AFCC: The Man behind the Curtain

     AFCC was at one stage a judges slush fund of where bribes perverted the course of justice in California's family Court.  Not only did it serve as a platform for corruption, but was also became the loudspeaker of Dr Richard Gardeners work in the 70s and 80s.  The trail of devastation for victims was left behind with few who held accountable and more who profited upon these ills.  Dr joan Kelly, co-founder of AFCC and CRC  Authored "Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome"  as an attempt to revive Gardeners theories, so that it were more acceptable to its readers with the same custody outcomes, but omitting the obvious quotes that revealed the motives behind his work.  She was also on the advisory panel of Children's Rights Council along with Warren Farrell who was featured in penthouses, "Incest The Last Taboo".  He states,


"the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."


   Parental Alienation Syndrome created lavish lifestyles for those who promote and advocate for its existence for many years and so it is no wonder attempts to revive it were made.  The reason why it was beyond controversial, was the fact that this syndrome led to many deaths.  Nathan Grieco a 14 year old boy who did not want to see his father and alleged abuse by him.  Gardner was an expert in his case and ordered what he referred to as, "Threat therapy" where he threatened the child with jailing the mother if he failed to go.  Shortly after, Nathan committed suicide.    


Thanks to one of the many decent fathers who spent $100,000 investigating California courts for his daughter to unravel why his grandchild was rendered motherless without reasonable cause, we know that this organization was used in this manner.  

     Much is left unanswered on why the environment of most family courts contain an automatic contempt for mothers, but hopefully this article will shed some light.  CANOW, provided an extensive report on the activities of the AFCC and how it was creating a system of abuse and corruption.

     The AFCC have denied promoting pro-child abuse and violence against women material, yet the content of their conferences tell a different story.  Below is a training session where it trivializes empirical studies that verify the damaging effects of not only exposing the victim to the perpetrator, but also children.  It distracts away from the safety of women and children to mislead practitioners into believing that there is a guaranteed method to separate those who are "just being abused" to those at imminent risk of death.  There is no credible method in the world and to boast such a tool is clearly negligent.

Just in case the inevitable becomes obvious with the increase of deaths due to negligence, they provide an answer to that too.  Below is a course on how to avoid accountability and continue backyard methods on treating victims of family violence and child abuse.  

  Here is a prime example of how Gardeners perspectives are very much alive and unchallenged in this organization.  The whole topic is dangerously superficial, misogynist and trains professionals to look at the mother as the issue, instead of looking into why she might be 
concerned about the child being alone with the father.  

Again, another training session on how not to be accountable and promotion of Gardeners theory.

More promotion of Gardeners concept where the victim is perceived as mentally ill and distorted as the perpetrator.  

Instead of providing a genuine focus on prevention of risk and subjecting victims to further trauma, professionals are trained on how to avoid accountability and attribute further injustice to their clients.  

Below is advertisements on the typical fathers rights agenda translated in the language of academia.  Despite years of research on the harm of infants spending minimal to little time with their mothers, below is advertisement on how to encourage maternal deprivation.  

Below is a conference from AFCC last year with more about maternal gatekeeping. Whilst "Violence Against women" topics are omitted from these conferences, "Maternal Gatekeeping" appears to be a popular event.    

More disturbing was this article found on an AFCC website instructions on how to use the legal avenues on forcibly adopting out children if the mother does not comply.

Below is a questionnaire targeting alienation.  Note how child abuse factors are not assessed.

This is one of AFCCs conferences on "Differentiating" domestic violence cases.  In other words, a how to expose the children and women to violence unless it is extremely obvious that they are at imminent risk of death.  When they refer to "Situational Violence" this means that if there is only one recorded incident, then they can justify ignoring the victim of further concerns and continue exposing them to risk.  At present, evidence of one episode of violence is not enough in family court law.  They require several incidents of brutality before they decide to order supervised contact and in some cases, nothing is done at all.    

