By Peggy Hoffman
Throughout history, there have been varying opinions on the roles of men and women in both the home and society. Conservative religion has played a significant role in shaping these views, which I delve into further in other writings. It is important to acknowledge that conservative religion advocates for unconditional perseverance in relationships. While this may lead to positive outcomes in healthy relationships for a short season of time, it can also be exploited by abusers with no beneficial results.
Regrettably, family court practitioners tend to hold the perspective that the individual seeking safeguarding for themselves and their children is at fault in cases of domestic abuse. This often results in them being labeled as a parental alienator.
The History:
In the 1950s a psychiatrist named John Bowlby (and others) concluded through comparably limited empirical studies that children suffer when they are removed from their mothers, and he coined the term maternal deprivation.
Although the effects of maternal loss had already been validated by Freud and others; the monograph of Bowlby’s World Health report focused on homeless and parent-less children in post-war Europe. He made the connection between the loss of the primary bond and the rise in delinquency, detachment disorder, illness, etc in children under those circumstances. Bowbly’s end-of-the-day conclusion was that infants and young children should experience a warm and continuous relationship with their primary caretaker. To do otherwise likely will have significant and irreversible mental health consequences for the child. But we don’t need research to know this. It’s a no-brainer.
As human nature would have it, deviated motivation oftentimes follows mindful policy. I mention this because if you separate and divorce your spouse it may come up in family court.
During Bolby’s era in the United States, maternal deprivation was employed as a political tool to dissuade women from working and entrusting their children to daycare centers. This notion governed that equal workplace accommodations, wages, and protection for women were unnecessary since they should remain at home with their children, revealing an inherent bias.
(Feminist Criticism – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_deprivation)
The Women’s Movement emerged with the aim of advocating for parity in rights, opportunities, safeguarding and remuneration. Its original intent remains highly commendable. It is imperative to note that striving for equality does not add up to generalized man-bashing or at least it shouldn’t.
Following the Women’s Movement came the Father’s Rights Movement. During that period, family courts routinely granted full custody of children to mothers, relegating fathers to the role of distant financial providers. This created yet another instance of social bias. The father’s care-giving abilities were not valued by governmental, judicial, or religious institutions.
Putting Dad in the background of family life was the backwash of a governing notion that women should stay home. The natural order of family life is that children need a close bond with their fathers when fathers are good fathers, and their mothers when mothers are good mothers. The notion that mom should stay home enabled the dead-beat-dad saga to evolve into absent and sometimes depressed fathers and the child support status of today’s world.
Today, there exists a father’s rights initiative that allocates funds to states and counties in tandem with established programs such as WIC, HRSA, RHD’S, SNAP, TANF etc. designed for the benefit of mothers and children. These programs serve as incentives for fathers to actively participate in their children’s lives instead of being infamous for dereliction of paternal duties. While this approach is an improvement over previous strategies, it still comes at the expense of one parent over the other just as previously disadvantaged parents in the early 1900s. So we have to ask, who is any of this really benefiting?
Essentially, interference by the government in the realm of familial affairs tends to result in deviation from traditional norms. As a society, it is imperative that we question whether or not governmental intervention was ever intended to regulate family dynamics. Furthermore, it is worth considering the extent to which conservative religious beliefs have influenced such policies. Historically speaking, during earlier periods, the Church of Rome held significant sway over governmental affairs. We know, of course, the institute of family was in existence long before any other institute. From my point of view governing entities are more intrusive than they are helpful.
Gains from Family Conflict: Just as an example
An article surrounding the 2023 primary election of judges in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania clarifies this above information.
May 9th, 2023 – Williamsport PA Sun Gazette
It was noted that “He ( Rep. Flick) said when one parent pays the other parent child support through domestic relations, the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas receives a 66% match from the Social Security fund — along with additional incentives.
Therefore, Flick said, if the court rules that a parent only gets partial custody, such as every other weekend and Wednesdays, the court makes significantly more money than if the court awards 50-50 custody. Part of the $13 million the court made last year from child custody payments was used to give bonuses to court employees.”
