PA was founded by pedofile Richard Gardner, he defended sex abuse and said kids seduce adults.
PA has actually, a fact, been rejected by the APA, WHO, Board of Social Workers and some pediatric groups It is NOT in the DSM or ICD 9.
Please read Richard Gardners OWN works and you will see for yourself. He also believes incest should be normalize in kids. Anyone who uses this as a defense is supporting child sexual abuse and pedofilia.
The "A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases" as published by the National Counsel of Juvenile and Family Court Judges clarifys that PA does NOT meet any evidentiary standards, especially Daubtert and Frye and shall be INADMISSABLE to and be stricken from the record!
I have nothing against Tina Swithin as a person. But we can agree to disagree on how accurate, credible, or verifiable all her information is. Some people stoke the gender war directly or indirectly, which is not good for the overall movement of court reform.
I get where you’re coming from — and I agree that good debate should stay focused on substance.
But I think it’s important to also call out that what gets labeled “tangential” or “irrelevant” is often totally subjective — especially in systems like family court, where the rules aren’t even based on constitutional law.
Family court doesn’t really follow evidentiary standards the way people assume it does. It’s all policies, guidelines, and judge discretion — not actual law. So even when something should matter based on evidence or rights, it can be tossed out because it’s "not relevant" to their goals. And that's a big part of why real debate (and real justice) is so hard in these systems.
Both types of “parental alienation” are real - one where the parent weaponizes the kid, intentionally creating loyalty conflicts, and the defense tactic used by abusive parents. It’s unfortunate that they share the same word, because it is confusing. It divides people that should be working together to solve family court issues - not generating more conflict.
This was a great article until you attacked Tina Swithin. She’s arguing a different issue that happens to use the same word. Please don’t attack other family court victims- that only serves to weaken the whole movement.
She has criticized the fathers' rights movement. She has blocked people trying to communicate with her to get a better understanding of her viewpoints. She doesn't return messages. This isn't about her as a victim, its about her unwillingness to bridge a divide and unify in any fight against the court system. As with politics, there used to be a time you could disagree with someone's views and not be accused of attacking them, and still grab a beer with each other.
I wish Tina would be more open and talk to everyone. The key is education. I think she is right on a lot of issues. There are a few we disagree on. But the things that bind people together who want to take down the Family Court Fraud Mill are far greater than petty squabbles.
I would love for Tina Swithin to be an advocate for ALL PARENTS.
In 95% of cases, BOTH PARENTS are the PROTECTIVE PARENTS.
But that's not what you see in Family Court. It's almost the exact opposite.
LITIGATION produces LABELS. And fees for lawyers and court-appointed.
In any other courtroom, if 95% of the PURPLE people were found to be ABUSERS by the Court, the ACLU would be all over it. (Substitute any protected class in for PURPLE)
My alma mater's primary color is purple. I am deeply offended by your color choice. :) But you are right. I have contacted Legal Aid, ACLU, DOJ, Disability Rights Maryland, Maryland Coalition on Civil Rights, Maryland Volunteer Lawyer Services, multiple bar associations, and even several organizations who claim to "help" victims of domestic violence (but they help file protective orders with no investigation), and they all seem to avoid family law cases like the plague. Why is that? How can you alienate a class of people most in need? It has to be money, policy, negative pressure, etc... Even local universities have stopped allowing law school students to participate in FL cases.
Please go onto One Mom battle Facebook page. I've been called every name in the book on father's rights page. For trying to correct statics and point out the fatherhood statics were not meant to be used as a weapon against women. " Mothers are failing, especially the white ones" . " Privalaged white women" the Connecticut fatherhood initiative. A thesis paper blaming single mothers for school shootings. No policy Maker supports the theory. Neither does the FBI that I know of. I'm a toxic femanist because I support Mom's. These are the nice things I have been callied. These fellas don't hold back.
If you walk into the lion’s den, you usually don’t leave without a few scratches — and honestly, it happens on both sides.
Men have been burned by the system, too. But you seem to be discounting that. Throwing stats at someone isn't going to solve the problem.
I’ve posted in some women’s groups too, and gotten pretty much the same treatment just for bringing up father’s rights or trying to talk about the bigger picture.
The second you don’t fit someone’s narrative 100%, you become the enemy.
It’s sad, because it just keeps people fighting each other instead of actually fixing the system that's hurting everyone.
Appreciate you sharing your experience — you’re definitely not alone.
