Family Court: Five Flaws to Fix
Guest Blog by Ashley Green:
I think there are a number of nuances that lend to a system that is adversarial for survivors. But I think there are five particular issues that need immediate focus and improvement.
1. The stigmatization of trauma responses and the onus on survivors to heal. I think this is really a branch of the general stigmatization of mental health disorders. Trauma responses are the brain's natural defense mechanism. The way it has been taught to me is that even if a person is able to rationalize the perceived danger in their neocortex, the limbic system may still perceive danger and respond in a way designed to protect the person from that perceived danger. This is really hard to understand because the person may not even be cognizant of why they are reacting the way they are. This disconnect between the neocortex and the libic system is also how the intergenerational trauma cycle is continued in perpetuity. An infant has a biological imperative to trust its parents. As an abused child's brain is developing, it begins to accept abuse/neglect as synonymous with love. Then when that child becomes an adult and seeks out intimate relationships, they have that same perception of love and pain being one and the same. This is why children who grow up witnessing DV are predisposed to being involved in DV relationships as an adult., even if they aren't abused themselves. It truly does take a lot of emotional work and learning to overcome childhood abuse/neglect.
2. The societal acceptance of male aggression and condemnation of any form of female emotion. As a society, we actually indoctrinate our boys to express aggression and anger. You see it in sports, movies, all over the place. So the courts accept it too. The issue is that male aggression is triggering to survivors. In turn, survivors react emotionally. But, female emotion is condemned. If a female is aggressive or angry, she becomes "jilted", "bitter", "vindictive". If a female expresses sorrow or sadness, she becomes "overly emotional", "unhinged" or "manipulative". This is a huge issue. I watched proponent testimony for HB508 here in Ohio, it's a 50/50 shared parenting bill. A retired NBA player by the name of Lawrence Funderburke stood in front of the Civil Justice Committee and literally yelled at them. He was met with applause. Women aren't afforded the luxury of being able to express emotion.
3. The disparity between the accepted definition of DV and the statutory definition of DV. Coercive control is known to be more indicative of fatal violence than previous severe violence. In fact, coercive control is at the root of all domestic violence and sexual assault. Yet, only a few states have expanded their DV statutes to include coercive control and that has been within the last few years. It is very difficult for a survivor when she goes to a DV agency and has a lethality assessment done and finds out there is a risk she will be murdered. The DV agency will create a safety plan for her. Then she goes to family court and says she is afraid she will be murdered and that the lethality risk extends to her children and the family court then orders her to a psychological evaluation. This is so very problematic. Not only does it retraumatize the survivor, but it also places her and her children at ongoing risk. Three women are killed every single day in the USA by a former or current intimate partner. Domestic violence is a serious public health issue and yet the family court seems to feel it doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into an archaic statute that isn't reflective of current science.
4. The use of parental alienation. I already sent you information on how the United Nations condemned the use of PA. PA is not real. It isn't accepted by any mental health organization, it isn't in the DSM. It was coined by Richard Gardner as a way to excuse child sexual abuse and pedophilia. It has become the abuser's silver bullet in family court. A woman can not speak out about male violence or she is alienating the children. This is compounded if child abuse is reported, even if it's not reported by the mother. Courts discredit mother's claims a large percentage of the time.
5. Gender bias and unequal standards. Abusers monopolize on the "deadbeat dads" and put on this mask in which they appear to be interested and involved in the child's life. Because the court sees so many "deadbeat dads", this feigned interest is perceived as a genuinely interested father who is being victimized by the mother that is trying to "alienate" the child. I have even heard courts tell survivors some variation of "you should be glad he wants to be in your child's life". The court does not understand that the abuser's interest is not genuine. The child is the only means by which the abuser can continue to control, stalk and harass the protective parent. Because the bar is set so low for fathers, they are really able to get away with a lot, including openly abusing the protective parent, because the court values the father-child relationship over the mother's well-being. This is probably one of the most egregious flaws in the family court system because the system will dole out court sanctioned human rights violations against women and children in order to maintain the father-child bond.
