Yesterday I was sent a link to a Daily Mail article by Ann, a supporter and donor, who’s heartbroken that she no longer sees her grandchildren, as her former daughter-in-law denies Ann, Ann’s husband, and Ann’s son access to them, having defied a series of contact orders with impunity. The woman eventually succeeded in alienating her two children (a boy and a girl) against both their father and their grandparents.
Ann sent me the link to the article (below) with the simple statement, ‘Sanity at last!’
I then noticed it wasn’t a recent article – it dated from November 2010. So, has anything changed in the interim? For an answer to that question I turned to Ray Barry, the gentleman who’ll be contesting Wolverhampton South-West for J4MB at the 2015 general election. In 2010 he stood in the same seat for his own party, Equal Parenting Alliance http://equalparentingaliance.com. From his biography on the website:
Ray has three children, the eldest two of whom he has not seen for eight years. ‘I was a completely hands-on devoted father,’ he says. ‘putting them to bed, getting them up, cooking, and taking them on outings at the week-ends.
‘Words cannot describe my heart-break at being separated from them. My eldest two have refused to see me since their mother left with them, even though neither has ever accused me of any mistreatment (which might have explained their refusal).’
Ray spends a great deal of time supporting fathers seeking to gain access to their children following relationship breakdowns. With respect to the question of whether anything had changed since the judge made his remarks in November 2010, Ray said this:
There has been no noticeable difference since 2010.
Judges make a semblance of enforcing contact, but it is largely for show. In the final analysis, if a mother digs her heels in and consistently thwarts contact, judges seem to feel they are powerless to do anything meaningful about it. Their reasoning seems to be that the child’s need to have a bond with its mother is so all-consuming that any solution the court might have, such as transferring primary care to the father, or jailing the mother, or fining the mother, are all seen as measures which would be worse for the child than allowing the mother to continue defying the court.
What commonly happens is that under the mother’s influence, the child will begin to express a wish not to see the father, and rather than address this as a form of emotional abuse of the child by the mother, courts and social workers reason, ‘We can’t be sure that it’s the mother’s influence behind what the child says, and it’s not in the child’s best interest to force him to see his father against the child’s wishes, and so sadly, contact must cease.’ That’s how contact most commonly ends, not with an outright defiance of court orders by the mother, but with a refusal by the court system to address this manipulation of the child by the mother. Brazil has passed a law making parental alienation unlawful. So it can be done. It is the lack of political will to do it in this and other western countries that is the problem. Politicians are scared to death of offending the sisterhood.
So there you have it. Manipulative malicious women (feminists and mothers) join forces to emotionally assault children, fathers, grandparents… and the politicians and judges (the majority of whom are men) do nothing about it. If this is patriarchy, I’m a jam doughnut.