The argument I don't agree with is that parental alienation is a tool exclusively used by fathers to take child custody away from mothers. As a father alienated from his child by a narcissistic mother, I have spoken to numerous mothers and fathers who have near-identical experiences. Over time, the child/ren begin to turn on the alienated parent for not being there for them.
It's not always the custodial parent speaking negatively about the other. It's the perception created by the long-term estrangement, the bonding with the harmful parent, that they must be right. Like most everything else, it's on a spectrum of severity. What else do you call it?
Discounting things like PA as a weapon only creates division between genders. That is what power players want. Any break in the armor, any division, diminishes the number of people unified fighting for court reform.
I'm all for equal/shared parenting laws, which Tina Swithin is against. She favors Kaden's Law, which makes it even easier for mothers to file false accusations for protective orders. I have two against me based on false allegations and actual harm caused to me.
None of these focuses on the real issue, which is that our courts don't even follow constitutional law. Why do you think so many argue that there is no due process? Our rights are constantly violated in the court system, but we are distracted by gender wars and discounting child abuse because PA isn't in the DSM. Neither is CPTSD. The UK recognizes it, but the US does not, which is shameful. There is a significant difference between physical and mental trauma, but both are real.
I think it leans more towards fathers being the alienated parent. My nephew has been in this horrific family court now for over 8 years. The judge in the case has jailed him numerous times and completely taken away his daughter. It is the most frustrating, anxiety inducing, overwhelming sadness I have ever seen and experienced. In the course of this time I have watched father after father go through the exact same scenario. It is criminal. My nephew is suing the judge, the jtc is in contact with him regarding the judge and he has had a first amendment case won in the supreme court. It is such a long process and in the meantime a child goes without a parent and extended family. There is no excuse for this, it is about a money making system, title IXD and judges who believe they are gods
I’m so sorry your nephew — and your whole family — has had to go through that.
You’re absolutely right: it leans heavily toward fathers being the ones erased, and it’s happening way more often than people want to admit. It has happened to me.
The patterns are too clear to ignore — jailing, gag orders, financial bleed-outs — all while the child loses not just a parent, but an entire side of their family.
It is criminal. And you’re spot on: it’s about money, control, and judges who have zero accountability.
I’m really glad your nephew is fighting back — it’s brutal, but it matters.
Sending strength to you and your family. You’re not alone in this fight. If it works, I would love to know what he did.
On a side not, I have spoken with mothers who have faced these same issues. It's really sad and not an exclusive gender issue. The court is just a severely broken system and something needs to be done.
Thank you and I know it is across the board. So sorry for you going through this also. We met with our state reps and laid out all of this. It is so ingrained in society regarding custody and visitation that they put up a wall. I sat with one women and showed her that in a month with 31 days a non custodial parent gets around 97 hours with their child and the custodial parents get over 600 hours. And out of the 97 you have drive time and sleeping. That is not a parent, that is a visitor. They can spend more time with the parents boyfriend/girlfriend then with their parent. Making it ripe for abuse or all manner of things to go wrong. It just make my stomach hurt. I will let you know if we get some justice here. Thank you again.
Thank you for sharing that — and seriously, huge respect for meeting with your state reps and laying it all out like that.
You’re absolutely right — when you actually break down the numbers, it’s obvious that a non-custodial parent isn’t really "parenting," they’re just visiting.
And like you said, it creates all kinds of risks when a child spends more time with random new adults than with their own parent.
It’s heartbreaking, and it should make everyone’s stomach hurt.
Please do keep me posted — rooting for you all the way.
Can you tell me the clear difference between a man and a woman? Because people seemed to have forgotten, but most of us base it off of experience of what we have seen, read, and observed. Do we need a formal diagnosis by a doctor to know our gender?
My experience to diagnose her is based on what I have seen, read, and observed, including speaking with mental health professionals. I don't say that about her lightly. She also fraudulently used my ADHD to claim it makes me violent and dangerous to obtain a protective order from a judge who did not even question any of it. So, I feel a lot more qualified than my ex and the judge to diagnose her, because I actually did my due diligence. But, name a narcissist who will walk into a psychiatry office and seek a diagnosis. They won't do it.
She is extremely controlling and possessive. She chose false accusations and to abandon our marriage in the manner she did as soon as our son was born, and to me was clearly suffering from postpartum depression. But, she is a master of masking her issues from others. All of this is based on what I have seen, read, and observed and discussed with professionals, because she refused to see any professional to be evaluated or diagnosed. Instead she turned on me, and has kept up the facade for 6 years.
