I think my education in child “protection” is near complete. The learning has taken its toll, but I believe now I am well versed in understanding the courts and the child protection departments — and that they operate in an alternative reality, which I will attempt to explain over a series of articles.
One of the questions I will try to answer is whether the courts, the child departments and those supporting this “child removal industry” are suffering cognitive dissonance or some other psychological disorder, or whether something more sinister is at play (or perhaps both?).
In this article, I’ll provide three examples, as follows:
- Psychiatrist, Dr X, advocated for the children to remain in a state of distress and trauma for all their childhood. He supported the complete severing of contact with their mother based on a “probability” — a hypothetical that the children might speak out against the father in her care.
- A common theme is: child lawyers, child departments, and the courts don’t want to believe the children. They are prepared to crush the most damning disclosures and evidence of abuse to assert their desired outcome; they sometimes offer a competitive theory that has no validity.
- The child departments and child lawyers, on hearing a child say it wants to live with Mum, may accuse the mother for influencing (or programming) her child for wanting to be with her! This goes against the root of all human sociability, the mother-child bond, in a ludicrous attempt to sever contact between mother and child.
Let me begin with a brief analysis of a well-known psychiatrist that is used by the Family Courts and child protection departments. He is one of many, and this might lead us into the dilemma of what I am to discuss.
- The Madness of King George – The Psychiatrist
We are familiar with the tale of King George III’s deteriorating mental health as he ruled over Great Britain. It is said, at Christmas 1819, he spoke nonsense for 58 hours. He also became blind and increasingly deaf. Dr X (the psychiatrist), too, rules over his ‘kingdom’ in the Family and Children’s courts. I believe he is not only blind and deaf to the needs of children but has lost his mental capacity.
Let me explain:
I have written about this case before — how children tried to escape from the police as the Family Court had ordered them back to live with their father, despite the children describing sexual and physical abuse. As is customary, the investigating agencies drop any investigation when the matter is ‘before the court’. (That is a well-planned sleight of hand that needs to be de-legislated immediately).
Thus, the mother, who was obliged to report the abuse, was deemed the abusive parent (psychological or emotional abuse) which resulted in her losing normal contact with her children. For months she had no contact at all, and then “supervised” visits were allowed. The children were desperately unhappy about this, but every attempt by the mum to find resolution in court was thwarted by the Family Court judge or the ‘system’.
Enter the psychiatrist (King George).
The court finally ordered the mum and the kids to get assessed by this psychiatrist. (This occurs frequently.) I will make simple the long a detailed report by Dr X (and I am not writing about the psychiatrist interviewed by the ABC who boasted on the radio that he had reported on 2,000 cases):
Dr X advocated that the children be separated from the mother and live with the father. In the session with the mother, the psychiatrist was confrontational and said that he was going to recommend that she and the children have NO contact, but in his report, he wrote limited ‘supervised contact’. (It’s clear any parent that stands up for themselves and their children’s rights gets punished with threats.)
So now to the mad-logic of the psychiatrist.
In the interview with the children, the children were crystal clear. They declared their strong desire to live with their mum; and said shared custody, as before, would alleviate this terrible separation from their mum. The psychiatrist in his report notes that the separation and alienation from the mother have caused much “distress” (in other words: harm) to the children, yet seems to be supportive of the father who admitted he wants all ties between mother and kids severed. The mother is advocating for shared care, but he is blaming the mother for exactly what the father is doing. Is he blind?
In the session, the younger child said he hates living with his father, and once again, brought up the abuse and historical injuries. (It is on record that the kids have escaped the police to go on the run to return to their mother.) All agree that the mother is a capable parent; so why is the psychiatrist advising the court to continue to force the kids to only live with their father and sever their bonds with the mother? They might very well never again be able to get a good-night kiss from their mum — until they are 18.
It is difficult to imagine the harm this King George is advocating. He admits that separation is causing much distress — this can lead to lifelong trauma and disruption. He is advocating actions that will deliberately harm the children, and he admits to this.