For anyone who has had contact with fathers rights groups, they are anything but silent.  Again it is another example of the organizations lacking neutrality leaning towards the context of the mens movement.  The presenters here are mimicking intimate partner terrorism victims to skew the experience and thus generate encouragement to foster undue control over women parallel to the nineteenth century child custody experience - where children were the property of men.   

Again like every other fathers right organization, they are promoting shared parenting without considering much on the consequences.

AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in United States 
In "News Today", the article claimed that there was "new research on maternal gatekeeping" that, "Mom needs to know when to let go".  Again, its deemed the mothers fault for fathers taking less of an active role pre and post separation.  When the mother does in fact resist visits, its usually for a good reason.  Surveys on mothers have often reflected contrary to these beliefs that mothers do want their children to spend time and know the father, but not when it he poses a threat to them.  


The influence of AFCC in united states is ingrained in the Family Court system.  Lundy Bancroft explains this well in his publication:



JANET JOHNSTON'S TYPOLOGY OF BATTERERS AND THE AFCC RISK ASSESSMENT:
THE QUEST FOR SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
Efforts are underway nationally to ease the complexity of assessing risk to children from
visitation with batterers by placing batterers into distinct types, based largely on the work of
Janet Johnston. For example, a risk assessment distributed nationally by the Association of
Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) draws heavily from Johnston's work. The types Johnston
posits are as follows:

Type A: "Ongoing or Episodic Male Battering"
Type B: "Female-Initiated Violence"
Type C: "Male Controlled Interactive Violence"
Type D: "Separation and Postdivorce Violence"
Type E: "Psychotic and Paranoid Reactions"
(These types are called by slightly different names in the AFCC risk assessment, but are exactly
the same in other respects.)
Type A is considered the real batterer; he is very frequently and severely violent, and he
uses violence to control his partner.
Type B is violence that is initiated by the victim; she gets hurt because she is smaller, but her behavior is the problem.
Type C is violence caused by
"mutual verbal provocations," and again the woman is the victim only because she is physically
smaller; she is considered equally abusive.
Type D is violence that results from the stress of
separation and is completely uncharacteristic for the abuser.
Type E is violence resulting from a mental health problem.
This typology contains more problems that can be covered here. The types were preconceived,
with researchers instructed to assign each case to one of the categories. The research
has little external validity; her types have no relationship to any patterns observed by domestic
violence professionals in the clinical setting. Relying on these categories leads to serious errors in crafting visitation plans. Risk to children can be assessed, as we will see, but not by this
approach.

  The great majority of batterers do not fit any of Johnston's types, because they exert
"chronic pervasive control," but it is not accompanied by the most severe or frequent violence.
The most common batterer is one who uses violence two or three times a year, whose partner has never been hospitalized with injuries, and who shows no evidence of sadism. Nevertheless, his partner and children exhibit trauma symptoms due to their fear of the abuser, the repeated denial of their basic rights, and the pattern of psychological attack. Assessing the risk to these children from unsupervised visitation is a complex process, and the danger varies greatly from case to case.
  These categories encourage us to assess the victim rather than the abuser. The "A" type of
batterer is considered the only real batterer; he is described as having a victim who is severely
traumatized, who is passive and withdrawn, and who rarely starts arguments or challenges the
batterer. A woman who is stronger, angrier, or generally more unpleasant to interact with, would
be likely under Johnston's approach to be seen as mutually abusive and provocative, the "C" type of relationship; she would thus be considered largely responsible for the man's violence. In
reality, most abused women, even those who are terrified, do not give up all forms of fighting
back, and continue attempting to protect their rights and the rights of their children. The more
that the victim refuses to submit to the abuser's control, the more likely he is to escalate his
violence. Under Johnston's typology, the more courageously a woman attempts to defend herself and her children, the less responsibility the abuser has for his actions. Using this approach serves the batterer's interests well, but endangers the children. The result of this approach is that some of  the most dangerous abusers, those who are the most determined to dominate at all costs, are ironically declared to be the lowest risk to their children.