So please tell me how my arguments are invalid because I am not a professional, or I am not a woman, or I am a man so I must have done something to her. She's a compulsive liar, and the courts have denied me any due process or to properly review my evidence or witnesses.
There are plenty of other works and studies on PA to not have to focus on the OG who is obviously quite disturbing of an individual. You can't always rewrite history, but the discussion had to start somewhere. Our founding fathers were pretty much all slave owners. Should we stop calling ourselves Americans?
Richard, have you seen the tic toc videos? Another mothers battle. These are the people who want to chat.? With all due respect these people don't want to have a discussion. They want it one way. Aubrey think we should keep the AFCC going. I think both sides think it is time to get the AFCC the hell out of family court. These so-called alienation warriors. Especially the woman, the manicured mommy , the war room. These women are not interested in conversation. They are bashers. The hate for women advocating for change is real. I don't blame Tina.
No, actually women support fathers when they are able. If you can give us more information on your situation. We would be inclined. If we could see all your court papers. Cause I have not advocted for some mothers after I read the entire documentation. Women are devastated when they don't have a co- parent for what ever reason. Mothers ( with the exception of a few) want nothing more than a healthy father for their children. The change we hate is the legalization of abuse. The court ordered Stockholm syndrome ( reunification therapy) . Not fathers.
I appreciate your comment, but I need to speak plainly: I have a court order. She refuses to follow it. No co-parenting. No communication. Just years of stonewalling, false allegations, and legal games.
Justifying my pain to strangers—or sharing every court document—isn’t going to fix what’s broken in Maryland. I was a faithful husband and a devoted father. I supported her through everything, including a very real and very difficult battle with postpartum depression, among other pregnancy traumas. But she refused treatment and instead turned that pain outward—onto me. It became a weapon. And the system enabled it.
I lost my career. I lost my home. I lost my wife. I lost my family. I lost my relationship with my child. Six years later, she still refuses to speak to me. And no, it’s not because I was abusive—it's because I wasn't. I stayed. I helped. I loved. And somehow, that made me the enemy.
You say women want healthy fathers. So do I. I am one. But the courts didn’t care. They still don’t. And every time someone asks for “more documentation” instead of just believing that men can be victims too, it adds to the silence and suffering so many of us are already buried under.
What about healthy mothers? How many times do women turn on men in similar circumstances? How many women refuse to be treated for postpartum and try to hide it? The little sister of a close friend of mine took her life following the birth of her first child. I was scared my ex would do something when we were together. So please tell me why I have to be interrogated over male abuse when women do nothing to address postpartum depression or their own mental health around the birth of children?
We don’t need to legalize more therapy. We need to legalize truth. And equal protection. And accountability.
Would love for the alienation industry to under go a full and complete department of justice investigation. As well as the FBI. If they would like any information I would be happy to supply some. They could twirling around the internet. There is plenty of contraindications and contradiction.
What when need are arrests of the bad actors. The judge who ran the illegal criminal out the side door. We need this happen. What is allowed will continue.
I can agree with that. More accountability and transparency on judges. Say a child is severely injured, or worse, killed, by a parent the judge placed the child with, the judge should face criminal charges.
A grassroots movement to find a more accurate "label" sounds really encouraging. What authority is going to pick this new label? How long do we have to wait for this new label, to probably be chosen by a woman, while so many of us suffer, especially children?
Coincidentally, only 5% of child custody cases go to trial, er, tribunal. Not because of two high-conflict parents, which si definitely mislableled, but because of one abusive and alienating parent. So what do I do when I can't get a court to label my case as DV/DA/PSA/IPV/CC, but they listen to whatever my ex says with no witnesses or evidence?
Your case about PA is based on the guy who wrote the first text on it back in what, 1970? I wasn't born yet. I don't use it as a weapon. I use it as a term to describe what my son is going through being kept from me by his mother, despite a court order that our fake family court won't enforce. I can't speak for men being the primary traffickers or abusers, I can only speak for my case where that is not the case. What should I call it when my son cries over not seeing me, or yells at his mom or me on the phone over not seeing me? He is displaying negative behaviors. But, his pediatrician says he seems fine, so I can't call it child abuse.
If you believe our court system is constitutional and follows actual laws, then you have no standing to question whether PA can be used or not.
