CCChat-Magazine_Issue-13

Like Andrew Wakefield’s infamous MMR causal
link to autism saw him struck off yet the myths still
perpetuate; parental alienation accusations
conveniently drown out what ironically is ‘the
voice of the child’ – child says ‘this is happening
to me; I don’t like it’. CAFCASS officers respond
with ‘they’re too young to know what they’re
saying, they are the mouthpiece of the parent’.
Pick a lane please. By all accounts, therefore, if
recent judges’ blunt condemnations that
‘alienating mothers should be subjected to a
three-strikes and you’re out’ – or imprisoned –
then who knows if my next blog will be about life
behind bars?
Therein lies the promulgation to distrust, fear,
anger — hatred.Despite living in purgatory, I have
been able to step back and consider what in the
hell happened there.
However, this isn’t about gender – it is about which
parent is the angriest parent in family court because
they are more likely to be the one also prepared to be
the most ruthless; to take the greatest risks.
When parties enter the court they will each know how
to attack and defend and how far the other is prepared
to go. The hate of family court is the knowledge that
parties will default to their character type and court
processes and practitioners by their very need to be
thorough and percipient to protect a child have to also
be open to the angriest party’s determination to exploit
those people and processes in continued pursuit of
punishment.
People hate family court because it prolongs the pain
of punitive pursuit. I could further my anecdotes and
detail the utterly ludicrous allegations postured at me
that I had to defend. But that would be pointless
precisely because I was able to defend them thanks to
a brilliant barrister and very caring solicitor who,
importantly, were able to get me to listen all the while
that my anger and fears were raging towards a
maelstrom that possibly would have seen me lose
custody of my own children and only be permitted
supervised visits.
"It becomes too easy to archetype ‘all mums are histrionic and cry wolf on
domestic abuse’ or ‘all dads are intimidating and claim parental alienation’."
As such, both the practices of medicine and law
are ones which rely on its participants and
processes being underpinned by integrity and
accuracy. Trust should therefore be implicit.
However, neither medicine nor law
accommodates human nature and emotions –
which when put under pressure will contort and
eclipse rational and logical decision-making.
When afraid, hurt, confused or distressed the
easiest of the emotion to employ is anger. Family
court is that A&E part of the hospital where anger
dominates; complex decisions are being made
amidst a melee of jargon, allegations, process
and manipulation.
It becomes too easy to archetype ‘all mums are
histrionic and cry wolf on domestic abuse’ or ‘all
dads are intimidating and claim parental
alienation’. If my ex had got his way and the full
force of his anger and risk-taking of out and out
lies had succeeded in influencing the judge as
they biased the CAFCASS officer throughout
proceedings then this story might have been very
different indeed and even have seen our children
placed in the care system.
I won’t comment on the allegations because that’s the
subject of a different blog (how narcissistic parents
behave in court). But that is why only relying on ‘facts’,
denying how emotions can influence behaviours and
seeing things in the fixed black/white process of the
law is merely sticking a plaster over a seeping wound.
People hate family court because it is sterile and
doesn’t accurately reflect life outside the chambers.
The law is fixed, but life is fluid. And people’s emotions
over their children will always spill over … the angrier,
the louder, the more heinous the allegations, the blunt
threats and brinksmanship of disingenuous
practitioners … when faced with the prospect of fight or
flight, most mothers without strong legal support will
run. There needs to be allowance for the emotions of
all parties and just as a good doctor seeks to help the
physical and holistic needs of a patient; so too must
family court consider the importance of helping and
communicating that it should be a place for resolution
rather than fuelling hatred. That can only begin when
we seek to align knowledge of facts and wisdom of
interpretation.
To read more of Emma writing, check out her blog:
https://eldconsulting.wordpress.com
Making The Invisible Visible