and that mothers do not choose litigation, that they stay with the boyfriend or husband who carried out the abuse. Gardner’s bias is clearly evident. Statistics and case studies suggest that rather than contributing to a constructive discourse, it is actively helping abusers remain free. The end result, in one victim’s words, is to “…pathologize the moms and turn attention away from the kids.”

A dangerous “medicalization” of the law can also be personified in the form of “interactional assessment” which uses intense observation by experts who are trained to look for signs of abuse. Advocates of this method believe: “validation of the abuse does not depend on the verbal disclosure of the child, confession of the perpetrator, or the conviction of the other parent that abuse has occurred. It depends on gathering and sifting through information from multiple sources.” ¹⁶ While working well in a classroom for a variety of different criteria, it is still an entirely unproven method of evaluation. Despite this, it is still widely used in the courts. This represents a massive oversimplification and assumption regarding assessments of this kind. There is no evidence that behaviour cues can be used to determine whether abuse happened.


Subtle signs of anxiety can be attributed to a host of different reasons, not least being present at the interview itself and most certainly being present in the courtroom. The existence of such psychiatric and legalistic onslaughts has caused countless children to become easy targets for further manipulations leading to further emotional trauma. Why would the child molester worry about going to court when he has so much confusion around him? In his domain, he is the master actor and manipulator, leading a double life and relying on the trauma-induced child he abused to complete the proceedings. After all, if he can be in the same courtroom as the victim – all the better. He can intimidate the child further and induce yet more traumas, causing the testimony to be less than believable. This is the psychology legacy of the last 50 years: children are simply fabricating, that they should indeed be “seen but not heard.”

One specific book singing the praises of interactional assessment illustrates techniques including anatomical dolls and drawings to use as useful tools with no data or evidence to suggest that these techniques are even helpful. There are several drawings which the authors interpret as “signs,” of abuse such as missing ears, the absence of feet, and phallic shapes. References are sparse, case histories can be interpreted a multitude of ways and it serves as perfect example of how easily subjectivity – with the best of intentions – can lead to catastrophe. Meanwhile, the abuser, along with his lawyer is laughing all the way to freedom and the bank. With naive theories and Faustian bargains made by lawyers who pimp their principles for whoever pays the most, the attorney client privilege takes up the slack and banishes any other compelling evidence that may be offered. At the same time, psychotherapy - a useful tool in the hands of responsible professionals - is under attack from the US government. A colleague of psychiatrist Corey Hammond and co-author of Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law Professor Alan Scheflin of Santa Clara University Law School, is an expert on clinical and experimental research on hypnosis, memory and trauma treatment and their applications to the law system. In a recent interview he talked about the changing climate of psychotherapy and trauma assessment, where therapists are being used as channels for corruption where the erosion of stringent ethics and codes of conduct are replaced by the dollar while “the accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference” which then allows it to continue unhindered. Third party liability suits brought against therapists and the invasion of privacy and the autonomy of the therapist-patient relationship are some of the changes imposed by business and government:

A scheme in which physicians exercise principal control over decisions about the use of facilities, choice of treatment and determining what information should be disseminated to patients, has given way to a system in which competition and cost containment have become dividing forces, driving forces. Insurers and other large business entities exert great impact over treatment choices and hospitalization as well as selection of providers. […]

Unfortunately other professions and the uninformed have now stepped in to determine the standard of care. The standard of care being a legal standard is informed by good medical practice, but by being a legal standard, it can be manipulated by lawyers and propagandists and other people, and that is what has happened. 

Therefore it is necessary for the mental health profession to wrest back control of the standard of care from the avaricious lawyers that are in the process of changing it.¹⁷

Psychoptherapy is either co-opted or the therapists themselves are seduced by prestige, payments and propaganda. The unpleasant law was never about who is innocent or guilty but the profits that can be extracted from the bloody battles that follow. On many occasions disbelief and denial from psychologists with poorly applied evaluation techniques are enough to allow children to go home with their abuser. The following true case study illustrates this point. 

