June 6, 2010

believe me this is exactly what happens with abusive ex partners in family courts and how they dupe and manipulate professionals

Filed under: Secret family courts — Granarchist @ 1:28 pm

more professionals should read this article and realise their judgement is not always right and start deflating their ego’s

A lot of people will have heard of the term “grooming”, but most will think of the term only as it is used in the context of child sexual abuse. What many people do not consider, is that grooming is an art that is practiced by most perpetrators of any kind of abuse, and, I believe, particularly by perpetrators of family violence.
Institutional Grooming Defined and Explained

It is not only a perpetrator’s victims that are groomed (which would be considered emotional abuse), but the victims’ family and friends, the perpetrator’s own family and friends, and even public servants and medical professionals (in which case it is purposeful manipulation).

The grooming of doctors, nurses, mental health carers, family support workers and other public servants is called “Institutional Grooming” and the perpetrator does it for the purpose of self-preservation.

The targets of Institutional Groomers may include their victim’s General Practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, child health nurse, pediatrician, carers at a Family Day Care Facility, school teachers, counselors or therapists. The public servants targeted may be social workers, case workers, investigative officers or police officers employed by government departments such as the Department For Child Protection, the Police’s Family Protection Unit and the Department for Community Development. When done with enough finesse to be successful, institutional grooming ensures that any complaints alleged about the perpetrator are either disregarded outright, doubted and therefore not investigated thoroughly, or if acted upon, subsequently dismissed in a court of law.

Why would a perpetrator go to such lengths to manipulate people other than their victims? Because when their victims, the victims’ family and friends, and the public service networks intended to support their victims are groomed successfully, the investment of all that hard work does not go to waste – the victims are then still available to continue to abuse.

Some Thought Provoking Insights into a Victim’s Reality

The scary thing about successful institutional grooming is that it substantially increases the harm done to the victims, not only because the abuse they face continues for longer, but because they lose their trust and faith in the world around them, in their family and friends, in the professional people who are meant to protect them, and most tragically, in themselves.

The things that are said and done to hurt and manipulate a victim only occur behind closed doors, and it can be very hard to remember exactly what was said or done, where, in which order and at what time, when your world feels like it is caving in. An abuser will jump on this uncertainty to highlight a victim’s supposed insanity or make them seem dishonest, and to shift the focus away from his/her own appalling behavior.

Once a victim’s memories of the abuse, the words said, things done and feelings felt during that abuse, have been twisted and distorted to deny, justify or excuse that abuse, one can understand why the victim begins to feel unsure about what really happened. Combine this with the common symptoms of complete and partial memory blocking and/or memory substitution in victims suffering from even mild cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and one can see how it can all combine to compound a victim’s confusion and distress, and deter them from objecting or trying to report it the next time it happens. One can also see how these factors can pervert the course of Justice.
Grooming by Perpetrators of Family Violence

In the context of family violence, institutional grooming is done to discredit the non- perpetrating parent (who is often also a victim), and the effects of successful institutional grooming in these circumstances are almost always tragic.

In best case scenarios, it can ensure debilitating emotional trauma and devastating long term consequences as the perpetrator is free to continue their abuse of both the child(ren) and the abused parent. In worst case scenarios, the results can be overwhelming, and may include horrific physical abuse, soul destroying sexual abuse or even premature death of the victim(s). The death of such victim(s) may be due to suicide, manslaughter, murder-suicide or violent murder. The most prevalent and obvious consequence however, is once again perversion of the course of Justice, and the undeniable failure of the Legal System’s purpose.

Damned If They Do & Damned If They Don’t

For clarification, consider this generalized example: If a mother seeks help with protecting her children in a situation where emotional and physical abuse of both herself and her children has already occurred, and/or where there has been inappropriate sexual talk and behavior in front of her children (that may or may not be sexual grooming), and the children have displayed signs that indicate possible sexual abuse (that may or may not have happened, and may or may not happen in the future), but where the perpetrator is skilled at the art of institutional grooming, that mother will often then be subjected to accusations of parental alienation and of perpetuating feelings of fear in her children. Instead of being taken seriously, she finds herself having to defend her actions and her parenting skills, and sometimes may even find herself being the one accused of abusing her children.