AFCCs Influence on the Psy-Law Community in Australia
If you think that this organization would not have much influence on the culture of the Family Courts, think again.  The Australian Institute of Families, a research body for the family court quotes references from their conferences throughout their publications and many of its members have presented and joined the organization.  The Family Court of Australia advertises upcoming conferences to the family law community and many judges and court personnel have been members and presenters to the conferences.  


  An appalling example of how the australian government dealt with our indigenous community.  Rather than provide more services to ensure the safety of women where statistics of family violence are much higher, this program was funded based upon "Maternal Gatekeeping".  A term used to divert the focus away from the reason why she is concerned about the child being left alone with the father.  


Sadly Child Protection in Western Australia jumped on the band wagon to preach on how they not only believe that fathers are safer with children than mothers, but that they are "Maternal Gatekeepers".  


In the Australian governments family relationship clearinghouse were a series of articles for and against the use of parental alienation syndrome in family court context.  The fact that it was even listed in the library endorsed junk science and may have mislead readers into believing that such a syndrome was prevalent above child abuse and family violence.   On the last pages of the CANOW report, the American Psychiatry Association verifies that PAS is not a syndrome, that it is not being considered for the diagnostic and statistic manual in the near future as there is no real scientific validity.   


On Lawlink.gov in NSW, a link to Parental Alienation Syndrome is listed which refers to Gardeners books.  By even linking to it is another endorsement from the Australian government that using junk science to conceal family violence is acceptable.  Considering that not only does the syndrome target victims of domestic violence as "alienators", it also promotes sending the child to the abuser.  


Internationally, AFCC has grown and so have fathers rights movements coinciding this culture.  one of the major problems is that a majority of its material erodes protections made available for victims and cultivates a closed patriarchal environment that mothers are at the mercy of.  Whilst outside these courts, women's freedoms are welcomed and accepted, but behind closed doors, she is perceived as a shameful act.  The Family Courts are the last institution that practices values belonging to the nineteenth century.  They do not respect nor value the lives of women and children in their research that could be easily compared to the propaganda authored by nazi researchers that were used to endorse genocidal goals.  The courts need to rely upon more balanced institutions research such as the world health organization that acknowledges violence against women as a major problem, but also provides research on both genders without hidden agendas. 


   Organizations that research violence against women and children need to be wary that due to the fact that abusers are cross class and cultures, they will work towards undermining their protection by any means and monopolizing laws and psych culture, they are able to continue unchallenged.  That is why it is crucial that every organization considers the opportunities that intimate terrorists may have in engaging in terrorism on a larger level whether it be in groups of like minded or by abusing the powers within professions.  This needs not only to be researched, but desperately addressed, before we have more laws that hurt women and children.

Child Abuse Disclosure Causes Outrage

A situation where radio presenters fumbled upon a disclosure of rape has broken out in scrutiny and distaste for the show. Fathers Rights groups have condemned the mother for humiliating the daughter, despite they are to blame for the community attitudes towards rape. Peter Gregory of Fathers4Equality stated,

"What kind of a bitch is this woman!

She knew her daughter had been raped and yet she took her onto this show knowing full well that her daughter could suffer from this.

I'm sorry, but this disgusting excuse for a mother, should not only be howled down in the public arena, she should be charged with some child abuse offence."

Earlier he stated,

"We also need to remember the children who suffer parental alienation.
These children are convinced that the other parent is assaulting them in some way and they do what ever they can to remain with the abusive parent, even telling police or child protection workers detailed stories of the sexual (or otherwise) abuse, so it sounds very believable."

Note that he refers to the parent taking protective action as "abusive".