It is not just Richard Gardner. These parental alienation experts in modern day time a profound part of the problem. Talking about statistics , because they were brought up by fathers rights groups to begin with. We have watched the videos and the industry at AFCC conferences. Stating "alienation" is worse than SA. The Connecticut "expert" defends Richard Gardner. She says she knew him personally. From what I understand Dr. Pine is not the only " alienation" reunification therapist being looked at for fraud. There are no studies for false claims of parental alienation. These so called experts are arrogant, toss out diagnosis like Halloween candy. They are unregulated , univesstgated and trying to dominate the family court system. Coaching services. Hypocritical behavior. In 2023 Amy Barker made the statement that an evaluation was necessary to determine and role out good reason for contact resistance/ denial. She offers a One hour coaching session by phone for court cases for $240. Without an evaluation. In many opinions they want to operate in any fashion with no safety rails.
I get where your frustration is coming from — I really do.
But honestly, the system is already broken without the problems you’re describing.
It’s been broken for a long time — long before reunification therapists and "alienation experts" started cashing in.
The bigger question is: if what you're saying is the whole story, are dads like me just supposed to give up?
Because that’s what it feels like you’re arguing for — that fighting for your child is automatically suspicious or wrong.
And that’s heartbreaking.
The real problem isn’t that parents want to be involved — it’s that the system rewards chaos, punishes good parents, and refuses to put real safety standards in place for anyone.
We all deserve better than a system that chews up families for profit — moms, dads, and especially the kids caught in the middle.
And I guess that female judges are off the hook? All the moms getting in trouble are teachers sleeping with their students. Or what about the mothers who throw their children out windows? As a kid, a mother drowned her two children, one who was my friend.
Here is the reality of what I am attempting to say. 22 percent of children are growing up in single parent households. There are 5.97 million single father households. The majority of children are growing up in household with fathes and mothers Divorce is not the main reason for fatherless households. Probably not the main reason for motherless households. This is widespread problem that's unavoidable in situations. Child support is for income disparages. Parental Alienation is as Michael Volpe says is a broad and nebulous term. It's twisted and contorted. The reality is it's a weapon. In the past fathers were victims of raping of financial support. This has not been the case for some years. Yes, there are isolated cases. There are some mothers running around claiming abuse and Alienation that is not true. There are fathers running around claiming Alienation and abuse that are not true. The Alienation industry is a big part of the problem. 50/50 is not going to solve that problem. There is still going to be years of litigation abuse allowed at the court house. Children court napped. Children will not be served by splitting them in half. It's been 4 glorious years of litigation free life. I voice my opinions on the lived experience. The dedication to the future generations who will have to endure the court system. For The reason I have found through the funding. The CEO of the fatherhood initiative a 503c non governmental agency is making over $500 thousand a year I believe. The head of CGS government solutions contract to aggressively promote the project is making over $700 thousand dollars a year. Everyone is leaving the court house broke. Yet the men's rights groups are running around claiming single mother households are the worst thing ever. With statistics not broken down. The fatherhood initiative at Uconn is going to lavish conference at pricey locations. Minewhile the ccadv is beginning for scraps. Perhaps you gentleman should take a closer look at the bigger picture. No one is getting rich off domestic violence claims. It's not a money grabber. I just will not ever get behind parental alienation. Are the wealthy alienation industry people hiding behind closed doors. I think they are selling people on a notion. Failing to provide services to unhealthy parents in case. Attorney are pushing it to collect their money. Mediation is useless in high conflict. Just like men have the right to protect themselves so do women. The Alienation crew is not my tribe. I tried and I didn't find them to be engaged in above board behavior. My belief is with safe parents. People truly allowed to bring their cases to the court on merit. Not what benefits the people profiting off the court napping and holding children ransom at the court house. I believe these parental alienation " experts" are a procuring cause to the family court system failure.
I hear you — and I get that you have strong opinions shaped by your own lived experience. But let me be clear: I’m not part of the “alienation crew,” I’m not in anyone’s tribe, and I’m not out here repping any organization or conference I’ve never even been to. What other people do at some big hotel ballroom with funding I’ll never touch has nothing to do with why I started writing.
I started because I was wronged. I was lied to. I was taken advantage of by people who knew exactly what they were doing, especially my ex-wife who continues to exploit the system against me. And worst of all, my son has been kept from me by a court that refuses to enforce its own orders — all based on falsehoods, no evidence, and a system that treats due process like an optional suggestion.
And I don’t care if it happens to a man or a woman — it’s wrong. It’s broken. And it deserves to be exposed.