It’s right there is black and white that the local jurisdictions benefit from families going through some of the worst times in their life. Even the marriage license became a legal requirement as the result of the Revenue Act of 1913 for tax purposes. If that’s not the fruit of deviation for profit (trafficking), I don’t know what is.
It can be surmised through many examples like the above that the government may exploit instances of domestic violence and marital separation for monetary gain. The reluctance towards women entering the workforce during the 1900s was largely due to its perceived financial burden. In contemporary times, there exists a thriving industry catering to litigious parents who spare no expense in safeguarding their children or exerting control over their former partners, with little regard for the welfare of children who may be placed in harm’s way as a result.
The prevalent trend observed for a considerable period of time has been the allegation of parental alienation following claims of abuse. In cases where family violence has occurred and the couple separates, it is natural for the non-abusive parent to prioritize their children’s safety and well-being. However, many professionals providing services to the court argue that such parents are not exhibiting a willingness to co-parent with their former partner and are instead encouraging their children to reject any contact with them. Consequently, these allegations of parental alienation become a lucrative source of income for everyone involved except for the affected family. Essentially, traumatized parents who seek refuge from danger are subjected to punishment by an unsympathetic court system which demands they “get over it.”
Do parents sometimes manipulate their children to turn against the other parent? It happens, but false claims of abuse happen less than 2% of the time. Parental alienation can be a powerful tool for abusers, although it’s considered quasi-science. Nevertheless, it has become a lucrative industry. Regardless of one’s
personal stance on this issue, it cannot be denied that throughout history equal protection has been neglected. Achieving true equality entails raising standards and striving for fairness in all aspects of life.
“Women, as a group are far more subject to partner abuse than men. Generally, they are physically and economically less powerful than men within both society and the home, and misogynist stereotypes are far more common than negative male stereotypes, making women far more vulnerable to multiple strategies of abuse (Stark, 2007)”.
A clear depiction of the crisis can be seen in 622 A. 2d 1135 (1993) Marie B Henriksen v. John M Cameron in the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine where it was determined that Henriksen was not owed compensation for marital abuse because it fell inside inter-spousal immunity . One citation being of a case where the abuser sexually assaulted the couple’s five year old child but the safe parent was denied safety or compensation. The trial court’s decision in favor of the victim was overturned. This case was cited in a 2023 appeal in the same state and it left the victim with no justice or compensation.
Today we are living out the manifestation of the progress that history has brought us to, and in my view, it is not a cycle we should perpetuate. As individuals who possess fundamental control over our government, it would benefit us to take this matter more seriously and put an end to the exploitation of families by money trails. Despite the utilization of various strategies, none have yielded significant results in healing real people, real families, or our future generations; yet millions upon millions of dollars are expended on standards that do not work for the best of families. Let us not be complicit in repeating history’s mistakes any longer.
M. Hoffman – Freelance Researcher, Typo Extraordinaire
Citations:
https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-05/Meier%2C%20U.S.%20child%20custody%20outcomes%20in%20cases%20involving%20parental%20alienation%20and%20abuse%20allegations%202020.pdf by Prof Joan Meier
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372283294_Accountability_Oversight_Domestic_Violence_Child_Abuse_and_Custody_Cases by Toby Kleinman Esq
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf the Saunder Study
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/parental-alienation-dangerous-junk-science-when-domestic-https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/the-malignant-pseudo-science-of-parental-alienation by Elizabeth Dalgarno, Natalie Page, Mukesh Kapila
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jun/12/parental-alienation-and-the-unregulated-experts-shattering-childrens-lives by Hannah Summers and Beatrix Campbell
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325533275_Parental_Alienation_Syndrome_Detractors_and_the_Junk_Science_Vacuum
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=910267
https://www.pacesconnection.com/blog/parental-alienation-syndrome-rejected-from-dsm-v
https://www.shera-research.com/latest-news/from-parental-alienation-to-abusers-child-and-mother-sabotage-cams-as-a-preferable-term-for-how-perpetrator-fathers-intentionally-sabotage-the-child-mother-connection?fbclid=IwAR2X_Lx6gpQjP7rNAwM6fgj-WmSEz4A-w5YaM0n9hgw1myv1W7SEDIwBKL8 by Dr Elizabeth Dalgamo