In every discussion, court judgment and debate on unsubstantiated child abuse, these men have dominated every spotlight to persuade the community that most of the time, children lie about this. We now have a culture that believes that the right thing to do is not report child abuse unless there is undeniable proof that it occurred. The President of Fathers4Equality even states in his own words in appealing to keep the law that asks for costs more often than not against victims,
"Proving that someone has "knowingly" made false allegations rather
than "mistakenly" or "recklessly" is quite a tall order. "

For protective mothers, they face an extremely challenging path in pursuing justice for thier child in these occurrences. The lone fathers association has even promoted a label that has no scientific credibility called, "Malicious Mother Syndrome". Another tactic to convince the community that a mother advocating on behalf of a child who has disclosed abuse is malicious.
It almost lingers into our community's subconscious that mothers are to blame regardless of whether they report or not. Yet once again, the person instigating the abuse has somehow avoided the spotlight, scrutiny and punishment. Maternal Deprivation, more popular than football has become a favorite male dominated sport where the game is set up so the mother is always the loser. The players are the shared parenting mob, the black shirts and other radical fathers groups. Since the 80s they have been playing this game, involving politicians, kicking all mothers in the spotlight and hiding the voice of children so that we as a community will respond with nothing but malice towards every mother and child when they seek help to stop child abuse. With all of the odds played against a protective mother, she has little opportunity but to conform to the current, "sweep it under the carpet regime" only to later endure the scrutiny and blame for a crime that she did not commit. The mother in this sport is not the other team - she is the ball in a game of hypocrisy and propaganda.

The fact that it took thousands of listeners outrage for the police to investigate, is a good indicator that these beliefs are also ingrained within the only body that can properly investigate and bring about justice for our children. Yet with such a confirmatory bias, more often than not police don't investigate when they need to and also face costs if they bring a matter to court without enough evidence. The odds that target mothers are impairing our children and young people. This young girl caught in a tragic set of circumstances making her disclosure on national radio, reveals how far one has to go just to be heard. In the abc report Minister of community services Linda Burney has taken a personal interest in the case. Yet there are 15,000 children in Australia that have been ignored along with their parents.

Family Law: The Genghis Khan Way

Genghis Khan, a well known historical figure who conquered a substantial portion of Asia during the 1200s. If he had done so today, he would have been known as a perpetrator of mass genocide.

After defeating the Tatars, Genghis Khan ordered the slaughter of all people taller than a cart handle, ensuring the loyalty of the next generation. Genghis Khan’s conquests include 30 countries with well over three billion people.

The mongols used psychological warfare which made them superior in winning battles. They destroyed cities and spared a few to spread news of their terror. Deception was also used to surprise their enemy by splitting into three groups prior to the battle and seemingly appearing out of nowhere giving the visage that his army was larger than it was. Other techniques included were luring the opponent into vulnerable positions by appearing from a hill and then disappearing into the woods whilst aligning their soldiers to come from all sides.

In our modern world, humanity has evolved to far more superior methods of genocide. United nations definition of genocide is:

General Assembly Resolution 260A (III) Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Over the years statistics have revealed what has been defined as a femnicide: the killing of women and girls. What has not yet been highlighted enough is the silent slaughter of women and children affected by family violence. Whilst family violence has been described as a gender neutral term, the statistics of gender and research on gender power reveals a very ugly side of patriarchy that is thriving upon these brutal conquests.

In recent times, we have had a very open and vocal group who define themselves as, "Mens Rights Advocates". They are against current protection laws, research and present statistics that reveal this silent epidemic of violence against women and children. Even the terminology has become an information war as propaganda is spread online and through other sources of media to dilute the public awareness of intimate partner terrorism that effects one third of the population of women. The impact of their presence has resulted in the rise of murder - suicides in the US, maternal deprivation in the UK and a rise in family violence in Australia.

Just about everywhere these mens groups have had a presence, the erosion of support for women and children in funding of services, advocacy in the media and protective laws have become prevalent. The definition of intimate partner terrorism is very true to many survivors who have endured it.