You say parental alienation is nebulous — okay. But tell that to the kids who grew up estranged from a safe, loving parent because of unchecked lies, biased professionals, and a court system that profits off confusion. Most of the stories I’ve learned about alienation came from mothers and adult children, not men’s rights groups. I don’t follow talking points — I follow patterns, I follow people, and I follow pain.
You’re free to believe what you want, and I respect your right to say it. But don’t lump me into some movement I never signed up for. I’m an independent thinker, not a mouthpiece — and my fight isn’t about gender. It’s about fixing a corrupt, unaccountable system that chews people up and leaves families broken, whether it’s in family court, civil court, or probate.
We don’t have to agree on everything. But if you’re serious about wanting justice for the next generation, then maybe we’re fighting the same monster from different angles — and the monster ain’t each other. Otherwise, you are barking up the wrong tree and I don't believe it will get you very far trying to fix the system.
What Connecticut Gained (or Avoided) by Prioritizing Unvetted Father Involvement Over Victim Protection
1. Financial Gain — Access to Larger Federal Grants By showing "father involvement" activities, Connecticut could tap into additional streams of federal funding.Federal agencies like ACF (Administration for Children and Families) and HRSA (HealthResources and Services Administration) rewarded states that promoted "responsible fatherhood, marriage promotion, and male involvement.
"Fatherhood engagement metrics became a way to show “improvement” and justify larger block grant awards, performance bonuses, and pilot project funding extensions. Example: MIECHV grants awarded points in competitive funding if states showed they were engaging fathers and building "two-parent support systems" — even though no points were deducted if safety protections for survivors were missing.
2. Political and Bureaucratic Gain — Appearing “Pro-Family” Without Spending Extra Pushing “father engagement” looked good politically. It allowed Connecticut leaders to say they were strengthening families. It allowed them to publicly say they were addressing poverty, crime, and family instability —without having to spend more on deep trauma recovery or shelters.
It was cheaper to promote father engagement than to fully fund domestic violence shelters, long-term trauma services, and housing supports for battered women and children.
It helped Connecticut avoid higher public costs like foster care placement, extensive welfare benefits, or prolonged shelter stays.In other words:They spent less by forcing women and children to 'reunify' with dangerous fathers than byprotecting them independently.
3. Statistical “Success” for Federal Benchmarks Home Visiting Programs (MIECHV) were graded by federal benchmarks. If Connecticut could show that "both parents" were participating in early childhood programs, they improved their compliance scores for things like: Child health Family engagement Economic stability.
There were NO penalties built into the system if states failed to screen fathers for violence —only rewards if they showed “engagement. ”Thus: Pushing fatherhood engagement padded Connecticut’s performance reports.They got credit federally, without showing that the "engaged father" wasn’t violent.
4. Avoiding Accountability for Systemic Domestic Violence Failures By shifting focus to “family engagement”, Connecticut agencies distracted from their failures to protect battered mothers and their children.Instead of fixing the rising rates of child abuse, domestic violence, and maternal poverty, they reframed the problem as "missing fathers" rather than "state negligence.
"This narrative blamed father absence — not systemic failures in: Child protection Law Enforcement Housing Welfare systems.
Thus, Connecticut avoided lawsuits and public criticism for not doing enough to protect survivors.
5. Empowering Agency Control — At the Expense of Survivor Autonomy When survivors are forced into “family engagement” programming, they lose control over decisions about their safety.
Agencies like DCF (Child Welfare), DSS (Social Services), and even DPH (Public Health) gained more power to dictate:
Custody outcomes
Home visitation plans
Family reunification schedules.
Survivors’ self-determination was stripped away.
The system, not the survivor, decided when and how fathers re-entered children's lives.
This increased agency power — agencies now controlled both the survivor's legal life and the survivor's parenting choices.
Summary: Connecticut benefited by gaining federal money, political prestige, statistical advantages, and greater bureaucratic control — all at the expense of battered women and vulnerable children ’s safety.
I appreciate you sharing all of this — it’s a really important breakdown.
But reading it, it does make me wonder: are we saying fathers should just be removed from the picture altogether?
Because the reality is, not every father is abusive, just like not every mother is automatically safe.
The real issue seems like it’s not father involvement itself, but the fact that states like Connecticut pushed fatherhood programs without doing any real vetting or prioritizing safety first.
It’s not about shutting fathers out — it’s about having a system that actually screens, protects, and makes decisions based on individual safety, not blanket policies chasing grant money.
