Thankyou Dr Sue. I have read most of your studies on Academia and am glad to see you are posting here as it seems to be one of the last bastions of unfettered information.
''I have yet to see a balanced assessment of the risk to a child which includes ceasing and maintaining the relationship with each parent in the interim''
I think this is a point that seems negligible in the collective mind of the courts. There seems to be no consideration for the damage that is caused, and that is evidenced clearly in sound data and studies that children do much better with both parents in their lives.
Instead they make the mistake of, to use a sporting analogy, 'ball watching' where they become obsessed with the perceived safety of the children. This tends to play directly into the hands of parents who are from that cluster b personality set who, for which 'smearing' and 'revision of history' is part of their predisposition. Not only that, part of the cluster b profile means that they may well be extremely adept at using manipulation techniques to amplify the character assassination of what may well be a normal, safe loving parent. This enables them to triangulate the alienated parent, where Cafcass and other professionals, unwittingly or through incompetence, then become victims to confirmation bias.
There are also current societal trends that favour mothers. One only has to look at the distribution of funding where billions go towards gendered charities, the United Nations 'gender responsive law making' specifically lobbies for mothers, and mother only to receive free legal aid. Pressure from other groups, big tech, main stream media is also being exerted to the point where we are currently in the bizarre situation where government funding is now being spent on posters stating, 'straight white men pass the power'. Try and flip this poster any other way and imagine the justified outrage?
Of course PA is not gendered, I have friends gained through through the PA community who are fantastic mothers and good people who have lost their children to PA. The fact is if either parent has the requisite personality traits that might be predisposed to create what Hayley called the 'perverse triangle', a take on the victim triangle but with the added trauma of a cross generational coalition. This along with the enmeshment causes huge psychological pressure to be exerted on the child.
To an untrained 'professional' this enmeshment may well come across as a caring parent (rescuer) and a distraught child (victim) and they are drawn in by the 'smearing' and the the child will play along and display what Amy Baker calls, 'the independent thinker phenomenon''. They wont see the splitting or the lack of rationalisation in what are usually frivolous complaints to attack and demonise the alienated parent (persecutor).
Whilst I don't really put much weight on anecdotal evidence, my experience of the family court system was that I was demonised by Cafcass officers who, not only refused to listen to the psychological report, but actively assisted mother to alienate my daughters from me. I am an reasonably articulate dad with no safeguarding issues, I don't drink, have a good job and have a healthy lifestyle. The Court lost complete focus on that and became fixated on making me jump through hoops and write constant apology letters to my daughter. When I asked Cafcass what I was apologising for they would say I needed to appreciate my daughters 'lived experience' regardless of whether or not their mother was influencing them as evidenced by the psychologist. I tried to make the point that re-enforcing distortions in children was abusive in itself they just said that I lacked understanding and that I 'read too much'. In the end you are just gaslit out of the process. I was never even observed with my children. Cafcass now deem this to be 'too stressful' for the children. Videos of me with the children before I was alienated were discredited by Cafcass because the children said they were just pretending to be happy and really they hated me. This was their 'lived experience' and we should understand that, of course the psychologist disputed this but they were ignored.
Looking at the picture in your article is heart-breaking for me. It symbolises a lost childhood for my children. Something they can never get back. They will never experience the love of their father, holidays with their dad or see their dads side of the family and play with their once beloved Labradors. They will be conditioned to hate their father and men as a whole. Sadly, this seems to be something that society deems to be acceptable and in some realms, even commendable. In the mean time I have to stay healthy for my daughters, and be ready for a knock on the door should that day ever come.
I have lost three friends in this past year to the black dog, and I am really worried about where society as a whole is going. I hope that things turn around soon. We have lost ourselves and there is a storm looming. I will be there for my beloved daughters with a brolly, a flask of tea and a map when they need it.
We have formed the Family Court Reform Coalition (fcrc.uk) to look specifically at private-law Children Act proceedings, and to petition for reform to relieve children of the harms arising from the court processes. One of our key areas of interest is the constructive child alienation arising from withholding contact where domestic abuse is alleged. Would very much appreciate your input.
The key problem, as I see it, is that decision-makers are subject to an uneven professional risk-reward profile:
Allow contact and get it right, and no-one cares
Allow contact and get it wrong, career over.
Hence a need for legislative intervention, as the 'market' is perverse.
I’m so glad you’re doing this Sue. Can we link on the CFS website?
