I cannot be the only one to feel immense relief on watching the news of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in the High Court this week, on the father who was supposedly a cult leader involved in importing babies to the UK in order to kill and eat them and dance around their skulls. At least someone in the legal system is able to give a clear and unequivocal message, not only about the existence of satanic cults in Hampstead but on the way in which coaching a child to make false allegations of this nature is ‘torturing them.’ These children are now safe from the abuse that their mother and step father inflicted upon them, I cannot help but wonder about the mental and emotional health of their father who was at the centre of these allegations.
False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when that separation is accompanied by high levels of conflict. Writing in the splendidly detailed and must have book for all mental health practitioners working with separated families – Parental Alienation – The Handbook for Legal and Mental Health Professionals, T W Campbell tells us
False allegations of CSA (Child Sexual Abuse) typically originate as rumours and can spiral out of control as the ensuing processes of rumour dissemmination gather greater and greater momentum. False allegations do not involve the malicious premeditation found in fabricated allegations (page 164)
Fabricated allegations however, are differentiated by Campbell as being
based upon premediated determination to direct allegations at an entirely innocent person (page 164)
Which is why, when we are working with separated families where such allegations are made, it is important to know how the allegation arose in the first place and then what impact the allegation had upon the concentric circles around the family. This allows differentiation and differentiation allows deeper understanding, of the nature of the allegations and why and how they arose.
In the case of the children in Hampstead, these allegations were apparently made by children who actually had been abused, the evidence from physical examination showed that sexual abuse had taken place. This could place these children into the category of making false allegations about the abuse, taking something which actually happened and turning it into a fantastical story which centred around their mother and step father’s desire to drive the father out of the children’s lives. In judging that these children had been harmed in order to get them to make the allegations, Mrs Justice Pauffley said that
the boy and girl had been “tortured” into making false claims, and said that their “minds were scrambled”.
A condition which in my experience, can be regularly seen in children who are influenced to say things and believe things that are not true about a once loved parent.
Whilst this case is extreme in its presentation, there are cases of false allegations which spiral up from innocent events in which children who are caught between warring parents or, in many cases, between one parent determined to eradicate the other. Children who are at the root of such situations, have often said or done something which has been taken by an angry parent who has misinterpreted what has been said as confirming their own deeply held beliefs about how bad the other parent is. When children are confronted by this parent’s reaction to what they have said, they can be brought to a place where they are scared of the consequences of not confirming what the parent assumes is being said. And it is at this point that a child can trip something that actually happened but which was not wrong and not damaging, into a full blown crisis. Once inside the family court system, staffed as it is with people who are largely trained to take the wishes and feelings of children at face value, this crisis will burn through the lives of all it touches like wildfire. The flames being fanned by the children who will, quite easily by now, embellish the original story and shift it and change it to meet the needs of the adults around them.
In fabricated allegations, where no abuse has taken place but the children have been primed and persuaded to tell stories about what has happened to them, mind scrambling is a very good way of describing what is done to a child in order to get them to make the allegations in the first place. Imagine, a child who has absolutely no understanding of sex, no concept of what sex means and no way of comprehending the act, but who is persuaded and encouraged to make such allegations against a loved parent. Unkowing of the implications of what they are saying, such children are often enmeshed by a parent who cannot see that their behaviour is damaging to the child. What kind of ‘torture’ of the mind and emotions must a child endure in order to be brought to that point? What kind of person manipulates a child to do such a thing? If Mrs Justice Pauffley is to be believed, such a person is damaging to the child’s wellbeing. And yet how many, less lurid and yet nevertheless just as damaging cases pass through the family courts on an annual basis, in long drawn out proceedings which often have to run alongside criminal investigations before an end can be found to the torture.
All of this is, to my mind, part of the cultural imperatives which our family courts and particularly our family services are influenced by. Although feminism is a political ideology, and as such should not be found within a hundred metres of any such professional, it is routinely THE ideology of choice for professionals working with the family. Feminism, which in the last forty years has come to be synonymous with the word equality, has an overarching driver, to ensure that the needs of women are put first within an assumption that men are always priviliged within a patriarchal society. Practitioners around the family, who freely proclaim their feminist identity, are therefore always going to be biased in terms of whose needs they recognise and meet, it being an anathema to feminist doctrine that men’s needs are considered equally to those of women. Additionally, as much of our current legislation around the separated family was created and is maintained by feminist academics who are heavily interlinked with organisations such as Gingerbread and Women’s Aid, both of whom are outspokenly feminist, the family separation playing field is already far less than level for those who venture onto it. Into this hotbed of political ideology enters the child who makes false or fabricated allegations and the parent with whom they are aligned, most often the mother and very often supported by groups of workers from feminist organisations. Within which there is an unshakeable belief that all women must be believed without question and that children do not lie.