If she seeks legal advice, she is advised not to make an application to the Family Court because it is likely that any application will result in 50/50 shared care of the kids. Further more, she is informed that under current Family Law, if she makes any allegations of abuse that cannot be proven, she risks being found guilty of parental alienation and quite possibly faces losing her children to the perpetrator in the likely event that interim orders would award him full residency, and allow her only a couple of hours of supervised contact per fortnight, while her children are sent to live with their alleged abuser. She may also be required to pay the legal costs for both parties.

On the other hand, if she does not do anything about seeking help from the authorities, either because she has circumstantial evidence but no substantiated proof, and no other witnesses to testify on her behalf (her own testimony would be considered hearsay, and therefore discounted), or perhaps because she has been doubted and/or counter-accused before, then at some point in the future she may find herself being found guilty of neglecting her duty of care to her children, and face the prospect of losing her kids to foster care.

What Justice?

While I have no doubt that there are indeed parents out there who do not put the best interests of their children first, and who are in fact guilty of alienating their children against the other parent and perhaps even of fabricating false allegations of abuse, whether for revenge or some other reason, surely they must be the minority? Wouldn’t the majority of parents want to put their kids first?

Further more, I ask this question: What about the mother who, in spite of her own abuse, subjugation and degradation, somehow finds the strength to trust her own intuition, and manages to intervene before her children become the victims of more serious physical abuse or devastating sexual abuse? Instead of being supported and respected for the strength she has shown in the face of her adversity, she is instead victimized, subdued and humiliated to an even greater extent. Where is the justice for mothers such as she? Instead she becomes a victim of the system, and so do her children. What happened to breaking the Cycle of Abuse?
A Society-Sized Cycle?

Has anybody even stopped to think that perhaps the term “cycle of abuse” now describes a far greater cycle of perpetual dysfunction than simply the personal relationships between perpetrators and their victims, a cycle that in fact occurs and continues on a much larger scale – one that encompasses modern society as a whole? I mean, who is more likely to be a liar? A victim or their perpetrator?

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but in most cases, what would a victim get out of being a liar? Any parent who has suffered as a victim of family violence, then chosen to speak out against their family’s abuser, and then been consistent in their commitment to the ongoing and endless process of attending appointments with social workers, lawyers, medical professionals, psychologists, counselors, art therapy and group therapy sessions (for both themselves and their children), would agree that the financial costs, physical energy requirements, mental strain and emotional drain of post traumatic abuse times could simply not be worth it.

Proactive parents who choose to engage in such an involved process, due to their genuine desire to heal their family’s wounds, to protect their children from further harm, and to ensure a positive, healthy change in their life circumstances, will have often maintained such efforts for months before the matter is brought before the court, and they will have to maintain their efforts for many months or even years after the court makes final orders, even if orders are reasonably suitable.

In stark contrast, perpetrators who engage in such therapy will almost always only do so after being questioned about allegations of abuse, or in the weeks and days leading up to a court hearing. They only do so to preserve their false reputations, and their energetic last minute efforts will seldom last more than a few weeks past the need to be seen as the “poor victim” of a “vengeful” or “jealous” partner, rather than be exposed as the selfish, unrepentant perpetrators of abuse that they are.
Morality & Proactive Logic vs Passive Ignorance

I think that the Family Law Courts and some government departments are missing the whole point of what is in the best interests of the child. I am not saying that a perpetrator should be guilty until proven innocent, or punished without sufficient proof, but what is wrong with protecting our kids BEFORE they become victims? Why should the only evidence taken seriously enough to warrant supervised contact be substantiated proof of past abuse? Surely prevention is better than a cure?

They cannot say that the cost of supervised contact would be too great if they compare it to the long term costs of abuse to our society, considering how many victims of child abuse go on to have life long psychological problems, alcohol and other substance abuse issues, often grow up to become abusers themselves, or in some cases resort to suicide.
Considerations of a Responsible Government

The purpose of Family Law should be the protection of our children, who are not yet capable of making their own choices, rather than any irrationally perceived justice for those adults who have chosen not to take responsibility for the destructive effects of their abusive behavior, or the unjust persecution of those adults who are trying to shoulder responsibility for both their own and the abusive parents actions, by trying to fight a losing battle that must be fought if they are to honor the duty of care they have to their children.

It is essential that any reforms implemented as a result of the review of the 2006 Family Law Amendments (and any future changes) ensure there are no violations of the first and foremost Rights of our Children – their right to be protected from harm, and to live with out fear, in the warm, safe embrace of unconditional love.

Surely the Government can see the necessity of making well informed decisions regarding the specifics of any changes. Hopefully those responsible for making these decisions will question the effectiveness of a Justice System that only takes into account substantiated proof (scientific fact?) when making judgments that are guided by Laws which have been based on inductively reasoned generalizations drawn from the observation of limited numbers of specific instances (philosophical opinion?). Even the existence of the many heated debates over Australian Shared Parenting Laws highlights the fact that those generalizations were a misrepresentation of the prevailing truth.

The Laws that govern the Australian Family Court System need to be decided by using deductive reasoning to draw valid, logical conclusions from the overwhelmingly substantial amount of relevant empirical evidence available, and most people would agree that those facts can be easily found in the historically prevalent and devastating long term effects observed in children who have witnessed and/or experienced any kind of abuse.

The proven reliability of empirical knowledge obtained by making specific, logical and valid deductions based on vast numbers of instances that demonstrate very clear and consistent long term trends is surely what is required to ensure that the changes made to Family Laws are effective. It is essential that once amended, Family Laws consistently achieve their purpose of effectively guiding judgments in those cases where in there is a need to protect children from a risk of probable future abuse but where most often there is no proof other than circumstantial evidence, victim testimony and professional opinion based on hearsay. It is the only viable path to follow if we are to build a Family Law System in which Justice will actually serve in the best interests of the child.
A Utopian Vision

Once all that is achieved, time will confirm the truth and future generations will prosper from the positive, healthy, and wide spread evolution of our society. Their enlightenment will ensure that the wondrous gift of human morality will finally manifest in every aspect of society, propelling mankind into the peaceful bliss of a Golden Age filled with warmth, love and Light!
Related Links

* Fathers rights Groups Undermining the protections available to victims of violence
How the fathers rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence. by Dr Michael Flood, August 2005
* Shared care an unintended consequence |
Australian Family Magazine
* Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate
* Emotional Abuse & The Power of the Perpetrator
Signs of domestic violence. Violence, Power & Control Wheel. Non-violence & Equality wheel. Emotional abuse can be just as harmful and even fatal. Severe emotional, mental and/or psychological abuse has been compared to torture, and in some c
* Why Abusers Get Away With Claiming Parental Alienation
* Family Court of Australia amendments Petition
We call on the Federal Government to: Amend custody, access and shared care of Australian children following divorce where there is an allegation of violence or abuse by a parent….
* How To Do Your Bit To Help Save Abused Children From Dangerous Family Laws
I feel we all have a duty of care to these children, and I plead with you all to make their cases heard. Our children cannot speak for themselves! Remember that one drop raises the ocean! I have include links to many resources where you can find more
* ALRC Family Violence Inquiry Blog
* Psychopaths Among Us – Profile of a Successful Psychopath
Profile of a Successful Psychopath: if it was easy to recognize a psychopath, then there would be a lot less crime in the world,and the fact is that there are psychopaths living among us. They may live next door, down the street, or even in the same
* Safer Family Law | Home
* My Story – Family Court, Shared Parenting Laws & Child Protection
An Insight into a Mother’s Reality…They asked me to promise to keep them safe, and promise I did, Here is my story… I feel we all have a duty of care to these children, and I plead with you all to make their cases heard. Our children cannot speak
* Child Sexual Abuse & Parental Alienation Syndrome Allegations (Forensics Talk)
A forensic nurse shares her training & experience, and Medical-legal news & commentary about general forensics, forensic nursing, criminal profiling, criminal & civil investigations, assault & abuse, fraud & posts on protecting yo
* Safer Family Law | News Articles
* Emotional Violence & Domestic Abuse – Crazy Making Stuff….
In This Hub – Crazy Making Stuff, Signs of Domestic Violence,Emotional/Psychological Abuse Tactics, Violence, Power & Control Wheel, An Insight into Abuse, How I became Safe at Last, Ok, so it’s Abuse. What Now?, Why Domestic Violence is Often Ov
* QLD Psychologists Attack Parental Alienation (Syndrome) (PAS)
* National Network to End Domestic Violence | Parental Alienation Syndrome Misused in Child Custody Ca
The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) is a membership and advocacy organization representing the 54 state and U.S. territory domestic violence coalitions. NNEDV is the voice of these coalitions, their more than 2,000 local domestic vi
* The “Fathers Rights” Movement: How to Legally Stalk, Harass, and Intimidate Victims of Domestic Viol
* Family law support and knowledge for Mums
* National Council for Children Post-Separation | Home
* Parental Alienation Syndrome – Family Law | Kids In Distress Australia Inc
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), as well as malicious mother syndrome,are discredited theories often used by abusive fathers against mothers, enabling them to gain residency of the children.
* Science and the Scientific Method: What do we really know and what do we just believe?
Science is a form of knowledge beyond the grasp of most everyday people. Many concepts and theories are too complicated for some to even consider trying to understand. Instead we place faith in our superior minded scientists to produce knowledge that
* Complex post traumatic stress disorder (complex ptsd, pdsd, shell shock, nervous shock, combat fatig
Tim Field identifies bullying, harassment and abuse as cause of stress resulting in symptoms of complex ptsd
* Face Book Cause – Stop Violence Against Women & Children in Australian Family Courts