Picture a wealthy businessman, accused by his wife of committing sexual abuse against his four year old daughter. These become the grounds for the lengthy custody battle. Psychological evaluations of the man’s relationship towards his daughter show “…a very happy, spontaneous and positive relationship.” A history of sexual abuse is known by the psychologist but dismissed as irrelevant in court due to the man’s obvious disposition; his charm, amiability and more importantly - his status. While the court case is proceeding, the polygrapher with an excellent record is requested by the attorney defending the man, convinced as he is that his client is innocent. This highly professional and experienced polygrapher, describes the details of the accuser’s confessions during the test:

She grabs his penis while he washes her in the shower and he has explained to her what a man does with it. When questioned further about how often this happens, he said about three or four times a week. When asked to give a high figure regarding the number of times that Julie has touched his penis he said about twenty times… […] He also acknowledges erections and masturbations in the showers while Julie is in the shower with him….Her father stated that he sleeps nude and stated that Julie likes to cuddle. He stated he likes to run her foot up and down his penis until he gets an erection and sometimes ‘things happen.’ […] He stated that she ‘loves’ to orgasm. ‘I’ll get her a vibrator. She’ll hold the handle against her peepee and giggle until she climaxes.’ ¹⁸

Remember, this is a four year old girl. 

The report by the polygrapher continues to relay the man’s inability to contain his excitement to the extent that he finally admits to severe child abuse. In fact, he can’t stop relating his exploits, confirming the pattern of the psychopathic need for self-aggrandizement. He knows his money and influence will protect him, moreover, that his self-assurance regarding the mechanisms of the law allows him to get away with such audacious confessions as the following: “She has licked and sucked his penis no more than five times, has given him two full ‘blow jobs.’ He has ‘69ed’ her. He has licked her vagina and has performed oral sex on her not more than ten times.”¹⁹ The polygrapher faxes the report to the attorney acting for the father but to no avail. The attorney-client privilege is enacted and the report suppressed. The “audacity” is the utter self-confidence in the duplicity of the system. The custody battle ends in the man’s favour and an admitted child molester is recommended for full custody. 

How could such a travesty take place? Easy: The man was a wealthy businessman who used the exact same skills of manipulation and ruthlessness to gain a substantial footing in the commercial world. This afforded him the best attorney in town, supplanting the mother’s meagre attempts to find a similar worthy opponent to defend her child’s interests. Coupled with biased psychological evaluations and the ignorance of the nature of the sociopath /psychopath, the child never hand a chance. The spellbinding technique of the man was so effective the whole courtroom was captured in its thrall. This man could never have abused the child! The attorney reminded the judge jury that there was a man of standing and impeccable character before them, and psychiatrists provided the pseudo-psychology for him to get away with it. 

The possibilities for child rapists and paedophiles have never been easier in a legal system that is loaded towards the desires of the psychopath. Another way to look at it is like this:

Suppose that you are on a team that is engaged in a game and you discover that:

1. The other team gets to make up the rules.
2. The referee plays for the other team.
3. One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score – the team is at no risk.
4. Only you can be scored against.

Notes

1 ‘Doctors 'fear child abuse cases’ BBC News, 5 January 2006.

2 National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) - males actually commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group, yet the statistics suggest that losing a job and divorce are the most frequent cause of suicides.

3 Quoted from ‘Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic’ By Glenn Sacks, San Diego Union-Tribune, 11 January 2002.

4 Children First Depart. of Social Security, UK Government, 1998.

5 Public Eye.Website of Political Research Associates June 1989.

6 ‘Deadbeat parents, system fail children’ Lansing State Journal, Michigan, April 13, 2003.

7 ‘Custodians of Abuse’ by Kristen Lombardi’s The Boston Phoenix, Jan.9-16, 2003. This is required reading for anyone wishing to gain an insight into the true nature of abuse of women and children in the courts. The article represents a landmark in journalism.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 ‘The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological Theoretical and Sociology of Science Analysis’ by Murray A. Straus. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.,1998.

12 United Nations State of the World Report, 2000.

13Ibid. (Straus, 1998.)

14This conclusion is regarding fathers rights in the US alone. In the UK the court system is a little different as is British society. Though the cases involving the denial of fathers’ rights appear to be higher the statistics are inconclusive and often ambiguous. The cases of fathers being victimized in other countries may well be entirely different and I do not discount the fact that this conclusion could be reversed where the mothers become the perpetrators. As it stands, from the sociological and cultural data so far, patriarchal dominance is still as strong as it ever was.

15 ‘The Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Analysis of Sixteen Selected Cases’ by John Dunne & Marsha Hedrick. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 21, p 21-38 1994.