I say he does not have the professional capacity to consider the children; nor does he want to believe anything they have said. So, he cannot resolve the problem. (And he handles many cases in Australia.)
What reasoning does he give for his decisions?
He tries to explain in his report that mother and children should never be reunited as the father had reintroduced stability into their lives “by separating them from the influence of their mother.” (Prison, yes prison, could be considered a very stable environment.) This psychiatrist, Dr X, is advocating a stable state of trauma, grief, and distress as his preferred outcome. He advises against shared care as the children might once again form a bond with the mother. But they have already bonded — since before birth.
The whole basis for keeping the forced separation from their mother is based on a “probable” … on his assumption that sometime in the future “it is probable” that the children might be rejuventated by the mother to speak out against their father. (The mother has said any historical issues are in the past and her focus is on a shared-care future; so it’s the kids Dr X is trying to muzzle and remain non-vocal.)
This “expert” is advocating for a permanent state of DEPRIVATION and DISTRESS for the children. Another word for this is “imprisonment”. I can only wonder what is going through the psychiatrist’s brain, and how his “thinking” been so corroded as to accept this logic? He should not be working with children.
2. The Professionals and Experts Don’t Believe Children
Now I turn to the way “child protection” professionals also act absurdly, given their “protection” mission.
Please recall what Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on 22 October 2018, in Parliament after the lengthy Royal Commission wound up:
“As fellow Australians, we apologise for this gross betrayal of trust and for the fact that organisations with power over children… [He was mainly referring to the Church, the Boy Scouts, etc, not to the “CPS” and courts – which were excluded from investigation by the Royal Commission.]
“Today, we say we are sorry. Sorry that you were not protected, sorry that you were not listened to. We are sorry for refusing to trust the words of children, for not believing you. As we say sorry, we also say we believe you. We say what happened was not your fault. We are sorry that perpetrators of abuse were relocated and shielded rather than held to account, that records have been withheld and destroyed, and accountability avoided.
“We are sorry that the justice and child welfare systems that should have protected you, were at times used to perpetrate yet more injustices against you…”
How many ‘sorry’s’ can we endure? The fact is that none of this speech-making makes a damn bit of difference. Children presently remain at the mercy of the experts, the legal fraternity and the courts.
Around the time Scomo was delivering his sorry message, I had put out a survey on Gumshoe about the Family Court. 79 people responded, all but 2 of them in Australia. Most of the questions were multiple choice.
The survey was advertised as “Failures of the Family Court” hence is not an unbiased scientific sampling. Nevertheless, the responses are very telling. I have bolded the “highest two numbers” and the lowest two.
To the Question: Who DID believe your child? Did someone (even one person) from the categories below believe your child?
Members of my family (58)
Your psychologist/psychiatrist (41)
A doctor, nurse, medical personnel (29)
Anyone in the police, detective etc (21)
Child Protective Service Officers (15)
Social workers, supervised visit personnel (12)
Court appointed psychiatrist or expert (9)
Court reporters, supervision services (3)
ICL, independent child lawyer (2)
The judge (the court) (2)
To the Question: Who did NOT believe your child? Did someone (even one person) from the categories below not believe your child?
The judge (the court) (49)
ICL, independent child lawyer (47)
Court reporters, supervision services (40)
Court appointed experts (40)
Anyone in the police, detective etc (38)
Child Protective Service Officers (38)
Court appointed psychiatrist (23)
Social workers, supervised visit personnel (21)
Members of my family (11)
A doctor, nurse, medical personnel (6)
Your psychologist/psychiatrist (2)
There is obviously a huge disconnect here.
The Independent Child Lawyers (ICL) representing the child do not believe their own clients!
I ask Whom do they represent? I have heard this over and over. The children request something, but the ICL decides to act against their client/s — to act against the child’s wishes. It is quite extraordinary when you think about it. A serial murderer would get much more representation and support than a vulnerable child. (Please re-read that sentence a few times! Aloud.)