Thankyou Dr Sue. I have read most of your studies on Academia and am glad to see you are posting here as it seems to be one of the last bastions of unfettered information.
''I have yet to see a balanced assessment of the risk to a child which includes ceasing and maintaining the relationship with each parent in the interim''
I think this is a point that seems negligible in the collective mind of the courts. There seems to be no consideration for the damage that is caused, and that is evidenced clearly in sound data and studies that children do much better with both parents in their lives.
Instead they make the mistake of, to use a sporting analogy, 'ball watching' where they become obsessed with the perceived safety of the children. This tends to play directly into the hands of parents who are from that cluster b personality set who, for which 'smearing' and 'revision of history' is part of their predisposition. Not only that, part of the cluster b profile means that they may well be extremely adept at using manipulation techniques to amplify the character assassination of what may well be a normal, safe loving parent. This enables them to triangulate the alienated parent, where Cafcass and other professionals, unwittingly or through incompetence, then become victims to confirmation bias.
There are also current societal trends that favour mothers. One only has to look at the distribution of funding where billions go towards gendered charities, the United Nations 'gender responsive law making' specifically lobbies for mothers, and mother only to receive free legal aid. Pressure from other groups, big tech, main stream media is also being exerted to the point where we are currently in the bizarre situation where government funding is now being spent on posters stating, 'straight white men pass the power'. Try and flip this poster any other way and imagine the justified outrage?
Of course PA is not gendered, I have friends gained through through the PA community who are fantastic mothers and good people who have lost their children to PA. The fact is if either parent has the requisite personality traits that might be predisposed to create what Hayley called the 'perverse triangle', a take on the victim triangle but with the added trauma of a cross generational coalition. This along with the enmeshment causes huge psychological pressure to be exerted on the child.
To an untrained 'professional' this enmeshment may well come across as a caring parent (rescuer) and a distraught child (victim) and they are drawn in by the 'smearing' and the the child will play along and display what Amy Baker calls, 'the independent thinker phenomenon''. They wont see the splitting or the lack of rationalisation in what are usually frivolous complaints to attack and demonise the alienated parent (persecutor).
Whilst I don't really put much weight on anecdotal evidence, my experience of the family court system was that I was demonised by Cafcass officers who, not only refused to listen to the psychological report, but actively assisted mother to alienate my daughters from me. I am an reasonably articulate dad with no safeguarding issues, I don't drink, have a good job and have a healthy lifestyle. The Court lost complete focus on that and became fixated on making me jump through hoops and write constant apology letters to my daughter. When I asked Cafcass what I was apologising for they would say I needed to appreciate my daughters 'lived experience' regardless of whether or not their mother was influencing them as evidenced by the psychologist. I tried to make the point that re-enforcing distortions in children was abusive in itself they just said that I lacked understanding and that I 'read too much'. In the end you are just gaslit out of the process. I was never even observed with my children. Cafcass now deem this to be 'too stressful' for the children. Videos of me with the children before I was alienated were discredited by Cafcass because the children said they were just pretending to be happy and really they hated me. This was their 'lived experience' and we should understand that, of course the psychologist disputed this but they were ignored.
Looking at the picture in your article is heart-breaking for me. It symbolises a lost childhood for my children. Something they can never get back. They will never experience the love of their father, holidays with their dad or see their dads side of the family and play with their once beloved Labradors. They will be conditioned to hate their father and men as a whole. Sadly, this seems to be something that society deems to be acceptable and in some realms, even commendable. In the mean time I have to stay healthy for my daughters, and be ready for a knock on the door should that day ever come.
I have lost three friends in this past year to the black dog, and I am really worried about where society as a whole is going. I hope that things turn around soon. We have lost ourselves and there is a storm looming. I will be there for my beloved daughters with a brolly, a flask of tea and a map when they need it.
Runningonempty
Hi Dr Whitcombe
We have formed the Family Court Reform Coalition (fcrc.uk) to look specifically at private-law Children Act proceedings, and to petition for reform to relieve children of the harms arising from the court processes. One of our key areas of interest is the constructive child alienation arising from withholding contact where domestic abuse is alleged. Would very much appreciate your input.
The key problem, as I see it, is that decision-makers are subject to an uneven professional risk-reward profile:
Allow contact and get it right, and no-one cares
Allow contact and get it wrong, career over.
Hence a need for legislative intervention, as the 'market' is perverse.