Attack, Allege and Assert: The Tactic Being Used to Hide Child Abuse in the UK

Written by:

I am in Switzerland on vacation, but woke this morning to an inbox full of emails from distressed mothers and fathers (and some grandparents too) on the topic of (yet another) round of media claims from campaigners involved in women’s rights. This time the subject is a study which claims that mothers are dying and children are being handed to convicted ‘abusers’ because of the label ‘parental alienation’ which is being showcased by Ed Thomas at the BBC. Horror stories make good media – I would like to see the study, the questions and the verification of the claims which are being made by those who make assertions based upon this research.

The BBC in its storyline says that it has been running an investigation into the issue of the Family Courts for some time. Ed Thomas (you can contact him with your story below), says that he has conducted an investigation, citing evidence such as –

One mother, whose child was ordered to live with a convicted child rapist, would no longer eat and drink and “gave up living”, friends say.

I don’t know whether Ed has seen verification of the conviction of the child rapist concerned, perhaps he has, if he has however, he doesn’t say so, relying instead on the say so of friends of the mother concerned, a theme which pretty much runs throughout this piece. This is not evidence and neither are the wider claims within the article. Instead, Like the controversial film ‘Torn Apart‘ this appears to be another study which relies upon the claims made by mothers whose children have been removed from them because of the psychological and emotional harm which they have caused. If it is not, then let us see the evidence of the study, including the evidence that children are being handed to convicted abusers, which is a story I would be interested in reading. Otherwise, this is just the same tactic of attack, allegation and assertion, involving the same players who have for a very long time, been trying to overturn the use of the label ‘parental alienation’ in Court.

The appearance of a barrister well known for her allegiance with this group of campaigners lends an air of gravitas to the reporting and the use of MP Jess Phillips lends another dynamic to the piece. In truth however, this is just another round of the same claims that have been circulating since 2019, led by those who seek to overturn the use of the label ‘parental alienation’ using any means necessary. What the piece fails to recognise, (perhaps because those who participated in it do not understand), is that ‘parental alienation’ as a label, is no longer used in the Family Courts after the President of the Family Division issued guidelines on working with patterns of alienating behaviours rather than the label.

Whilst this campaign is well thought out in that it uses key people in positions of relative power who appear, (at least to some), convincing, if you look deeper, what becomes obvious is that beneath the attacks, assertions and allegations (against rejected parents, as well as anyone who works in child protection the Family Courts), there is an absence of evidence to support the claims being made. What is missing in the report by Ed Thomas for example, is balance, which would set this study in context. The work being done by Government on alienating behaviours, is referenced but it is done so with the same relience upon a lack of the evidence of the allegations being made and the absence of the study itself which is, after all, the basis of the whole piece. Which is what perplexes me the most, that someone who is supposed to be an independent ‘special reporter’ has not done the ground work to understand how these stories arise. As I am in Switzerland currently, I cannot watch the programme Ed has made, perhaps someone else will and will give me some of the context. Does Ed speak to anyone in the Judiciary for example? Does Ed speak to anyone who is doing the work of protecting children in the Family Court? Does Ed produce the evidence to substantiate the claims being made about ‘parental alienation’, or has he simply listened to the stories of those who are unhappy with outcomes in the Family Court and relied upon those to tell a horror story?

The Real Horror Story

Any death relating to divorce and separation is a tragedy but for decades now, mothers and fathers have lost their children due to the impact of a child being triangulated into the breakdown of the adult relationship, mothers and fathers who have been grieving those losses, many of whom have lost their lives in the process, all of whom are disregarded, unreported and frankly, utterly disrespected every time a reporter falls into the same trap of listening to claims made by lobby groups. That reporters are so readily persuaded by these allegations and assertions (seemingly without sight of evidence), leads to what reads like a campaign strategy – ie: attention grabbing headlines with little substance. Had there been any attempt to balance out the reporting with evidence,(at least in the piece that I have seen), this might have produced a reality based piece which would be worthy of reading.

