Recognition, acknowledgment and assumptions within the family court system, CPS and youthcare

Recognition, acknowledgment and assumptions within the family court system, CPS and youthcare.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands.

I was standing in the courtroom. My lawyer stood next to me and the family guardian was standing next to a (for me unknown) colleague on the other side of the room. The CPS employee, my ex and his lawyer weren’t there. The court asked the family guardian if she knew why “dad” wasn’t present but although the family guardian knew my ex wouldn’t attend the courtroom she couldn’t explain what the reason was. The judge then turned to me and asked; if you were to stand in the father’s shoes, wouldn’t you want to have contact with the children?

I know this reasoning of the courtroom all too well. It comes from the same assumptions that youthcare and CPS both apply; that when children have no contact with their biological father, there must be an vindictive mother or high conflict divorce/ divorce battle going on to have caused this. Our whole history of partner violence and child abuse which has caused next to the traumatic psychological damage also one of my sons becoming hearing impaired is –as usual- completely ignored in reports of CPS and during hearings and thus court decisions.

I looked the judge in the eye and responded calmly with;

If I was a dad I would have wanted to be a part of my children’s lives. I would go to court hearings. If I didn’t want to have any contact with their mother I would have accepted the moms offer to make use of  a middleman. I would have contacted my children’s school to hear how my kids were doing. I would have contacted the children’s psychologist to hear what their progress is and if I could be of any assistance. I would have contacted the general practitioner to hear how their health is doing and I would have contacted the sport clubs to become an active parent in those groups and by this way establish a connection with the children.

The judge looked at me and responded with a quiet “yes..” . Directly thereafter she went further in de dogmatics the court adopted that when children have no contact or relationship with their biological father there is an immediate threat in their development. The pressure, the uncertainty, and the damage it does to children when they are forced to have contact with an abusive parent is of course much more threatening to a child’s development but because signs of abusiveness, and abused children in general are not taken seriously/listened to and there is no fact finding whatsoever, no one thinks about this and it isn’t taken into account about what is in the best interest of a child.

Until now CPS, youthcare and the court never asked a single question after hearing “dad’s” story. When he exclaimed that he missed the children so much, they never asked what missing according to him means since he never played a role in their lives and all organisations like school stated that he never required after the children. Never a critical/ investigating question towards father why he finds it hard to require after the children but not having any problems whatsoever to remind us twice a year  that he can collect 15.000 euro on penalties.

The problem is that there is no fact finding used by youthcare, CPS and the court and that even mentioning the abuse can literally mean that the court turns a deaf ear (or worse becomes against you) even if you have pressed charges, even if the court (in criminal proceedings) openly pronounce that they find it likely that domestic violence has occurred. It’s too hard, and it’s much easier to put everything below under the heading of a high conflict divorce (divorce battle). But sadly you can not solve a (former) abusive relationship which was filled with violence and unequal power relations with the help of a mediator of Youthcare which has no understanding or knowledge of perpetrators of domestic violence.

Someone who abused others needs (willingly) to accept specialized help to change his thought patterns of violence and aggression against women and children. Until then he is a threat that can use the courtroom to regain power of the abused woman and children. It is time that the court wakes up and recognises that 1.) fact finding is essential for the safety of children, when allegations of abuse are being made, 2.) a high conflict divorce is a totally different ball game than a divorce where abuse played a significant role 3.) an abuser needs specialised help and mediation in cases like this will not help to establish a healthy co-parenting plan.

If you want to read more about specialised help for partner abusers I fully recommend Donald Dutton’s book: the abusive personality (from chapter 11) and also by reading “Blended Behavior Therapy for Intimate Violence” also from dr. Donald Dutton.

If you want to learn more about me as a speaker, please send me an email via: alianne@professionalsagainstviolence.com

Comments

comments