"Intimate terrorism is the kind of intimate partner violence that involves a batterer who terrorizes and takes complete control of his partner through the use of violence in combination with other control tactics such as threats and intimidation, economic control, psychological abuse, isolation, and the assertion of male privilege. In heterosexual relationships, intimate terrorism almost always involves a man terrorizing a woman, although in rare cases men are terrorized by their women partners. Although intimate terrorism is much less frequent than is situational couple violence, it is estimated that more than two million women are victims of this kind of abuse in the United States each year—and this is the intimate violence that is most likely to destroy lives." -A Sociologist’s Perspective on Domestic Violence: A Conversation with Michael Johnson, Ph.D. Interview by Theodora Ooms, CLASP

The United Nations defines terrorism as:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifyable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideaological , racial, ethnic, religious, or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them;

The Lone fathers association, Barry Williams began with a protest at parliament steps where 300 men threatened to invade parliament if they did not provide men with equal benefits as mothers.

Almost a decade later, a member of the Family Law Action Group(Flag), was charged for bombing the family courts.

The president of the FLAG, submission can be found here.

Links to Fathers Online, Directed by Warwick Marsh can be found here.

Links to the Shared Parenting Council can be found here.

In 2002, a man by the name of John Abbott, set up a militant fathers group called the Black Shirts to stalk and harassed women whom were divorced. He claimed to have 300 fathers on his registry.

He was ordered not to harass women for five years or face a four month jail term. One year later the shared parenting bill was introduced.

The Shared Parenting Bill itself is designed in such a way that corners victims of child abuse and domestic violence. Here is how it has this effect:

1. "Unsubstantiated" allegations of violence or child abuse is interpreted is "False".
2. "The burden of proof" is solely upon the parent to provide the evidence.
3. The definition of violence was altered from, "fearful of" to "reasonably fear" resulting in every victim being scrutinized with a confirmatory bias of being mentally ill.
4. A paper reduction section was introduced to limit crucial evidence to being submitted.
5. "meaningful relationships" was physically placed above consideration for welfare of the child.
6. Restraining Orders were used as evidence against the victim.
7. Resident Parents were forced by order to provide their address even when it was not safe to do so.
8. Police station visits are seen as "hostile" environments for children.
9. Taking Children to see a counsellor over abuse is considered, "Medical abuse".
10. Evidence gathering itself is interpreted as "abuse" and in cases where substantial evidence was provided, the parent was more likely to be punished for accessing services to provide evidence.
11. Victims cannot relocate without a court order or permission from their perpetrator. They have the same ratio as a patient in brain surgery in success and if they speak of family violence, it is much less of a chance.

So in the Legal framework, like Genghis Khans psychological warfare, perpetrators have their victims surrounded.

The same tactics of confusing the enemy is the illusion that the custody is shared. Along with the changes, mens advocates assisted with indoctrinating psychologists with the following junk psychology:

Parental Alienation Syndrome

Malicious Mother Syndrome

Münchausen syndrome by Proxy

No scientific body in the world has accepted any of these as real syndromes. Yet, this is in reality a diversion for researchers as the information has been spread like a virus all over the internet. They have become obstacles to be debunked, whilst rogue psychologists are providing their expertise affecting real life court cases. In the mean time, the more and more each stakeholder is convinced that these syndromes are real, the more the perpetrators have seized their team-players in their monopoly resulting in the isolation of their victim.

Arming their members with the information on how to conquer intervention order cases, the mens movements also engage in providing "advocates" to arrive on the scene with police in domestic violence call outs.

Click on the images to enlarge.

The three different groups reflects Genghis Kahns strategy of positioning three or more groups coming from different places to illude the enemy into believing that they are surrounded. This is very much the case for groups seeking to defend women and children. In the list of family law submissions, the groups represented had the same people contained, but authored by different members. The number of groups obscured the decision makers into believing that there was more support than there actually is. This is the same as the military strategy that Khan used when his forces were less than the opponent.

