Reunification Therapist: Michelle Jones
The family court system was recently described by a fellow advocate as an “industrial complex,” and that may be one of the most fitting descriptions we've heard. Within the industry of family court, a lucrative cottage industry has infiltrated, causing fear and outrage amongst both survivors and those fighting for family court reform. The alienation industry has established a stronghold in the family court system and we continue to hear stories from victims of domestic abuse who are placed into the predictable “alienation pipeline,” and subjected to reunification therapy and worse, reunification camps.
The family court system is arguably one of the most important branches of our judicial system as it holds human life in its hands. This is a system that lacks oversight, accountability and when victims of domestic abuse are failed, there is no recourse. The family court system is riddled with professionals who are not acting in the best interest of children and are often driven by financial incentives, personal motives and confirmation bias. The most notorious confirmation bias in the family court system is the belief that children should be forced into a relationship with both parents, even when there are allegations or findings of abuse. This belief is the driving force of the alienation industry and while these professionals claim that children who have been abused are not candidates for reunification protocols such as reunification therapy or reunification camps, their actions are not in alignment with their words.
“Confirmation bias is an automatic mental reflex often triggered when we try to verify a hypothesis. We tend to give more weight to elements of reality that conform to how we see the world. This means that, when acquiring new information, clinicians will tend to latch on to anything that matches their own beliefs about their client’s needs, ascribing greater validity to information that supports their point of view. We have written elsewhere about confirmation bias in everyday life (St-Onge and Larivée 2018) and in research (Larivée et al. 2019). Here, we will focus on confirmation bias in clinical practice. We will explore how this bias comes to the fore when clinicians are acquiring knowledge, conducting clinical assessments, evaluating treatment outcomes, and testifying in court as expert witnesses.” (Larivée, Serge, Carole Sénéchal, et Zoé St-Onge. « Le biais de confirmation en clinique », Enfance, vol. 4, no. 4, 2018, pp. 575-592.)
An argument could be made that the confirmation bias driving those within the alienation industry is largely financial, the bigger problem is that family court commissioners, magistrates and judges give a considerable amount of weight to their professional opinions and testimony. Case in point is the story of Ty and Brynlee Larson in Utah County, Utah.
Both children made allegations of abuse against their father and DCFS substantiated multiple reports of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse (and lewdness) labeling the abuse as, “severe and chronic.” As a result of the DCSF findings, Ty and Brynlee went almost 4.5 years without an overnight visit. Despite the extensive, and substantiated history of abuse, reunification therapy and overnight visits were ordered.
Ty Larson has accused his current reunification therapist, Michelle Jones, of not acting in his best interest. According to Ty, Ms. Jones is forcing him into a relationship with his abuser. As a result of Ms. Jones testimony, Commissioner Marian Ito ordered the children into a reunification camp, Turning Points for Families which is owned and operated by Linda Gottlieb.
In the latest turn of events, Judge Derek P. Pullan issued a ruling on January 23, 2023, giving full custody of the children to their father, and ordering the children to be separated and housed with various family members. Even more disturbing, Judge Pullan orders place these children in the custody their father, who is required to be supervised around them. We question how a man who is court-ordered to be supervised around his own children, can be given full custody of the same children?
While federal law known as "Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act," directly addresses these unsound, unregulated industries, family court judges continue to follow the recommendations lodged by biased family court professionals and alienation proponents.
“Limiting the use of reunification camps and therapies which cannot be proven to be safe and effective. No “reunification treatment” may be ordered by the court without scientifically valid and generally accepted proof of the safety, effectiveness and therapeutic value of the particular treatment.”
“Courts must consider evidence of past sexual or physical abuse, including protection orders, arrests, and convictions for domestic violence, sexual violence, or child abuse of the accused parent”
With the help of a team member from Ty and Bryn’s Army, we did a thorough review of the LinkedIn profile of reunification therapist, Michelle Jones. In a family court case that feels void of logic and common sense, the only conclusion we are left with is that there is something very sinister taking place in Provo’s 4th District court system. To us, the confirmation bias is palpable but we will allow you to form your own opinion. We have provided a gallery of screen shots below for your review. If you have been affected by any of the professionals listed in this case, please send your story to info@alienationindustry.com.
PEACEFUL PROTEST
On February 17, at 10 AM, we will come together at the Utah State Capitol to demand #JusticeForTyAndBrynlee.
Details can be found in the press release.
MICHELLE JONES, LINKEDIN PROFILE:
