T he Famil y Cour t Mode l:

Mothers Submit to the Father or

Face Losing the Children
“In what they have in common, they are equal. Where they differ,
they are not comparable. A perfect woman and a perfect man
ought not to resemble each other in mind any more than in looks,
and perfection is not susceptible of more or less. In the union of
the sexes each contributes equally to the common aim, but not in
the same way. From this diversity arises the first assignable
difference in the moral relations of the two sexes. One ought to be
active and strong, the other passive and weak. One must
necessarily will and be able; it suffices that the other put up little
resistance. Once this principle is established, it follows that
woman is made specially to please man.” –Rousseau, Emile
The illusion of equal rights used to camouflage extreme injustice is not a new
trick. The above quote was written in the eighteenth century, before
feminism forged the rights that women enjoy today. Whilst women’s rights
are now ingrained within our laws and inclusive as a human right, there is
still a prevalent danger that society may fall into dark altogether on women
and girls, if the work done behind the scenes is not seen for what it truly is: a
massive attempt to turn back the clock to a time where only men were seen
and heard. Men and women are engaging in not only the most deceitful, but
one of the lowest acts of all: Holding the children for ransom. The ransom is
not in the form of money either; it is either the mother loses her
independence or the children. He can beat her; the children and no one
would know or care. With their constant campaigns that undermine services
designed to protect women and children from such things; she is on her own
again. With many fundamentalist groups aligned with father’s rights, they
have chipped away at the laws that once protected her from becoming
forced into motherhood and marriage. The illusion that a woman is free from
marriage if she chooses is what adds to the trauma of rape victims. Many
human rights agencies advocate well on the behalf of eastern countries that
have little or no rights for women so I won’t got there in this article. I am
referring to western countries such as United States, United Kingdom and
Australia. In these countries, fathers have not only been able to stop
abortions after a rape, but also acquire some form of custody of the child.
She has no rights as to whether she can be distanced from the man who
violated her body. Like every other women, she is dehumanized if she does
not obey the father’s commands. The family court has evolved into tool for
men to punish women if they have objected, spoke out against child abuse or
violence. It has become a place that actively reduces her to the vacant
women described in Rousseau’s work. If she does not object, she is
awarded with seeing her children. With divorce being a growing trend, the
population that accesses the court is enough to leave societies trends
wounded with inequality and spawn replications of this behavior into
mainstream culture. There are many players taking a hand in not only
tearing down the rights of women, but also her child’s right to have a mother
in their lives, free from the coercive practices that undermine their quality of
life and liberty to be free from poverty and abuse. The media has had a
great monopoly upon the perception of equality in family law and often write
low grade articles that deprive the reader of an objective view on father’s
rights. In reality, the situation for mothers and children are far worse than
can be imagined. In America where Fathers rights are more powerful, 70% of
mothers have not only lost custody to the men that beat them – there are
countless of murder suicides committed by fathers and even that is
camouflaged as the mothers fault and a need for an enforced marriage
contract. The Family Court has also become a place thriving with pedophile
supportive philosophies such as, “Parent Alienation Syndrome” and “false
Memory Syndrome”. Despite Psychological associations not accepting these
terms and excluding it from the diagnostic and statistical manual, the impact
of these labels have thrived. The court of course, more than often refers it
as a “behavior” rather than of a syndrome, but often punishing the children
for speaking out against horrific crimes against them. They are often sent to
the abuser and the mother is made out to be crazy, simply for mentioning
distress or concern for the child. Child protection agencies seldom help with
bringing the perpetrator to justice and often refuse to get involved when
there is custody proceedings. The mother and the child are often on their
own to acquire evidence. In this process, lacking the skills of investigation,
medical expertise and forensic analysis, they are heavily burdened and
easily ridiculed by the way the investigation is handled. Family Courts often
deny that these things occur, but many children’s rights and women’s rights
advocates have spoken out against them for not taking out the procedure in
ensuring the child’s safety. The information that highlights the large amount
of evidence in negligence is even at a professional, shady and layered with
ties that promote a great lack of transparency and accountability within its
institution.

“These 'new' principles of family law compel, and are intended to

compel, former wives to continue to live out the mother role as
constructed by Rousseau. Former wives are not only responsible
for most of the actual labor of caring for children as opposed to
caring about them, but also, and far more controversially, for the
emotional labor of sustaining the relationship between the father
and his children. In this way, it' is hoped, mothers will be
persuaded to induce fanner husbands and partners to remain
involved fathers, thus maximizing the likelihood that fathers will
remain attached to families.” Mothers in Law laying Down for the fathers again –
Hecate

With most key stakeholders holding the belief that somehow the patriarchal
family will cure all breakdowns and thus holding the mother responsible for
the fathers behavior, has been nothing but a turn for the worst for separated
families. In the late 70s it was mostly fathers who were abducting the
children, now the majority is mothers with the highest reason being domestic
violence according to an international social services agency. When a
mother is on the run, the media often try to portray her as “mentally unwell”
or “selfish” for leaving with the children. In some cases mothers have been
able to come forward about why they ran and often its because the Family
Court and child protection failed to protect them. One of the first Americans
to be accepted as an asylum seeker in Netherlands was a Holly Ann Collins.
She had arrived at the airport with a suitcase full of documents that proved
the history of abuse and the systematic failure in protecting them. She was
then granted asylum. Years later, she returned to United States to watch her
daughter go to college. Her daughter had campaigned online presenting all
of the court documents that proved the systematic failure and also the way
she was treated by the court staff as a child. After much campaigning, Holly
Ann Collins was ordered a community services order on which she chose to
assist domestic violence victims. This did not prevent father’s rights groups
from attacking their plights in a low attempt to persuade the public that their
accounts were untrue. Holly Ann Collins is considered by family law experts
as “lucky” to have received such a light sentence, yet she was defying a law
that violated her and the children’s human rights. The culture of the courts
reflects the similar behaviors’ to a perpetrator of intimate partner violence
that if their victim were to “disobey” them, the retaliation price is often very
high. A perpetrator usually acts more in a thug like way to keep the women
well under control, whereas a court judge will be constrained enough not to
inflict physical abuse, but the punishment usually involves isolation and
secondary abuse.
In United Kingdom, they targeted the young and defenseless. They adopted
out thousands of babies because of reasons that don’t justify, but a
motivation to receive five thousand dollars per child. One mother was
breastfeeding her baby, when a group of people ripped the baby off her. She
went to the police station because she thought it was a crime. She
discovered that it was the family court so driven to receive this bonus that
they had “forgot” to file an order.

Australia, a place guilty of stealing thousands of aboriginal children in the

name of “god”, but really meant to “cleanse” the race of a beautiful culture
is doing this again but on a larger front, involving many races, but targeting
one gender: women.