The desire to "conquer" women and children's rights is prevalent and evident in the campaigns and strategies used resulting in the success of the shared parenting bill. The results where women who were determined to protect children lost custody is also part of the genocide definition. In United States, where similar cells have been more established, shared parenting was in reality an entrenched pathway with numerous traps which led to the surge in men securing children as they secured property. Of course if their perceived assets did not perform to their liking, the mother and child are often punished with enforced isolation from each other commonly known as, "Maternal Deprivation".

An even more concerning trend, jihad supporters have also aligned themselves with these groups in United States. Apart from the christian based fathers rights groups, both groups are parallel in their beliefs and fit the criteria in furthering the goals of terrorism. Terrorist network operatives have successfully infiltrated South East Asia(Abuza, 2004), by building alliances with groups aggrieved with government. An example of this is the successful alliance of the Khmer Rouge that assisted in infiltrating Cambodia. It seems like a more unlikely scenario in the western world, however these mens movements are well suited in furthering their interests. They have already done the hard work in unraveling the stability of government to conform to their goals and have similar beliefs in regards to the rights of women and children.

Convicted Sex Offender Granted Custody of Four Children

For some time, politicians have been avoiding the topic of how far they will go in handing the children over to the father. The situation here speaks for itself. Whilst the article does not draw attention to previous cases like this, it is not uncommon for courts to allow convicted sex offenders unsupervised contact with children. For as long as the courts, family reporters and children's lawyers rely upon the junk science of Parental Alienation Syndrome(also referred to as "Parent Alienation"), cases like these will continue to rupture the lives of children.

Pedophile granted child custody

Article from:

• Font size:DecreaseIncrease
• Email article:Email
• Print article:Print

DAVID NANKERVIS

June 13, 2009 11:30pm

A FAMILY Court judge has granted custody of four children to their father - a convicted pedophile and rapist.

The mother of the four youngsters, all aged under 15, requested custody at a recent Family Court hearing in Adelaide.

The unsuccessful application was made not long after the children's father was found guilty in the Adelaide District Court of multiple sex offences against a minor.

A transcript of the Family Court hearing shows the presiding judge was aware of the father's convictions and that he was on bail awaiting sentencing.

Further details, including the names of the family, cannot be legally reported. The mother and her current husband also both have criminal records.

However, child support groups have condemned the idea that a convicted pedophile could be granted custody of any child.

Victim Support Service SA said the community would be "alarmed" at a situation where a pedophile was allowed to care for children.

"Our organisation would be worried too about that, and we would want to know about the reasoning and rationale behind such a decision and what steps are in place to protect any child in such circumstances," the service's chief executive Michael Dawson said.

"I would think it is inappropriate for someone with a previous history - through conviction of crimes against children - to be provided with the opportunity to supervise children.

"From my personal experience, I've never heard of any such case before."

The Australian Childhood Foundation also expressed serious concern about the risks pedophiles pose to children, particularly in an unsupervised environment.

"Convicted pedophiles can't work as a teacher, be a foster carer or footy coach, because society recognises that past behaviour is the best indicator of future risk," foundation chief executive Joe Tucci said.

"So as a matter of principal, children shouldn't be in unsupervised contact or custody of an adult with convictions for sexual assault against children."

Mr Tucci said courts should err on the side of caution and treat convictions of sexual assault against children as a "red light" when deciding what is in a child's best interest.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said judges could only award custody of a child to those parties who applied for it.

"If a judge has concerns about a child's welfare, they cannot make an order that a child be put in the care of the state," the spokeswoman said.

"A judge can ask but not compel a state welfare department to intervene if they believe a child is at risk of abuse or neglect."

The Department of Families and Communities said the Family Court may advise it of any "child protection concerns (the court has) about a child".