And consider: in many cases these children claimed egregious sexual abuse, but the ICL’s in most instances (in the survey) acted against the child’s wishes and advocated to send them to live with the very person who they claimed abused them. (I gleaned that statistically. The respondents to my survey did not claim the connection as such.)
On rational consideration, this situation is truly horrendous. Who are these people that are acting so blatantly and openly against their vulnerable clients? Yes, clients! What mental condition do these professionals suffer to happily follow this path — happily sending children into a life of trauma, pain and suffering?
None of these solicitors and barristers should be working with children. And judges should be held to account if they fail to understand these children, or fail to notice these absurdities in their courtrooms.
3. Defying Everything Natural
(Both mothers and fathers have children ripped from their care. In this review of my 2018 survey I’m going to discuss how the child departments, the ICLs, and the courts act against the maternal bond, as this was highly represented in the survey.)
There are many tactics to discredit the mother — and these are used in court as a weapon — yes a weapon — to keep the kids from their mother. Many lies are presented in court. Very commonly it is said that if the children have disclosed abuse, the mother suffers delusions or psychosis. And there’s there are varous versions of “parental alienation”, when in fact it is the court and child department that are participating in “alienation”.
Often the mother is accused of coaching or influencing the child to disclose abuse. It’s not that the child is lying, they say, it is more that the child has been programmed somehow. When one reviews the statistics on false reporting (1 – 1.5%) this becomes nonsensical, but I’ll deal with science and stats in another article.
When reviewing many of these accusations it is tempting to say, “Are you frickin’ serious”? These accusations are often so blatantly false, it seems incredible that the court can even consider them. In any other venue, these accusations would be laughed at.
But here, I want to point out one further argument put forward that defies all common sense. Say, if a child desperately wants to go home to his or her mother, another explanation to keep them apart is that the mother has influenced the child to believe that he or she wants to come home. And as a result of the mother’s influence (or programming?), the child no longer has control of their own will… it is claimed. Really? The idea is to discredit the child’s mental capacity so that the ICL and the court can decide (dictate) what the child “needs”; a means to ignore the child’s legal rights and wishes.
The insanity of that argument is just too much for me.
A child, by nature, loves his or her mother. And father. We naturally love out mothers and fathers that nurture and love us. Even in separation, children love both parents. That’s part of who we are. It is in our DNA. (Only when a child is ‘hurt’ does that trust erode.) So naturally, the child wants to be with their loving mother — to love and be loved. But the child protection department’s and/or ICL’s argument is essentially saying a mother-child loving bond is a form of perverse programming or influencing. As I said above, these people are attempting to twist love and attachment as sinister, and are going against the root of all human sociability in their agenda to disrupt and sever contact between mother and child.
Well, that’s just my Opening Statement; more to follow…
📖 👉 Cognitive dissonance is a term used in psychology, defined, generally, as the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.
📖 👉 Cognitive disorders, also known as neurocognitive disorders, are a category of mental health disorders that can affect cognitive abilities of understanding, problem-solving, and perception.
This from Pastor Paul Robert Burton’s latest post:
“When a mother or a father is denied all contact with their children and they love them, the traumatic impacts are profound.
There are generally ultimately only two responses, one is extreme anger and hatred at those who removed the children, the other is extreme anger and hatred at oneself for being so helpless and unable to protect those children.
Caseworkers that work for the State are fully aware, but regardless of this, they will consciously and deliberately create these situations and make decisions that completely destroy families, often the damage is near completely irreversible. In most cases they treat parents like absolute cannon fodder, they provide no support, no counselling, no help, no contact, and we as volunteer social workers and advocates are left to deal with the massive emotional fallout to try to prevent yet another suicide…..
“I have now lost a number of mothers to suicide and this is growing daily, I do all this without asking for a penny whilst the people that remove children get paid extremely well by you the taxpaying public. [I REPEAT]: I have now lost a number of mothers to suicide and this is growing daily, I do all this without asking for a penny whilst the people that remove children get paid extremely well by you the taxpaying public.”
Mary Maxwell 2021-03-20
Thank you, Amanda. That is the wrong link but I see from your correced link below that Pauline Hanson calls for the 1974 Family Law Act to be dumped. She says:
Hence my recommendation and belief that the Government should set up an Independent Judicial Tribunal where people can take complaints of perjury and not wait in the hope that the courts will report it to police.
The panel could also take complaints about Judges. In my office, I have had 8 individual complaints and allegations about one Judge. These have fallen on deaf ears from the Chief Justice and the Attorney General.
Under the Australian Constitution – Judges in the Federal Courts are appointed till 70 years of age. No other profession is guaranteed a job for life. A Judge can only be sacked by both houses of parliament.
Judaism and Psychology
Jews have engaged with and steered psychological inquiry since its inception.
Jewish psychologists and the influence of Jewish tradition have been instrumental in creating the field of modern psychology. The fundaments of several psychological movements can be traced directly to Jewish values, ideas, and practices, and Jews in the 20th century were at the forefront of research about the psyche and the varieties of human behavior.
Jewish psychologists founded several branches of psychological inquiry. All of the major theorists of the Gestalt school, except Wolfgang Kohler, were Jews. Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Kurt Lewin, and Kurt Goldstein posited theories of perception and understanding based on holistic understanding, rather than a previous model based on the computation of parts……………….
Epistemology of Psychiatry
Psychiatry is a performative practice of systemic projection whereby the psychiatrist makes an all-powerful judgment without even needing to consult a second opinion and without any kind of due process. All that is needed for disenfranchising a citizen is for a psychiatrist to physionomistically stigmatize just any human person. This is performative epistemological privilege of power in its purest form. Read more…
Well, the court system is definitely not Christian.
We are all deemed as vessels under the control of the UN’s Law of the Sea
Reclaim your Sovereignty: Your Birth Right or Rightful Birth?
Why is your name in CAPITAL LETTERS?
Understanding one’s legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS -Capitis Diminutio Maxima- in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards & statements, loans, mortgages, speeding & parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!
The BANK OF ENGLAND which supplies Britains government with its money is not a part of Britain nor the E.U. The queen needs permission to enter Rothschilds one mile square Crown City of London so therefore she is not sovereign over that territory.
“Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who writes its laws” – Rothschild.
Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890
11 Exception of Channel Islands and other possessions.
(1)The provisions of this Act with respect to Colonial Courts of Admiralty shall not apply to the Channel Islands.
(2)It shall be lawful for the Queen in Council by Order to declare, with respect to any British possession which has not a representative legislature, that the jurisdiction conferred by this Act on Colonial Courts of Admiralty shall not be vested in any court of such possession, or shall be vested only to the partial or limited extent specified in the Order.
Graeme Bell 2021-03-20
And using that pseudo law not one person globally has ever won.The people pushing this nonsense cannot show one successful case in any court roomin the world.
Mary Maxwell 2021-03-20
Thank you for calling it nonsense, Graeme. I call it jabberwocky. I wonder why someone is pushing it.
I’m not sure that’s right, Graeme. I recall several bods right here in A’straya who claim to have prevailed in Court by insisting that they (the real person) refused to represent the capitalised “legal fiction” corporate entity.
Wayne Glew was certainly one that did so.
I’ll try to hunt up some links but it won’t be instant as I’m an old codger and not at all clever with these computer things.
JABBERWOCKY by Lewis Carroll
From “Jews, Jurats And The Jury Wall: A Name In Context” page 123 – “….In York, the street name Jubbergate, recorded as Jubrettegate as early as 1287, derives from Middle English Jewe:…….” [gate is an ancient name for street. A synagogue stood on Jubbergate]
“…Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The fruminous Bandersnatch!”
A bit of lateral thinking is a no-no if the idea is that we should be obsessively preoccupied with the symptoms so that the organised, institutionalised disease vector will not be seriously confronted.