16 Children Speak for Themselves: Using the Kempe Interactional Assessment to Evaluate Allegations of Parent-Child Sexual Abuse by Clare Haynes-Seman and David Baumgarten Published by Brunner/Mazel, Inc.,1994 (pp. 33-34) ISBN: 0876307454.

17 From the Presentation entitled: Risk Management in Dissociative Disorder and Trauma Therapy by Professor Alan Scheflin given at the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSD) and International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) conferences at a joint session in Montreal on November 9, 1997.

18 p. 18-19 (Salter, 2003)

19Ibid.

The Rule of Law Part II 

The Rule of Law Part III

The Rule of Law Part II

Sandra

The late Psychiatrist Ralph Underwager was likely the leading US scholar on child sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990’s. He wrote extensively about the over protection issue and anti-sexuality climate in the States, the essence of Underwager’s argument was undermined by his actions. He represented an expensive resource for often high-level predators seeking to buy their way out of abuse, though courts have rejected his testimony on more than one occasion. This has been on the basis of the doctor’s unsubstantiated and clinically unproven sources and methods (such as learned memory) that serve to underline his belief that “90 percent of accusations against child molesters are wrong.” A view that was widely promulgated by PAS creator, Richard Gardner. While Underwager’s writings do have much validity in presenting the anti-sexuality present in Christian America, his defence of paedophiles, or rather child rapists undoubtedly acted against children. There are plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists present who continue to blur the lines.

Jim Peters, a senior attorney for the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse who investigated Underwager in the late 1980s believes that such psychiatrists present themselves as scientific observers, when more often than they are advocates for abuse inside and outside the courtroom.²⁰ In an interview with the journal Paidika, he has this to say regarding the question of paedophilia: “Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, I believe this is in fact part of God’s will.” Hardly an independent view that enables children’s’ welfare to come first.

There is hope, however partial. In 2005 an appellate level court in New York was the first to recognize the debate within the mental health community over whether “it is ethically proper” to give opinions on the best interests of the child when there is no empirical base to support them.” So said matrimonial attorney and Albany Law School professor, Timothy Tippins. The article continued:

Psychologists and psychiatrists are unable to scientifically measure and predict the effects of different factors on the future well-being of a child. There is no way to ethically study, for example, the effect it would have on a child to place him in a home with schizophrenic parents.

Therefore, after a mental health expert offers opinions regarding the effects of, for instance, depression or spousal abuse, the judge should be the one to opine as to the child's best interest.²¹

Psychopaths can attune to everyone’s ideal hero and associated archetypes. And the pervasive narcissism in our societies allows the predator to slip between our shadows unnoticed. Children disappear at the hands of the system, in plain sight, in precisely this way. There, behind closed doors they are abused and scarred for life with the blessing of family courts. Nor is this an isolated case. 

To give the reader a more immediate example of this judicial nightmare, an example follows, from the State of Indiana in the US, and a mother’s campaign to have the courts reverse a decision regarding her now, 12 year old daughter who presently resides with her abusive father.²²
 

Sandra had been married to Ted for several years and had two children by him, Bella aged 4 and David aged 10. Things quickly turned sour after she was physically assaulted by him in 1996, which led to a separation. After a trip to the local doctor it was discovered that she had not been the only one to be assaulted by her husband. Bella had also been hurt. A few months passed and Ted then attempted to abduct his daughter that led to the police being called and statements taken. Before long, an arrest warrant was issued and a protection order put in place. Another county court in the neighbouring county to which Ted was heading for decided against such precautionary action and excluded Bella from receiving a further protection order. Ted was finally arrested and subsequently extradited to face charges of abuse. Not long after and much to the chagrin of all concerned, Ted’s local minister saw it fit to put up the bail, allowing him the potential freedom to abuse his family once more. 

By this time, Sandra had started proceedings for divorce and had finally been granted temporary custody and a restraining order that had then been finally placed on her husband. She requested a Guardian Ad Litem for Bella, understandably thinking this would help the situation. ²³ However, the Guardian submitted a report that recommended her husband visited every weekend. Much to Sandra’s alarm, the presiding Judge agreed and a temporary order was summarily issued. 

By 1998 things had gradually become worse. According to a letter from the assigned Domestic Violence Counsellor, Ted had refused contact by phone or in person. Though this was clearly on record, the Court failed to act. Whether due to bureaucratic complacency or purposeful neglect, this was to have serious repercussions for Bella and her brother.

