For decades, protective mothers have been complaining that family courts are tilted to favor abusive fathers and that they face corruption. Court officials have tended to respond defensively and dismissed the domestic violence victims as disgruntled litigants. Over the years an ever growing collection of research, media investigations and preventable tragedies have supported the mothers’ position, but in a form of confirmation bias, court officials have ignored inconvenient findings.
In my first book with Mo Hannah, Sharon K. Araji and Rebecca L. Bosek wrote an interesting chapter in which they looked at surveys of protective mothers in five states which showed consistent court failures to protect children. It might be easy to dismiss the research because mothers with bad outcomes might be biased, but the authors compared the mother’s complaints with credible research and found the findings supported the mothers. The courts were routinely treating the mothers as if they were not credible but the scientific findings supported other research that found protective mothers rarely make deliberate false complaints.
The ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) Studies from the CDC demonstrated that domestic violence and child abuse are far more harmful than previously understood and that physical abuse is not required to ruin children’s lives. In other words the courts have been minimizing the seriousness of DV and child abuse and basically ignoring non-physical tactics. Despite the research, courts are still not focused on reducing the fear and stress from abuser tactics that cause children so much harm. And most of the standard court practices undermine the needed healing.
The Saunders’ Study was designed to consider the knowledge and training about domestic violence possessed by evaluators, judges and lawyers. The Study found many of these professionals do not have the specific knowledge necessary to respond to domestic violence. Those without the needed training tend to focus on the myth that mothers frequently make deliberate false reports and unscientific alienation theories. These mistakes lead to outcomes that harm children. Five years after the release of the Saunders’ Study these mistaken assumptions continue to predominate. Saunders also looked at harmful outcome cases in which alleged abusers win custody and safe, protective mothers are limited to supervised visitation. These decisions are always wrong and based on flawed practices but remain common in the family courts.
“What happens to grown children of a narcissist father during and after divorce?
This is important to consider because after you’ve left the Narcissist far behind and relieved yourself of the pain, your children continue to deal with him. It’s not a pretty picture. As the healthy parent, understanding the Narcissist, knowing what to expect and providing tips for the children will lessen the pain for everyone….
During a divorce, co-parenting with a narcissist can be dangerous. They will go to great lengths to possess the children. They will fabricate or distort the truth in order to maintain allegiance from their children. Deep down a Narc is highly insecure. Parenting after divorce becomes a popularity contest for the Narc. They have to ‘win’ the children at all costs. Their ego is vulnerable and causes them to lash out at the person who has rejected their idealistic view of themselves.
If you have asked for the divorce you can bet their wrath will be focused on you. So what begins as a type of possession can escalate into a destructive pattern of parental alienation. It is fair to say, a Narc parent is more likely than a regular parent, to use parental alienation as a method to retaliate. What begins as possessive and nonstop attention from the father inevitably turns to rejection as the children enter adulthood.”
One of my Mother’s Day gifts this year is having my files organized in preparation for lawsuits for the countless violations of my civil rights in Rolling Meadows Cook County Family Court.
Happy Mother’s Day!
A legislative commission on Thursday approved several state programs it would like the Legislative Auditor to evaluate, including the health department’s Office of Health Facility Complaints and the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem program, both subjects of 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Investigations in November.
The Office of the Legislative Auditor said its evaluation will look into management, governance, oversight and processes of specific program areas.”
By Joseph Snook
Medford, OR – Out of the twenty-seven judicial districts for the State of Oregon, Judge Grensky ranks in the bottom 2% of all judges according to The Robing Room, an online website that publicly reviews Oregon Judges. Out of the 173 Circuit Court Judges in Oregon, there are only three Judges with worse ratings than Grensky. Notably, almost half of Judge Gresky’s poor reviews are from attorney’s. The Oregon Court of Appeals is currently looking into how many cases Grensky has had overturned. And now, Grensky’s judicial authority has come into question yet again.
Grensky’s most recent miscarriage of justice took place in an ongoing child custody case between Christi MacLaren and her ex, Sean Lenzo, over their six-year-old daughter.
Christi with her daughter
Judge Grensky removed custody from Christi on Oct. 13, 2015 (Judge Grensky formally granted status quo custody on May 19, 2016, although daugther has been with Lenzo since Oct. 13, 2015) when Department of Human Services (DHS) Child Caseworker, Cori McGovern, testified that Chirsti had mentally abused her own daughter. Christi had previously reported that Sean Lenzo (biological father) had rubbed, “magic cream” on her daughter’s vagina in a really fast motion until bleeding/severe burning occurred – this according to her daughter. Next, the young girl reportedly claimed Lenzo took a picture of her vagina while it was bleeding, eventually showing her the photo as he laughed. This allegation, while cruel in nature, might not be “sexual” as originally reported.