But children do lie and they lie regularly and often and they lie especially when the circumstances they find themselves in encourage them to lie and especially when there is little possibility their lies will be found out. Ask any separated parent whether their child has ever reported something negative about the other parent and you will find that they have. And then try being the only person who moves between one hostile household and the other whilst maintaining an absolute honesty in each camp about what goes on in the other. Children who live between hostile environments, or who have to navigate the hatred and hostily in one home towards the other are going to tell lies at some point in their lives, they have to, it’s a survival mechanism, it is a way of ensuring that they are welcome in both places. Interviewing children who live in separated family situations without knowing the truth of this, is a bit like being an oncologist who believes that the cure for cancer lies in alternative medicine.
In his research paper Evidence of the extreme unreliability of some children’s ascertainable wishes and feelings – Dr Kirk Weir discusses the way in which young children who express wishes not to see a parent will often change their minds completely when they are taken to see that parent. I myself, in my work with children of all ages, have observed the phenomenon of children being utterly adamant that they cannot, will not and must not see a parent, only to fall into that parent’s arms with a minute of seeing them. Working in a prevailing orthodoxy which demands that we
a) believe that children know their own minds
b) children never lie and
c) overriding children’s expressed wishes and feelings is abusive
is a difficult thing to do when one is aware of how children manage uncomfortable feelings that they find difficult to articulate. Listening to Social Workers determinedly pronouncing that they will not ‘force’ children to see a parent because that would be abusive, as I have again this week, it is very hard not to feel one’s heart sinking into one’s boots.
Do children know their own minds? Mrs Justice Pauffley says not this week, in fact she says that these young minds have been scrambled. Yes this case is extreme and so it is easier to believe that the right judgement has been made, even amidst the wave after wave of child abuse hysteria sweeping the land. But away from the spotlight, week after week, month after month, year after year, children are being dragged into post separation family battles using the scrambling of their minds as the ‘evidence’ that is needed to secure victory. And the prevelance of this is unlikely to stop anytime soon because collectively, the feminist ideologues push harder and harder for the time when children’s wishes and feelings are without question and children as young as ten should be given the right to say what should happen to them when their mum and dad go their separate ways.
It is wrong, it is torture and it is ruining the lives of children and their beloved parents up and down this land, not just in Hampstead.
Making decisions about life after family separation should not be left to the wishes and feelings of children as interpreted by people whose only training in the field of false and fabricated allegations is underpinned by a feminist political ideology which denies that these things exist. And who not only believe that the expressed wishes and feelings of children should drive outcomes but that those wishes and feelings are fixed and unchangeable.
Does anyone, like me, wonder what those same practitioners think when they see the judgement of Mrs Justice Pauffley this week?
Or what pracitioners who routinely advise parentectomy would say when they see a child who adamantly refused to see a parent one day, skip happily into the arms of that parent the next?
Children lie and people who work with separated families should know that they lie and why.
And to deny that is tantamount in my view, to colluding with a system which enables the scrambling of young minds and emotional torture. It is giving them responsibilities they are too young to bear at a time in their lives when they are vulnerable and doing their very best to cope. And sometimes lying is the only way these children can cope.
And as practitioners charged with the care of these vulnerable children, our responsibility is to see beyond political ideology and past the prevailing orthodoxy and be courageous enough to see it, name it and do something about it.
Because if the adults take responsibility then children don’t have to.
Reblogged this on John Allman . UK and commented:
Yesterday, I spent what seemed like about an hour reading carefully the judgment about which Karen Woodall wrote during the past hour or so. I have been in touch about this case with Sabine McNeill for some time, trying to warn her about what was really going on. I had decided to blog about the case myself, using the title “Extreme Parental Alienation”. But then thought that Karen would make a better job of that. I was about to resume my search for Karen’s email address, to send her a link to the judgment, when notification arrived that Karen had beaten me to it. So, I am reblogging Karen’s post, and recommending to my readers reading Karen’s post, and also (please!) the judgment.