I will be writing to Ed Thomas today, about my work with children who are psychologically and emotionally abused in the Family Courts in the UK to offer him a broader perspective. In doing so I will include testimony from children over the age of 18 with whom I have worked, who are now safe and well and I will be asking him to consider that testimony as reality based evidence which contextualises the claims being made in the study he has reported on. In doing so, I will invite him to look at the wider perspective, of the mothers, fathers and children who have suffered deep harm due to alienating behaviours deployed by the other parent. I will also ask him to think about the way in which he has been triagulated, as so many have before him, by people who attack, allege and assert but fail to provide the concrete evidence to substantiate their strategy. I will also ask Ed to let us see this study in detail, let us see the questions asked and the evidence which supports the headline he uses, which puts inverted commas around the word abuser but nevertheless seeks to replicate the claims made by campaigners.

Outwith provision of this evidence, this is just another round of campaigning by a group of women who have been actively trying to undermine the reality that mothers emotionally and psychologically abuse their children, campaigning which is misleading the public. And as a public service provider, the BBC really needs to know the context behind this piece and the real truth about the scandal of this attack, allege and assert tactic.

You can write to Ed Thomas to tell him your story using the contacts below, I am about to write and tell him mine.

Twitter:@EdThomasNews

Email: Ed.thomas@bbc.co.uk

You can also complain to the BBC about the lack of context, lack of balance and lack of fact checking in the article, including the absence of evidence and the relience on a study which is not open to public scrutiny, here

10 responses to “Attack, Allege and Assert: The Tactic Being Used to Hide Child Abuse in the UK”

  1. Matty

    Karen the best thing here is to totally distance ourselves from this evil.
    No surprise knowing it’s the BBC.

    Like

  2. Willow

    Karen, I’ve been following your blog since 2015 when I finally gave up (trying to change things from within my marriage) and left my husband who had been busy airbrushing me (alienating me) from my only living child since he turned against me in 1996. She has refused all contact with me since I left and is now 42 years old. She’s married (since I left) and childless (her dad convinced her that child birth is disgusting and babies and children are boring until they can hold a proper adult conversation – he didn’t do boring!) I guess you could say that I’m a veteran, but I despaired when I watched BBC news at six o’clock last night and heard Jess Phillips. Thank goodness there ARE people of sanity like yourself out there. You kept me sane in my darkest days after I left. Thank you for taking this up and not letting it stand without a fight. But I hope you can enjoy your holiday too!

    Like

    1. Mark

      Email sent directly to Ed Thomas:

      —– Forwarded message —–
      From: Mark
      To: Ed.thomas@bbc.co.uk
      Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 14:27:49 BST

      Dear Mr Thomas,

      I appreciate that in journalism, your role is to open up topics within the public interest to encourage debate and factual presentations. Unfortunately I believe that your latest series of articles fails to uphold the journalistic integrity that has seen you as an award winner, as detailed in the complaint to both BBC and Ofcom detailed below.

      I believe that the articles that you are currently writing are biased, and present a significant risk of harm to children, fathers, and mothers. You fail to explain many key facts, presenting a one sided story that reflects the narrative of lobby groups, and is not a balanced view of the social issues at hand. Nor is it any coincidence that your reports are being published at a time when the Family Justice Council is undertaking a review of Parental Alienation https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/child-protection/392-children-protection-news/54885-family-justice-council-consults-on-draft-guidance-on-responding-to-allegations-of-alienating-behaviour?fbclid=IwAR2S8UbuPcvF5kz9VZmuUCN_0viwetShqvoqBM0TQmpMqCm3xfn0NvcgI9M.

      Regrettably I have experience of qualified experts who have been attacked, professionally and personally, and received death threats from “professional” lobby groups in an attempt to bury Parental Alienation as a legitimate and well founded psychological science in which to protect children of psychological and physical harm being perpetrated by either parent. Your article reads as nothing more than an editorial opinion with the agenda of harming the public perception of expert witnesses in an admittedly complex court environment.

