Academia Speaks, Part 1: Decisions in US Custody Cases, and Lena’s Australian Story  

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Until now, Gumshoe’s investigation of the problem of Protective parents has not referred to writings by academics. Here in Part 1 of the new series “Academia Speaks” I will quote the full abstract from an article in the July 2, 2019 volume of Journal of Custody.  Who would expect there to be a whole journal on that subject?

Both of the two authors of the article belong to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence.  Joyanna L. Silberg, PhD, its acting president, is the Coordinator of Trauma Disorders Services for Children, at Sheppard Pratt Hospital, Baltimore.  Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, PhD is a former Pediatric Surgery and Trauma Nurse Practitioner at the University of Missouri Health Sciences Center.

Here is the concise abstract. Their database was from the United States but sounds “eerily” like Australian cases. I will demonstrate that resemblance by recounting Lena’s story after the abstract.

“Abusers Gaining Custody in Family Courts: A Case Series of Overturned Decisions” Abstract:

… The goal of this case series was to determine why family courts may place children with a parent that the child alleges abused them rather than with the non-offending parent. We focused on “turned around cases” involving allegations of child abuse that were at first viewed as false and later judged to be valid. The average time a child spent in the court ordered custody of an abusive parent was 3.2 years.

“In all cases we uncovered the father was the abusive parent and the mother sought to protect their child. Results revealed that initially courts were highly suspicious of mothers’ motives for being concerned with abuse.

“These mothers were often treated poorly and two-thirds of the mothers were pathologized by the court for advocating for the safety of their children. Judges who initially ordered children into custody or visitation with abusive parents relied mainly on reports by custody evaluators and guardians ad litem who mistakenly accused mothers of attempting to alienate their children from the father or having coached the child to falsely report abuse.

“As a result, 59% of perpetrators were given sole custody and the rest were given joint custody or unsupervised visitation. After failing to be protected in the custody determination, 88% of children reported new incidents of abuse. The abuse often became increasingly severe and the children’s health frequently deteriorated. The main reason that cases turned around was because protective parents were able to present compelling evidence of the abuse and back the evidence up with reports by mental health professionals who had specific expertise in child abuse.

“Since completing this study, we have been made aware of four cases in which mothers were the alleged abusers and the father was accused of parental alienation after attempting to protect their children from further abuse.” [Emphasis added]

*****

Lena’s Case

An Australian Mum gave me her story and permits Gumshoe to print it.  I have disguised identifying features as required by law.

Lena’s Story: At 25, I was glad to be introduced, by a mutual friend, to the charming Francois, complete with French accent. The dating relationship lasted six years off and on. We never married or even lived together. Francois started to perform what I am now told is “gas-lighting” to lower my self-esteem (which was low anyway).

After I fell pregnant, he said such things as “I never touched you.”  I am grateful to nurses at hospital for advising me not to put his name on the birth certificate; it was left open. The bottom line of my story is that the baby, Ben, was given to Francois by a court at age 5. Yes.

That was 8 ago and I am still trying very hard to get him back.  One of my biggest sadnesses is that people look at me funny and whisper “There must be more to it.” But there isn’t.

Francois used violence and threats. I fled with the baby to my cousin’s house. Later I made the mistake of recontacting Francois, thinking he should share the joy of having a child. He already had an older daughter, Marie, and I treated her as my step-child, naturally. She still calls me Mumma.

At first, Francois behaved OK, but later he kidnapped Ben. I went to police and luckily they found Ben and brought him back to me.  They told me if the dad’s name had been on the birth certificate they would not have been able to do so.

At age 6 my son Ben start to complain about going to visit dad. He refused to speak to him. Worryingly, he told me that he – age 6 — was planning to injure or even kill his dad using kitchen weapons. By now I was in a relationship with a new partner and was about to give birth to my son Shane. Francois broke into my house and said  “I’m going to destroy you and your family in court and see to it you never see Ben again.”

I was required to go to Mandatory Mediation and was told I might go to jail (!!!). Francois had written to my employer, my friends and neighbors with lies about my mental health and my ability to raise kids. The wrongly named “Department of Child Safety” began to investigate on his behalf, searching for something that could trigger the removal of Ben. For example, they went to Ben’s Daycare Center to record him, asking if Mum goes out and leaves him alone. Of course Ben said No.

The police colluded with Francois to take Ben.  Yes! They’d been unable to find a reason to get a safety order — but that did not stop them from removing my child. At this point I was made out to be the baddy. Francois had learned how to involve such government departments as commissioners, Parliamentarians, child protection people, persuading some of them that Ben should be removed from me immediately and permanently.

Court Experience.

The next five years were shockers for me. The threats of jail, allegations of coaching, enmeshment, parentification, and extremism – made me think Francois’s prediction would eventuate. Two persons connected to the court – an ICL and a Report Writer — acted against me 100%.

One ICL (Independent Children’s Lawyer) yelled, swore, and threatened to have Ben sent to foster care if I didn’t sign the “consent” orders he was pushing. Also, a Family Court report writer clearly supported Francois and didn’t believe any of my reports of domestic violence by him. But, to me, it was the judge who was the most shocking. He ordered me not to see –not to even speak to — my beloved first-born again.

I assure you I presented with a clean bill of mental health, perpetrated no domestic violence, did not neglect or harm the child in any way mentally, physically, or emotionally.

So what was the reason for such an order?  When Ben was 5 years old, he finally broke down and told me why he so desperately didn’t want to go back to see his dad. Ben confessed that his father had been sexually abusing him ever since he could remember. Ben had been threatened. He also said dad instructed him to kill both me and Shane (his little half-brother).

I did get “permission” years later to visit my child in a “supervised setting.” This occurred at a “contact centre” where the environment is totally unnatural and tends to damage the bond between mother and child. And the child thinks the separation has been his fault! (By the way, Ben loves his brother Shane of course and misses him – and vice versa.)

After 18 months, Ben had become trusting of the staff at the contact centre and one day while I’m in the loo, he began to open up about what his dad does to his “privates.” As any mother would do, I went to the nearest police station. There I found that a cop may lie, to cover up the facts.

The police officer attempted to coach Ben to say that his dad was only washing him, despite the abuse reportedly occurring on the couch in the living room without soap, water or towels. Shortly after this, Ben is handed back to Francois. At trial:

1. I was not allowed witnesses.
2. I was denied a chance to show the police’s 93A interview with Ben (it “went missing”).
3. Medical evidence of Ben’s damaged genitals was not allowed, and
4. I was not allowed to present affidavits by my relatives that said they’d been threatened by the child protection police to not assist me. As far as I know that is not even done in the trial of a criminal suspect. Anyway I am grateful that I still have my younger boy. I took a polygraph to prove my “innocence.” But the word goes around that I am delusional. Do you believe me?

Note: I more or less interrogated Lena and I believe her. The folks who whisper “There must be more to it” haven’t experienced the untrammeled power of a court. It is an urgent matter and we must tackle it together. — MM