In view of the fact that this new political party: Restore The Family For Children’s Sake, which Andrew Bull and I have started, is looking for candidates for the general election and any council elections the same day, this breakthrough, judicial recognition at last of parental alienation, couldn’t have come at a better time, from my point of view.
However, if the child abusers in this case (the alienating mother and her boyfriend) hadn’t been quite as stupid as they obviously were, when coaching the children to lie about their father, one wonders whether the innocent father would now be on bail, awaiting trial for child abuse himself.
Feminnazi-sceptics will enjoy the humilation of the “expert” witness Dr Hodges, to be found in the judgment.
Thanks for this John, it just substantial evidence that can be used by all balanced parental support groups to promote partity in respononsible parenting; as noted only one party political grouping which is established supports this insuperably.
Stunningly perceptive of the world from the child’s eye view.
What will it take for the feminist brigade referred to – to admit that their intention ALL ALONG – has been to eliminate male influence from the family as much as possible…and instead to do everything to make female influence the predominant one in children’s lives…and thus in the world at large?
Children lying, in such situations, as Karen says…is simply a survival mechanism in the face of such an extreme assault on their lives.
In my experience so far – these type of women, seem, actually – to utterly despise children.
I agree with you entirely. In addition I think practitioners are aware of what is happening.
Practitioners don’t want to do anything about it.
Evidence for this:
1. My Cafcass Officer told me I should wait till the children grow up before I renew my relationship with them. This was in response to my fears that my children were showing signs of rejecting me.
2. On your Blog Pigletsmum was advised by her Doctor to keep away from her children because they thought the children would be too stressed.
3. My Doctor simply blocked all information about my children in spite of knowing that one of my children was being physically and mentally abused by their mother.
I can only surmise that practitioners imagine the children are better off with one parent in control especially where the other parent isn’t in agreement with the views of the controlling parent.
I remember reading on the Cafcass website that shared parenting only works where the separating parents are in agreement………………therefore we must assume in the case of one dominant parent and another whingeing one that Cafcass believe shared parenting won’t work.
I do agree that shared parenting is going to be difficult where the parents are in conflict………but my solution would be to work with the parents. Cafcass seem very keen to wipe their hands of this, perhaps because they feel one parent can adequately care for a child. I do remember challenging them on this a couple of years ago and they failed to respond….all I got was silence and vacant eyes, as if they were suffering emotional amnesia.
They know very well that children are losing one of their parents but it’s not their job to rectify disputes between parents.
When one parent is aggressive and domineering perhaps they think it best not to upset them further; the implication being that things would only get worse for the children.
The safety net is of course to take the children into care…………not to consider the capability of the ostracised parent.
Either way it’s no longer possible to examine the workings of Cafcass. Now that Ofsted no longer oversee them they seem destined to be a law unto themselves.
A very incisive and knowledgable overview of the family courts and more importantly the myriad unregulated and unaccountable agencies within local government which wreck such havoc on innocent parents usually dads and vulnerable children by rigidly adhering to such warped ideology.
Of course we can be comforted by the dopey Minister for Justice Simon Hughes repeatedly stating that “the voice of the child must be heard.” If ever there was an incentive for alienating parents to do so this green light ranks high.
I wonder what his views are post Hampstead satanic cult child abuse insanity. Perhaps the Greens will blame McDonalds for their imaginary secret kitchen. Or the parcel delivery companies who allegedly delivered children aged up to ten for ritual satanic abuse will have to undergo enhanced ISO 9002 accredidation.
The reason why I mock is because I know some of the people who were heavily involved in facilitating and publicising the above. Don’t laugh but some of them are/were very intelligent and capable people. Until the ideology they immersed themselves in devoured them. And yet I know some dads whose judgment is so twisted after years in this system of perpetual abuse they express hatred and contempt for Pauffley for as they see it covering up paedophilia. The after effects of madness can be contagious.
Which is why we need incisive and knowledgable articles such as the above to remind us of how matters should be approached where children are concerned. We live in hope.
It is hardly surprising that the children’s minds were scrambled when even many of the adults involved in this case are desperately confused. As Vincent says, there are ‘some dads whose judgment is so twisted after years in this system of perpetual abuse they express hatred and contempt for Pauffley for as they see it covering up paedophilia’.