      Following is a list of sources that you might like to contact in order to present a more balanced view:
      – Good Egg Safety https://parentalalienationuk.info/the-problem/?v=79cba1185463
      – Karen Woodall
      – Sue Whiticombe
      – Dr Craig Childress
      – Amanda Sillars
      – Dr Amy Baker
      – Both Parents Matter
      – Fathers Need Families
      – Dads Advocates
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/acquainted-the-night/201906/divorce-is-risk-factor-suicide-especially-men 9
      https://equi-law.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/APPG-MB-Male-Suicide-Report-9-22.pdf
      https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/For-Consultation-FJC-Draft-Guidance-on-Responding-to-allegations-of-alienating-behaviour-August-2023.pdf
      – Child Support Tragedies – Fathers & Mothers for Equal Rights
      https://www.upfederation.org/facts-and-stats

      As a father who has seen his child undertake self harming and multiple attempts at suicide during a parental alienation case that was supported by qualified experts, I find your one-sided reporting to be irresponsible and brings the risk of harm to children, fathers, and mothers alike. I do hope that in the public interest, you will take a moment to step away from your ‘sponsors’ by interviewing a broader set of experts and present a more balanced view that will improve the view of this crucial social topic where lives are literally at risk.

      Like

      1. karenwoodall

        I think it is vital that everyone complains, it is definitely having an impact.

        Like

  3. Mark

    My complaint to both BBC and Ofcom (Ofcom on the basis that this level of journalistic reporting may bring about harm to children and parents)

    Dear Sir/ Madam, I wish to complain about the article published by Ed Thomas https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66531409.

    The article lacks journalistic integrity and a balanced account of facts and competing viewpoints, and is discriminatory on the basis of gender. It does not demonstrate a balanced view in that:
    1) 1/3 of reported victims of Domestic Abuse in the UK are recognized as male . The article makes no reference to the number of male victims who attempt or commit suicide after a family court experience, and in doing so, does not present the reader with a balanced view. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-male-victims/supporting-male-victims-accessible
    2) Cites anecdotal evidence on a gender basis without supporting statistical evidence
    3) References the “the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls.” but fails to reference the analysis and rebuttal of the same report https://hochstrittig.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/20230602-Analysis-Report-Special-Rapporteur.pdf
    4) Does not introduce the opinion or findings from other experts on domestic abuse and suicide https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/research-identifies-suicide-risk-factors-for-domestic-abuse-survivors
    5) does not reference input from experts and journals who support Parental Alienation as a method of coercing children https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/parental-alienation
    This article is not in keeping with the BBC’s editorial values of “fair and accurate”, “impartial” and “editorial integration”. It is not supportive of the BBC’s charter https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/editorial-standards/#oureditorialvalues and redress should be undertaken in the public interest.

    Mark

    Like

  4. Mike

    I complained to the BBC as soon as I saw the article yesterday morning, I notice there is another one today on mothers absconding to Cyprus against court orders with their children. It’s really poor, sensationalistic, reporting and I’m surprised the BBC is letting this run. Saying “I corroborated their story with their friends and family” is almost farcical in what is meant to be a serious report. Though I notice the BBC changed the headline on yesterday’s story a few hours later to be a little less sensational (it was “Mothers dying after ‘abusers’ claim access to children”, changed later to “Children forced into contact with fathers accused of abuse”). I suggest to others they do complain to the BBC – I think it makes a difference.

    Like

    1. karenwoodall

      Yes I agree, complaining is vital and it has impact, everyone should do so.

      Like

  5. Willow

    For what it’s worth I’ve contacted the BBC, Ed Thomas, Jess Phillips AND Dr Elizabeth Delgrano who carried out ‘the study’ (Manchester University) I’m not holding my breath! shera-research@protonmail.com

    Like

    1. karenwoodall

      Hi Willow, I will be writing about this more this coming week, I am just back from my vacation so I have only just had chance to watch the programme and tbh, I switched it off after ten minutes, it was simply a campaign advert and so familiar that I could predict what was coming next…

      Like

      1. Willow

        The interview on BBD Radio 5 Live (Colin Murray – Dr Elizabeth Delgrano) was even worse! In my opinion he asked ALL the right (non biased) questions and she gave all the wrong answers. At the end of the interview he invited her back in 2-3 months time to further the discussion. It was awful to hear her speak with nothing/no one to give balance.

        https://www.shera-research.com/resources/dr-dalgarno-talks-to-colin-murray-on-bbc-radio-5-live-about-the-england-study

        Her whole page denigrating PA as pseudo science on the Shera website was also disgusting. And to think she has influence over students at university!

        Like

Leave a comment