By 1999 Ted had found himself a girlfriend, the relations of which resulted in serious abuse inflicted on Sandra’s daughter during her visits. After the family doctor saw the girl she was referred to the sexual abuse hospital for further tests. During the same period Sandra decided to arrange visits to a child psychologist for her daughter as by now, she was suffering from severe anxiety, primarily due to the constant fighting from her father and his girlfriend which generally seemed to take place in her presence. She invariably returned home from a visit either crying and/or suffering some kind of minor injury. Despite some rough physical treatment, which included spanking, Sandra was still bound by law to drop her daughter off with a man whom she knew to be dangerous.

By 2001 Ted had separated from his girlfriend, but the abuse continued. This time he had decided to get his parents involved in order to find a buffer for his activities. On one occasion, during winter, Bella had been returned to her mother without warm clothes and complained about feeling ill. Sandra demanded her daughter’s clothes back which the grandparents promptly refused to give up. Meantime, Ted had found a new girlfriend who was even less responsible than the last and even more psychologically unbalanced, an example of which was her religious fundamentalism. Bella was often forced to pray on her knees while being threatened with beatings if she refused. Returning home in tears was becoming a common occurrence. 

As the months passed, Sandra had been continuously pleading with the family courts to stop the visits. The courts response to these requests was to threaten her with the granting of custody to Ted if she ceased visiting access in any way. She then sought help from Child Protection Services (CPS) who were equally unhelpful. Sandra continued to search for assistance, not wanting to believe that the America of democracy and freedom was in fact a horrible fantasy. 

Though in the middle of 2001 Ted remarried, the abuse did not stop. During this time, the most serious occurrence resulted in Bella having several bruises on her forearm and burn marks from a curling iron. Sandra then attempted - not for the first time - to involve the police in her county who still refused to become involved. She was told to go to the next county where there was some apparent jurisdiction. She did so and managed to have police statements taken and the child protective services to open an investigation. Much to her dismay however, this “investigation” consisted of a phone call to her ex-husband after one week had passed. They subsequently dropped the case. The presiding judge had decided that the new wife was allowed to pick up Bella on her own and take her to her father’s house even though there was the suspicion that she was assaulting the girl. In fact, by allowing the wife free access to Bella on behalf of Ted’s visiting rights, the judge thereby nullified the existing protection order, while in another county, the judge determined that there was “probable cause.”

By 2002, Sandra had begun to believe that she would never be able to protect her daughter. Legal Services contacted her to say they had no funds to assist her. She could therefore, no longer afford to make the payments After the courts and Ad Litem forced her to pay exorbitant fees incurred from multiple daytime appointments both her lack of time and dwindling savings eventually led to the loss of her house and her job. Even though she had three job shifts to support her children it was not enough. It was particularly cruel in that not only was Ted allowed access to her daughter but he was living in style it seems, with two houses, (one of which sported an expensive security system and Jacuzzi) two trucks and a car. Despite this, Ted could easily meet the retainer payments to his attorney.  

By now, fearing the worst and without financial aid of any kind, Sandra spoke to her family doctor in the hope he, at least, could offer some assistance in an increasingly desperate situation. He finally made a report to the Child Protection Agency following a requested visit by Sandra to properly evaluate her former husband. Meanwhile, visits continued to produce abuse that was becoming progressively worse. One set of injuries included a “sore rectum,” a “chemical sprayed in her eyes” and “red marks” extending from her ankle to her knee. She talked again to the Child Protection Agency and this time, got Bella to speak to them personally. Despite the obvious danger, the CPA claimed that it was a civil matter and thus not within their jurisdiction. 

Sandra decided to try another avenue of approach which meant seeking help from the local domestic violence shelter. The advocate present advised her to find another child psychologist and to keep a journal to record every detail that took place. After the last visit Sandra’s son David also contacted the CPA, such was his concern for his sister. The outcome of this act of desperation was that he was “No longer welcome” at his father’s home. Again David returned home to his mother with his sister crying, this time from hunger as well as from the emotional anxiety regarding her father. 