It is clear from Facebook and elsewhere that many people still believe the allegations the mother made, and it fascinates me how persistent the satanic ritual abuse (SRA) myth still is. There is just enough truth in the case (the children WERE being terribly abused, just not by the father) to make it plausible, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence in any of the many SRA cases which have come to court in this and other countries.
Similarly, there is just enough truth in the current paedophilia moral panic (there really are paedophiles) for people to believe it, despite again the lack of evidence for paedophile rings and cover-ups.
I don’t know about Vincent, but my judgement was pretty twisted by the time the family courts had finished with me, and there were things I believed 10 years ago which I know now to be false. Like many fathers, I bought into the standard myth put about by fathers’ groups like F4J which are designed to arouse fathers’ ire and ‘weaponise’ them to make them easy to manipulate.
I now know this myth is not accurate, though there is enough truth in it to make it plausible. We are all on a learning curve, and most of us have had to readjust our views as our learning progresses – Karen, I hope, won’t mind me pointing out that her rejection of feminism has required a huge readjustment and admission that her world-view was once wrong.
I hope that my current understanding of these issues is correct, but I have to accept that in rejecting one false paradigm I may have adopted another. Perhaps we should be wary of assuming our own paradigm is correct merely because we can see with certainty that someone else’s is obviously nonsense. The people I distrust are those who present their views with absolute certainty that they cannot be wrong (like the animal rights protesters in the recent BBC documentary), or who see the world in black and white, with no shades of grey.
When, as a foreigner, you enter the family law system here you don’t know any of this. Ignorantly you kind of assume that lying and false allegations would set the alarm bells ringing with social services and Cafcass and genuinely question the welfare of children who lives with the source of the allegations. Not so…
Five years ago, about one year into hostile finance and children’s proceedings, my then 8 year old son brought a note in to school which said that I hurt him. Alarm! Police and social services involved with interviews plus interview with a family psychologist that had already been involved with the case. Contact immediately stopped with all my children.
Nobody believed my poor son and credit to the High Court Cafcass officer who was getting warm on the case, she took on Leatherhead social services with gusto.
At the conclusion meeting with all involved at Leatherhead SS I made the point that my son may be feeling confused and insecure about all this and suggested he needed to be helped through this by independent therapists. The young female social worker looked at me with disdain saying “this does not mean you are innocent, it only means that your son is a bad witness”. This goes exactly to your point above. Children don’t lie and since my son didn’t lie, in her view, he didn’t need any help. And for sure M had nothing to do with it….
However, the Cafcass officer suggested contact resumption and family therapy. At this juncture M then suggested that I was a paedophile citing inappropriate child porn pictures on a hard drive she had. Alarm, Police and social services involved with interviews. My older son(12 and already alienated for two years) suggested that I touched his private parts inappropriately when he was younger . I needed a criminal lawyer. Kroll, Police and Cafcass looked at my computers and of course only found normal family photos.
Cafcass again ordered family therapy for the children and more assessment by experts. Expert concludes that M found it difficult to support my involvement with the children but suggested they should live with her but only if she attended parenting courses and took the children to therapy. Contact resumes but M refuse to take children to therapy saying “they don’t want too” and she can do the assessment herself. More contact difficulties until finally Cafcass supports sole residence for me for the younger children. Judge orders such order but also another final hearing at which time I had had enough and manages to settle with a SRO. But my older son remains alienated to this day and of course no parenting classes or therapy took place.
The so what in my case is
1. Given the doctrine of “wishes and feelings” and “children never lie”, it takes an Herculean effort of consistency and flawless behaviour to not only prove your innocence but to prove why you are a good father, continously. Implementation is fragile as there is no mechanism on the ground that will implement the court’s decision. Police and SS will follow the child’s “wishes”, not the conclusion of years of assessments followed by strong orders. So the alienator learns to never give up! As the children get older they too learn how to lie and co-manipulate effectively now well aware establishment will support them to get what they think they want. Are these the kind of young adults we want to bring up?
2. When a sole residence case arrives at Court the assumption is essentially that the children lives with the mother. That is before the Court knows the family from Adam. There is an immediate assumption that M has the children’s best interest at heart and is best suited to be “resident parent”. If you resist you are “unreasonable”. This gives a M a great start creating a new normality in the minds of the children and with SS of course and “who would want to upset an idyllic situation”? This immediate power boost in combination with the financial benefits, creates an alienation fertile environment that I believe even a compassionate and reasonable M would find hard to resist. Obviously English family lawyers are keen to assist… I.e. Let the lying begin!
