Kim Saeed writes that within each cycle of abuse there is a moment where a change can be made, an opportunity, if you will to change the negative script that keeps repeating. Perhaps every time an abusive incident happens we think (or hope) it will be the last and we will be saved from having to make a “hard decision”. But according to this article, this is actually a chance, an opportunity to start a new pattern in life for our future. What do you think? .
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.”
By Patricia Mitchell
Rich, poor, middle class – no child in America is safe. These words of award-winning investigative journalist Keith Harmon Snow (author of The Worst Interests of the Child) refer to the abusive practices that regularly occur within the Family Courts and Child Protective Services (CPS) Courts. On their watch, each year hundreds of thousands of children suffer from abuse (including rape and prolonged torture) that would not have happened without this court system’s initial invasion and subsequent entrapment.
Removing children from their homes, separating children from parents, and creating conflict within the family unit is good business for the judicial officials and has become what the Family and CPS Courts do best.
Court officials heavily profit from these induced conflicts. They have learned how to milk the system for financial gain, by targeting the protective (fit) parent instead of the abusive (unfit) parent, resulting in children getting placed with pedophiles, sadistic sociopaths, and narcissists, in life-threatening environments. Although “the State” will pay the court officials if a low income or poor family is involved, the system forces protective parents who are middle class or wealthier to foot the bills for all court services. Either way, rich or poor, court officials have made a big business out of family conflicts, using children as currency.
Why would the courts target a fit parent instead of an unfit parent? Because there is no money to be made off of the unfit one. The Family and CPS Courts require one parent willing to participate with them, to care about the child’s well being and, most importantly, to make a commitment to the courts. Protective parents will do anything and everything the courts demand of them. Whereas abusive parents are more likely to give in after the court system’s first hurdle, demand, or when he/she sees the bills, simply saying, “Fine, take the child.” Why Family Courts and CPS Target Fit Parents
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., May 5, 2017- Filed in March 2017, new Federal Civil Rights lawsuit in Minnesota hopes to strike a dagger in the heart of corruption in family courts.
Annalise Rice, 19, currently a freshman at the University of North Dakota, recently filed that lawsuit against her father, Brent Rice, a financial advisor at Merrill Lynch, as well as Hennepin and Carver counties, a judge and several court professionals and social workers. All were involved in her family court case that, she argues, deprived her of her civil rights.
All were involved in her family court case that, she argues, deprived her of her civil rights.
In an exclusive interview with this CDN reporter, Annalise Rice described a nightmarish childhood in which she was taken away from her mother without explanation and forced to live with a father who, she alleges, while mostly absent, she alleges he was abusive when he was present. Rice ran away multiple times, including on incident during which she spent approximately one month on the run with her mother.
“Love Addiction 101
Love addiction is a complex and foggy condition that manifests differently in everyone. Particularly common in people suffering at the hands of a person with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) or victims of narcissistic abuse, love addiction commonly appears as a deep fear of being rejected by the abuser, even though the relationship is deeply toxic.
Neurologically, love addiction is similar to drug or alcohol addiction, in that the addicted person feels unable to quit the habit of loving the abusive person, even though the relationship has disastrous effects on your health, wealth, and happiness. It’s considered a “process addiction”, which is a set of behaviors that is considered obsessive or compulsive.
Unlike other forms of addiction, though, love addiction is often difficult to see from the outside and may even go unnoticed by the person suffering from the addiction.”