"Families SA assesses the notification like any other and takes action if necessary," a department spokesman said.

"Also, the Family Court may make a formal request that the Department of Families and Communities become a party to a case.

"If DFC accepts the request and becomes a party, it then makes representations to the court about what is in the best interests of the child or children."

Stop The Responsible Fatherhood Bill

"All I ever wanted was supervised" a repeated phrase amongst family violence survivors.  The Family Court has come under recent scrutiny over unsafe contact and the controversial use of Parental Alienation Syndrome a diagnosis that has not been accepted by any scientific organization globally.  The bottom line is that children are ordered by the court to attend access visits where the parents are abusive.  If the mother objects, she risks losing the children altogether.  That is the state of not only the Family Court in Australia, it is an international problem.  

Until recently, there were few groups that were advocating for children and far too many groups advocating for such forced contact.  "Pro Contact" culture is really just being polite.  "Contact No Matter what" Cult, is more appropriate considering the facts that there is no limit as to who they wish children to have contact with.  

Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward^[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media. -Wikipedia

Bizarre punishments against mothers are initiated by the courts if they do not comply without consideration for the impact that the children suffer.  

Some of these punishments include:

"Isolating The Child From The Protective Parent"

"Orders inhibiting the Child From access to Counseling"

"Removal of The Mothers Passport'

In cases where the parent has a mental health condition that is one of the leading causes of homicide, the protective action is often minimal.  Some orders are for the parent to take their medication and see their doctor, but left entirely to the device of the patient and the potential victims are left restricted by the court order and helpless to what might come about.  The Court evaluators who make the decisions that the judges often solely rely on are often untrained for these cases, but overtrained in the area of "pro - contact' and too well understand the terms of "maternal gatekeeping" "Alienation" and "False Memory Syndrome".  They believe that the child is not unsafe in relationships with sex offenders if they "just accept it" without the interference from mothers.  

This is due to the fact that in the early 80s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" and travelled the world with the help of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  Many conferences were held indoctrinating lawyers, psychologists and judges into the belief that children are better off with abusive parents.  This belief was also supported by the international Child Emancipation, a lobby group for pedophiles.  

Cases where there is not enough evidence to support Family Violence are often referred to as, "False Allegations" and in most cases the victim is required to pay costs to the alleged perpetrator. This goes against studies that support the notion that in 95% of child abuse cases are true.  Clearly it is the interference that the victims receive during the court processes that leads to the lack of evidence that is able to be provided.  

Like the German Lebensborn organization, they said, "Best Interests" but the intention was to reintroduce laws that tie women to men and diminish any concerns regarding child abuse and violence against women.  The current family law regime reduces the value of children and mothers compared to men and promotes the cycle of violence continuing through to another generation.  Like a genetic disease, our children have been infected with family violence.  

The German Lebensborn organization was similarly cruel in its time.  In the context of the German welfare system, it was considered that it was the "best interests" of the child to be German.  By abducting babies of other origins for German families, "Best Interests of the child" was created to serve the purposes of racial intolerance.  Today in the context of Family Law, "best interests of the child" refers to the amount of time spent with a parent no matter how abusive they may be. 

Although there have been more efforts to protect mothers and children affected by family violence with the Violence Against Women Act and the introduction of the Protective Parent Bill, PAS is still alive in the US court system and have progressed to a point where they are supporting it through the "Responsible Fatherhood Bill".  Like best Interests, it is aimed at enforcing contact with fathers regardless of the rise to epidemic proportions of murder suicides.  In sect 2, "Findings" it states that the reason to provide fathers with billions of dollars in funding is due to:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact--

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;

(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;

(E) more likely to commit suicide;

(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and

(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

  

The findings stated here is derived from a confirmitory bias. If you look deeper into the research, it becomes obvious that:

Children were economically abused by the fathers and the state for withdrawal of financial support of children.  It is in fact written in the convention on The Rights Of The Child:

 

Article 26

1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.