3. Before all of the above took place family proceedings were pursued for a few months in one of the U.S. States that has shared parenting. The difference could not have been starker. Within days family therapists were involved to help implement a 50/50 routine with the children(“don’t worry, you have two homes now with things in both homes and you will see both mummy and daddy equally”). Judge lectured M immediately that if she could not support this principle in the law F would have full custody). That took weeks to establish. Conflict prevented, children happy.
Back here in the UK we were thrown into the UK child torture machine that has kept conflict festering for years. So I am saying that Family law in this country creates more Alienators and lying children than necessary which is unhelpful for our children’s emotional development. The outcome stats are well known.
4. Finally the punchline. M was a DV perpetrator. In the US she was arrested and issued with no contact order. When cought for DV in the UK F was to leave to house and had no contact order. Cafcass gave M “credit” for her US arrest! Again, DV law is probably similar in both countries but English application is feminist.
5. Given the platinum “get out of jail” card given to mothers in this country and the lack of any type of gender equality in the application of law, we cannot expect anything else than a large number of emotionally tortured children growing up in single mother households with a very distorted view of social and legal justice.
Sorry long post…
That is why you have verbalised your over extended blog well. What you would be ordering and in the best interest of all our children is for all parents to realise those together and those apart that shared…equal or parity of responsible parenting, which in reality Ken Clarke as Justice Secretary wanted this enaction in response to the Family Justice Review of 11/12 has to become a reality as from 8th May 2015. Shamefully for our children this was dropped from private law in the Children and Family Act of 4/14.
Fortunately there is time to twist the proverbials of all the political parties on this issue prior to the General Election on 7th May. Only two political parties support such parity; the Green Party and the Family Party. The Greens have candidates in 70% plus of all constituents and the Family Party hopefully 20 PPC’s. Together they can bring this necessary change. Please support this change and vote for them to make our families stronger.
I can’t find any information about The Family Party – doesn’t seem to register on any Google search. I’m not suggesting that minority parties can’t have an influence – I noticed yesterday that Labour and LibDem now actually have very strong Green agendas…essentially as strong as the Green Party, now – it would seem! So the urgent pressure to consider this paramount family issue needs to be on those two – I would have thought? Not had a chance to compare the full range of policies – but certainly on NHS and Environment it’s hard to tell Labour and LibDem apart.
“Does anyone, like me, wonder what those same practitioners think when they see the judgement of Mrs Justice Pauffley this week?
Or what pracitioners who routinely advise parentectomy would say when they see a child who adamantly refused to see a parent one day, skip happily into the arms of that parent the next?”
I saw a couple of reactions to this case. One was, this did happen and Mrs Justice Pauffley is part of the cover up. The other one was it didn’t happen but the stepfather was to blame, i.e. mother has diminished responsibility.
I have also seen how so called professionals react to a child happily skipping into the arms of a parent having denied they ever wanted to see them again, only for the child to return to the stance of never wanting to see that parent again once they were back with the alienating parent. The professional’s reaction is simply oh well children are fickle regarding such things.
In short the professional’s own political conviction must be maintained at all times and whatever explanation of the children’s behavior that will allow that will be used, even if it is contradictory to what the same professional normally think of children’s behavior. There is a lack of rational and critical thinking that is astonishing and clearly the resulting cognitive dissonance is less severe for these people than having to let go of their political convictions.
This case is much worse than meets the eye if anyone had seen the video’s the mother unlawfully posted on the internet (now removed) they would have seen coaxing in action. The children also accused the whole school and police officers of being involved, they made for very disturbing viewing and it must be questioned why their removal from the mother care took so long. The mother who also involved the step-father in her coaxing (not the other way round) basically got the children to accuse anyone who disagreed with her as being part of the cult. She was so manipulative she had a band of feminist protesting outside the Royal Courts of Justice for days. This band also included a Mckenzie friend who fled to Germany to avoid being interviewed by the police. Most of these women operate on Facebook and other social networking sites doing the same thing over and over again, practicing parental alienation in order to get fathers removed from their children’s lives, none of them are acting in the best interests of the children indeed they are responsible for serious psychological damage to any child who’s mother they are supporting
One of my contacts, for several years, has been the erstwhile McKenzie friend of the abusive and fugitive Russian mother, Sabine McNeill, named in the judgment.