June 4, 2010

article from cannock chase post

Filed under: Secret family courts — Granarchist @ 5:03 am
Yesterday at 21:11
Every organisation in this democratic land is accountable to someone- with the exception of Social Services.
What’s more, because of the Draconian regulations bestowed on this body, the press is, more often than not, ‘muzzled’ from reporting those activities. Yet, in courtrooms throughout the length and breadth of this land- courtrooms without Juries, they are given the ultimate power. They are given the power to take a child away from it’s mother.
In many instances it is the right course of action. In many instances Social services have been castigated for not taking action: The Baby P case in particular.
But, make no mistake, that horrific case where a child was tortured to death at the hands of his mother, boyfriend and their lodger, has seen an air of paranoia sweep through Social Services corridors. It is no coincidence that there has been a massive increase in the number of local children taken into foster care. And paranoid people make hasty decisions. Paranoid people make mistakes.
I am becoming increasingly uneasy about the number of desperate parents who approach this paper in an attempt to get their kids back. Some don’t even want that- they just want to see their kids regularly.
The lack of avenues of appeal open to these individuals flies in the face of open ‘transparent’ justice. A criminal is innocent until proven guilty. A parent who falls foul of social services is guilty, until proven innocent.
Last week Big Dave was approached by a mum who, legally, we cannot identify.
Her two children, aged four and two, were taken into foster care in March. She last saw them in November.
She was recently informed a meeting to discuss adoption proceedings was taking place- a meeting she was not allowed to attend. Then this week came the bombshell news that her kids have been adopted. She will not be given the name or address of the couple. She has seen her children taken from her, prevented from seeing them, then given new parents in just over a year.
I have no intention of debating this local woman’s fitness to be a parent. The mechanics of wrenching her offspring away must be scrutinised, however.
That is because it is flawed. ‘Closed’ courts are, by their very nature, secret. Depriving a mother of her kids is too monumetal a decision to be ‘cloaked in secrecy’.
By all means prevent the press from reporting on these cases, but allow them into the courtroom. Allow these cases to be heard by a jury.
Quite simply, social services have an inordinate amount of power. That amount of power would be acceptable if we knew they never make mistakes, but they do. They have made monumental errors.
And, because of the stringent laws that Social Services are protected by, those parent who feel wronged cannot speak out. We, the press, cannot speak out for them. Take a step back from the hysteria surrounding the Baby P case and ask yourselves…is that justice? Hand on heart, I don’t think it is
i wonder who the culprits might be cannock nazi branch ? sarah peace ? answers on a postcard please

Blog at