Finally, during one visit Ted decided he would not let Bella go home. Sandra spoke to the town police, but as before, they refused to get involved. By this time, the child psychologist had not managed to prevent Bella from lapsing into a form of depression with suicidal tendencies. While succeeding in rescuing her children from Ted, Sandra and her children were nearly run off the road by Ted’s wife. After the incident, a pro se for modification of visitation was filed which led to documented evidence identifying the stepmother as one of the abusers of Bella.  

During the time that Sandra had fled to a safe-house, the courts had decided to place a protection order on her husband’s wife. While this was applied for, the Ad Litem guardian argued that visits had to continue provided that Ted promised to keep his wife away from Bella. Over the months that ensued, this request was not complied with, though the Ad Litem refused to believe that this was the case. 

Sandra and her daughter accompanied the psychologist to the CPS to demand a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for Bella, as some of the abuse took place in the adjacent county. The agency refused to grant a CASA worker and to investigate the case. Bella was referred to a new female counsellor and an initial assessment was filed.

In the summary, Bella is noted as suicidal with an adjustment disorder stemming from the intense fear of her father and his abuse. The result is that she is placed on suicide-watch while in the safe house. Astonishingly, during her stay in the safe house the Ad Litem “compelled” Sandra to turn over Bella to her father under threat of court action threatening “consequences” should she not do so. Once with Ted, it didn’t take long before he forced his daughter to divulge the location of the safe house, threatening her with violence if she did not do so. The house counsellor issued a safe phone from the increased threat posed by the father, while the safe house child advocate filed a statement from Bella describing her abuse at the hands of her father. 

We can see quite clearly the mechanics of a case that is an all too familiar story in most family courts. A number of questions immediately come to mind such as why it was that the father was not compelled to abide by the initial restraining orders? Why Bella was excluded from a second restraining order? Why did the police refuse to act for the safety of the child? Why was the Ad Litem Guardian pointedly on the side of the father when evidence of abuse was documented and obvious? Why was Sandra’s son who witnessed the abuse of his sister never interviewed by the Guardian Ad Litem or the presiding judge even when a police statement was given? Why was an emergency room report of Bella’s response to a question from a triage nurse “that her father lets people hurt her” subsequently ignored? 

In a classic case of “ bait and switch” the mother, in her own words: “…filed prose which made me petitioner, then one time I noticed that I was not petitioner anymore but a respondent. Somehow, without my knowledge they had never ruled on the emergency hearing for modification of visitation I filed. To this date I have never had the emergency hearing while it was all of a sudden switched to a hearing to give father custody.” 

After 2002, Sandra continued to come up against judicial brick walls that still prevent her from protecting her child from abuse. If a judge takes a dislike to the one of the plaintiffs, impartiality vanishes. In her own words:

“I can file a complaint against a judge and even an attorney; however, this does not remove them from the case while the complaint is being investigated. The judge is left, as is the attorney in charge of the court case. Now image if you have someone who is flouting the rules [and] biased how they could retaliate against you now that you have filed a complaint against them?” Also the Indiana Supreme court disciplinary commission has in the past reprimanded this particular judge for a denial, I think it was for “due process” and I believe there is a history of this reprimand being given out more than once. […]

I was also told by an advocate in the area that this particular official has a relative sitting on the disciplinary commission. I do not know how true it is, but the advocate seemed to be very assured of this, which would account for the reprimands. According to Indiana's Judicial Accountability Advocacy Group, they say less than 1percent of attorneys are even censored, let alone investigated, and that is not even including judges.”

We can see from this example why so many women in the US become victims of the courts. The abusers go free and take home their abused daughter or son with them as this case so vividly illustrates. Or, as Sandra says, summing up the feelings of many women under attack from the courts: “It is like being raped and then the court order[ing] to provide the care and housing for the rapist. It is insane.”

The law is about money rather than justice. No-one but the rich can afford to go the whole nine yards in a highly contested custody case which requires thousands of dollars to see it through to the end. Child custody has become a huge money-making enterprise along with so many other forms of control. Money talks, abusers walk. With divorce on the rise globally and with an estimated 40 to 50 percent of all marriages ending in separation or divorce, this effects approximately one million children each year,²⁴ as well as the fall-out from a war that is fuelling a similar rise. ²⁵
 

The emotional cost to the child is also rising with higher incidences of stress related illnesses appearing in custody battle children. Judges receive a fat salary and job security and when the overflow of cases gets too much the retired judges are wheeled out, often with their accompanying prejudices and outdated beliefs. Appeal judges seldom reverse lower court rulings. When funding is added to the equation it becomes a dangerous gamble. If you are unhappy with the ruling and you suspect foul play - which will at some point along the judicial line, probably exist – you will have chance for redress. Judges have total immunity which means suing is not an option. No surprise then that the Oversight Agency Commission for Judicial Performance spends over $3 million dollars per year, yet in a 3 years period, not a single judge was removed from the bench. 