Sabine (last I heard) is on the run, to escape arrest, after defying a court order not to embarrass the victim children, by publishing the ABE police footage. I think I have probably watched all of that footage, including passages I haven’t found uploaded. I tried, unsuccessfully, to warn Sabine off. The frantic, last-minute internet campaign to which the judge refers critically,viewed by four million or so, is largely my cyber contact/friend’s Sabine’s, own misguided project.
I therefore find it embarrassing that Sabine’s website was recently ranked top of the referrers to my own website, even though I appreciate all the traffic I can get.
I am victim myself of what you often call “parental alienation”. Much more to the point, so is my youngest son, now aged only four.
Oh how I wish that the child safeguarding industry’s professionals could become better educated than many of them are! Educated, that is, to recognise for what they are alienators’ plots to defame already disempowered parents, disempowering them even more, plots cruelly to manipulate their own and their ex-partners’ children to corroborate their fantasies, or sheer fabrications.
Alienating parents are somehow, almost routinely, nowadays deemed more deserving of credence, than are the alienated parents who are the victims of the false allegations that the alienators are willing to “torture” their own children to corroborate.
In this particular case, the false allegations were so far-fetched that the court would have been left with no choice but to have disbelieved the false allegations. But I’d estimate that there could well be a fair few million victim children in the UK, bullied into corroborating alienators’ fantastical narratives that are just as false as child P and child Q’s narratives,
Most alienators are not as stupid, deranged and downright evil as P and Q’s abusers. If my ex had accused me of being part of a Satanist cult in which every parent of every child in the school, and the local vicar, and the managers of various fast food restaurant were complicit, a cult that slaughtered babies, and danced whilst adorned, twenty a-piece with the late, sacrificed babies, I’d have been jumping for joy. Alas, I have been falsely accused of nothing as far-fetched as that. So, however hard we night try to capitalise on this most *extreme* example of alienation, this alone will not protect our children.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
Reblogged this on cg444blog's Blog and commented:
Le crime de la complicité et du déni au profit de valeur monétaire fait que la matière de droit familial, est celle où les bénéfices fructueux abondante et fertile en alimentation des drames familiaux ne laisse aucune raison de protéger les droits des personnes qui sont des numéros de dossiers empilés chez les avocats qui les accumulent le plus possible
Karen did you even watch the videos or read the medical report before writing this?
Yes I did. And those children are, in my view, clearly alienated, coached and seriously damaged. I know alienated children when I see and hear them. This place however is not for anyone who is wanting to have a debate about this case, that can be done elsewhere, the right judgement was reached, I hope those children are safe now from harm for the rest of their lives.
Sorry, I didn’t want to debate, I was just asking for your thoughts on the medical examination?
I would say that the evidence in the judgement from the med exam which was critiqued heavily, suggested something and, there is something in one of the ABE interviews with the boy that suggests something too but what it suggests and what is claimed are two different things and what those kids were put through to get them to say what they said was plain and simple child abuse and outright alienation. I don’t want to debate the ins and outs of this because there are other places to do this and I don’t want the reality of false allegations and fabricated allegations in alienation to become twisted up SRA debates here either. In my view the judgement was sound. I hope both children are safe now for the rest of their lives.
John, I am not posting anymore comments about this subject not because of you but because there are a number of people trying to argue about this and I don’t want this place to be infected by that kind of stuff. Alienation is a hard enough subject without the SRA debate going on here too. Jimmi, I am not allowing any posts of that nature on this site so please do not attempt to post such material on here again.
My daughter falsely accused me (she knew the truth, but somehow felt justified and that it was something she needed to do to have her father’s attention and “love”, naturally, he rewarded her for causing me this pain and making himself appear to be the hero to his daughter and his 5th wife). I know other moms who have even been accused of molesting their kids. I do believe this happens — that both moms and dads do this, but the other details surrounding the situations I speak of point to lies and a pattern of abuse by the accuser, not the accused.
When I reblogged this, the word “judgment” linked to the judgment on Bailli. Now it links to an piece in the Guardian that doesn’t link to the judgment either.
why dont you like to hear other peoples comments because you only like to hear your own
because I am not interested in comments from anyone on this case, there are other places to discuss this case, not here.
This is a great article Karen. Hope you remember me I attend yours and Nick’s course in Leicester about 6months back. I am still stuck in the family courts(18months now). I am desperate for away of getting you involved in my case for the good of the children