Look out, your Mary Maxwell Majesty, I am suspecting that B’nai B’rith is finding the “anti-Semite” trope is losing effectiveness through gratuitous overuse. I am detecting a slight change of emphasis in Rabbinical tactics. i.e. Get the Sayanim (useful Goy tools) to continually draw attention to the great many ordinarily decent people who identify as “Jewish” to create the subliminal impression that the notion that there is a megalomaniac Rabbinical tradition with a deep and abiding antipathy to anything outside of their control, is an unfounded prejudice.
The mad crowd that shouted: “His blood be on us and on our children” have plenty of “children” in the secretocracy… not all identify as “Jews”, though they all worship at the same ideology.
Beware also Obama era politician-speak: “it’s complicated” = “we have not yet come up with an adequate lie to cover these situations you are asking about”
Pauline Hanson’s Plea: End the demonization of men and REFORM THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM. 10 minutes proof there are good people in parliament.
A further update on reality. Epstein seems deeper.
Just spend a few minutes noting my next comment………….lists heaps of Ds arrested etc for sex crimes with minors.
Dee, do not give up hope, the bastards are being rounded up it seems.
A readers have to do is listen from about the 30 min mark for a few minutes and hear/see the report naming so many ‘demorats’ being arrested and charged. Also interesting re the tricks of being other people.
The rest of the report also is of interest………..when it comes to those sucked in frogs in the spa bath heating up.
Who’d’ve believed it possible. This bod must’ve insulted someone further up the food chain… and/or they needed to make a scene to hide some nastier business. It’ll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. My guess, though, is that it’ll fizzle out on a “technicality” once the purpose is served.
All of these events are part of a global drive to destroy ‘family’. And as far as I can surmise, no part of government or the public media has not been subsumed by this drive.
Ergo, there is now nowhere and nobody to turn to.
Rachel Vaughan 2021-03-20
This is the project Mary – the Lazarus Initiative – I was simply asked to contact whistle-blowers who wanted to speak out.
I wasn’t asked to find cases currently going through courts.
Obviously section 121 is an impediment. However, it is my understanding that under common law such impediments are unlawful.
I’m pleased to know you can advise parents how to protect themselves.
We heard at the “world freedom” event yesterday that BigPharma is rampaging through the aboriginal communities as a priority with their weird injections, also they are pushing the whole program hard in Papua now.
I personally got injections in the upper arm aged around 20, and again around 40, it took about 10 years delay and I got 3 x “basal cell carcinoma” in the exact spot (no other such events anywhere else). So my personal guess at the delayed effect is therefore a 10 year lag. With someone less healthy than me anything could happen. I am in some respects very healthy.
The US government is insane!
What the “Equality Act” will do, if passed
The “Equality Act” is labeled H.R. 1.
I don’t know how it got to be number 1 unless we have now formed a new congress in a new type of government. I thought congressional bills were numbered sequentially, and surely there was already an H.R. 1 at the beginning.
Among other things, the Equality Act will mean that:
· Biological men will have the “right” to use women’s bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms—even in schools.
· Churches will be forced to provide equal access to LGBTQ ceremonies if the facilities are open to natural marriage ceremonies.
· Churches and religious schools would be forced to hire staff involved in LGBTQ conduct; give men access to restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and sports; allow boys to bunk with girls on camping and overnight trips; and provide insurance to cover hormones, mutilating surgeries, and chemical and surgical abortions.
· Noncompliant churches and schools will lose federal, state, and local tax exemptions and accreditations.
· From pre-K, children will be taught that they can choose their gender, will be encouraged to experiment with each other to find their “identities” and will be able to demand opposite, both and neither sex pronouns (he for a girl, zie for neither, mx for both).
· Pregnancy centers will be forced to provide abortion referrals.
Wayne Kilowsky 2021-03-22
I recently read that the reason perjury in the family court is not acted apon is that it is actually an AFP matter and they don’t have the time money or resources to investigate so many cases