Sandra is fighting depression as her hope wanes. She is wracked by guilt that she could not protect her child. She paints a bleak picture of the judicial system in America, describing the tight net of oppression and injustice that lies in wait for those who reach desperation point. The law sees its victims as a lucrative source to exploit:

If you do something to try to protect an abused child, you will be placed on a missing poster by the National Clearing House for Missing and Exploited Children, you also will have the FBI issue a warrant for your arrest even if you have custody, if you are caught (you most likely will) you and your children will be hunted by local police agencies if you are captured (which you will be) than these police will take your child , call the abusive parent and give your child to the abuser to with as he likes. Meantime, you will be handcuffed, held in a holding cell, you will not be read your rights nor will anyone offer the elusive phone call. After you repeatedly ask for an attorney (which you will not get) you will, in handcuffs be taken to a county jail. Now, depending on the size of the state you will be stripped searched and put in maximum security lockdown.

At this point, your crime is “noncustodial interference” even if you had custody (because you were not there to protect your rights so the court took this chance to strip you of them) Do not forget you will also be put on the 5 o’clock news on every channel in that area with the headline reading “parent abducts child - child returned safely to other parent.” Something like that. Your state has about 7 days to extradite you (which they will) most likely in chains (again your crime trying to protect your child being abused which you know about). You will be held in your county jail not able to pay bail, because this court has financially ruined you. (That is to say, you spent your savings on all the court fees to protect your child). You will sit in jail not knowing if your children are safe. Everyone you trusted - this is to say the same people who testified in the civil action for you - will betray you - and believe me they will. No one will believe you because “this couldn't happen” and even so ‘why to you?’ This, despite all the evidence, the pictures and stuff like that, you cannot see your child because you tried to save them. If you don't have a nervous breakdown, if no one will give you a job because of the publicity and if you don't harm yourself you get treated like you are crazy, or better yet, like you are a bad parent for not having your child. Now you are destitute and easy pickings for this corrupt court system.

You will more than likely not see your child but these officials will try to charge you money for every conceivable thing you can think of. If these officials take it all and make it impossible for you to get more, you will either watch any rights you had to your poor child terminated and given to the parent who is horrifically abusing them (you know this because you have the evidence, though what good it is I'll never know) or get to be sent to jail again once these officials have drained you financially.

You then get to be the lucky recipient of nightly nightmares regarding your child and how the evidence vividly details how the parent abuser is abusing your child.

Sandra and her daughter are two victims out of thousands who are suffering a similar fate. 

Notes

20 ‘Witness for Mr. Bubbles’ Transcribed from "Australia 60 Minutes," Channel Nine Network (Aired on August 5, 1990 in Australia)Produced by Anthony McClellan; Reported by Mike Munro.

21 ‘Custody Ruling Addresses Reliance on Expert Opinions’ By Mark Fass, New York Law Journal, 2005.

22 The names have all been changed to protect the identities of those involved, not least the mother who is legally bound to silence. The content and facts of the case have not been changed, though I have placed these facts into a suitable narrative for ease of reading. I can fully vouch for the mother’s evidence and testimony during the course of my own correspondence. 
23 If we remember, this term refers to the equivalent of an attorney that is appointed by a judge to assist the Court in determining the circumstances of a custody battle. This varies from state to state and does not apply in every country.They wield considerable influence. Their income is paid hourly and the longer a case can be drawn out the higher their income. This varies from state to state and does not apply in every country.

24 Generally, the global divorce rates are climbing (even among older couples) including separation between co-habiting couples. Europe has a slightly less rate while the US is highest in the world, though it has since leveled off from a leap in from 60s to the 80s. See:‘Divorce Wars: Litigation as blood sport’ By Chris Francescani and Kristen Depowski, ABC News, July 11, 2006.

25 ‘Soldiers' divorce rates up sharply’ By Gregg Zoroya, USAToday, July 6, 2005.