2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.

 

The "Violent males who grew up without fathers", were in fact infected prior to the separation by witnessing the actual violence.  According to Amy Coha:

• Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
• Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.

Teenage pregnancy is an old sexist phrase that draws the need to look at the pregnant women as the problem.  Contraceptives apart from the condom are directed at her as entirely responsible for the pregnancy.  According to Rape Abuse and Incest Network(RAIN):

Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

 

Victims of sexual assault are:⁷

3 times more likely to suffer from depression.

6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.

26 times more likely to abuse drugs.

4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

The fact that in some states, the perpetrator can apply to the Family Court to stop the abortion and continue these attacks on her suggests that women and girls are considered by the state as objects rather than human beings.  If such a bill were to pass, it would be a greater violation to the already eroded human rights of women and children.  

Exploiting Mothers and Children: Baby Factories

Remember the Family Court baby Factories ?  Well here is what they are doing to mothers and children in india:

Single men buying children for £15,000 at 'baby factory' 

Robert Mendick
08.06.09

A surrogacy clinic in India is advertising babies for sale to single men in Britain.

Newborns can be bought for as little as £15,000 at the private clinic in Mumbai. More than 10 single men have purchased babies from the Rotunda Clinic.

No checks on their background are made, including whether they have convictions or have been vetted by social workers.

One London couple who had a child thanks to the clinic have been approached by single men hoping to do the same.

Bobby Bains, who runs a website explaining how to obtain a surrogate baby in India, said one in six inquiries he gets comes from single men or gay couples.

"I make the introductions," said Mr Bains, from Ilford. "I don't like it myself but I still put them in touch with India. There's no stopping it. The Pandora's Box is open and there is no going back. This is the future."

Mr Bains, 45, and his wife Nikki, 44, paid the Rotunda Clinic tens of thousands of pound over several years in a desperate attempt to have a baby.

Finally last July, a surrogate mother, implanted with a donated egg fertilised by Mr Bains' sperm, gave birth to their daughter Daisy.

Rotunda's website advertises its surrogacy service with the pledge of a birth certificate issued in the name of the "intended parents" and the baby handed over immediately after the birth.

Its website states: "Rotunda offers gestational surrogacy in India to people of all nationalities.

All couples including lesbian and gay couples and even single men and single women can avail this facility to fulfil their dream of enjoying parenthood."

Dr Gautam Allahbadia, who runs the clinic, told the Standard he thought anyone who wanted a baby should be entitled to have one - despite growing concern that a near-absence of regulations has allowed the surrogacy industry there to boom unchecked.

He said: "I believe that every human being has to be treated equal and all have the same right to procreate.

"If you are within the ambit of your country's laws and believe strongly in your own principles, one should not bother about critics. Some human beings come into this world only to criticise."

Mr Allahbadia said "more than 10" single men had used the surrogacy service, compared to 50 Western couples - "some of them British" - who went through his clinic last year.

But the promise of surrogate babies to single men has alarmed campaigners and politicians in Britain.

Ann Widdecombe, the Tory MP and a long-time critic of surrogacy, said: "It is appalling to treat children as if they were goods. Children are a blessing, not designer goods. They deserve a start in life with mum and dad."

Norman Wells, of the pressure group Family and Youth Concern, said: "Nature itself tells us that children were intended to have both a father and a mother, and neither is an optional extra.

"We are embarking on a dangerous social experiment that runs contrary to common sense if we deliberately set out to bring a child into the world without the presence and involvement of both a father and mother who are committed for life to each other.

"If we are really committed to giving children the best possible start in life, the last thing we should be doing is to tamper with the natural order."

A leading obstetrician at a Mumbai hospital told the Standard last month that she delivered on average one baby to a British couple every 48 hours.

Dr Anita Soni said: "For these surrogate mothers the money is life-changing. There is absolutely no exploitation. It is really big money. It is a jackpot."