Otherwise, we just replace one injustice with another.
Appreciate you putting this all out there — it's a conversation that really needs to be had.
We are not saying all fathers should be removed from anything, I'm saying not all fathers should be included in everything as the polices, and guides which EVERY state agency follows. Which states all fathers are go be included in their children’s lives, especially violent Fathers. There is no language pertaining to mothers at all, in fact they've been erasing it the last 10 years especially with the gender equality b*******, All the language states is that fathers are to be included in their children’s lives and then they take that false theory to somehow inflame the statement, to make it true... even though it's not true. women have been supporting and raising children on their own for over a 150 years and we've been doing just fine not everyone is perfect of course but I mean really that's a pretty broad statement and the stats don't match it. Right now there is NO safety mandates implement and followed to assess if a father is violent or not. That's the problem. Therefore inclusion without assessments and safety first, IS A BIG PROBLEM. That's exactly 💯 what's happening. There is NO assessment used when dv, sa, are alleged. It's That's simple. Why keep up the rhetoric. I'm tired of it. If states say in their policies, and they do, all fathers are to be involved in their children’s lives, based on a THEORY falsely utilized as a fact, and ignore mandated safety and protections, EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THOSE WHO DEFLECT, AND THOSE WHO DONT ADDRESS THIS AS TRUTH, ARE THE ABUSERS THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.
SAFETY FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ACCESS AND INCLUSION LANGUAGE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN UP FOR FATHERS/NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT’S=MOSTLY FATHERS/FATHERS=MEN/MEN.
YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, CONGRESS KNOWS IT.
SO EVERYONE SHOULD STOP PLAYING/ARGUING SEMANTICS.
Hey, I hear you — but you don't need to yell at me in all caps.
I can zoom into the screen if I need to, promise.
Look, I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying — safety has to come first.
There should absolutely be real assessments when there's violence, abuse, or serious concerns — no argument there.
But it also can't be an all-or-nothing situation where every dad gets lumped in as dangerous just because he's a dad. Just like involving dads isn't an all-or-nothing solution.
What about when a mom is violent? Or when false accusations get used as a weapon? That happens too. It happened to me. Still does.
We have to protect everyone from abuse — men, women, and especially children — and we need systems that are based on truth, not just gender assumptions.
Appreciate your passion. We should be pushing for better — JUST HOPEFULLY WITHOUT SCREAMING AT EACH OTHER.
I wasn't screaming sorry wasn't my intention of having mycaps Locked as a scream.
Anyways onto more important things!
Thank you for your thoughtful points. Protecting all individuals from abuse is important. However, what is happening in family courts today is not gender-neutral.
Since the 1990s, federal funding programs like the Fatherhood Initiative and Access and Visitation Grants have reshaped policies to prioritize father involvement above child and mother safety.
Research shows that protective mothers who report abuse lose custody twice as often (Joan Meier, 2019). Fathers who claim “alienation” are believed and often regain custody, even with histories of violence.
This bias is not accidental. It stems from the misuse of models like the Social Ecological Model (SEM), which was originally designed to explain factors influencing behavior, but has been misapplied to claim that children need contact with both parents at all costs — even when one parent is violent.
This led to the false policy narrative that father absence is a greater harm than father violence, directly harming protective mothers.
Acknowledging isolated cases of false allegations doesn’t change the overwhelming systemic evidence:
Protective mothers, not abusive fathers, are the ones being punished under current family court frameworks.
If we want systems based on truth, we have to address actual documented bias — not theoretical parity.
Thanks for the response — and no worries about the caps. But as a hockey fan, I hate them.
I hear where you're coming from, and I agree that protecting all individuals from abuse should be the goal. But I have to be honest — what I experienced in court was far from gender-neutral. It was deeply biased against me as a father. I’ve had over 100 motions denied without hearings, and not a single judge has enforced the court’s own orders to let me see my son. Not once.
My #1 priority isn’t debating the flow of federal dollars — it’s getting my son back. Period. That’s why I write — to shed light on what’s happening, help others, and push back against the silence. But the writing is secondary. My son is not a policy discussion or a budget line. He’s my child. And I will never stop fighting for him.
As for the idea that protective mothers are always punished — I think we need to be really careful with that narrative. How do we know every “protective mother” isn’t lying about abuse? When we blindly accept one-sided claims as truth, it creates an epidemic where the majority of men are assumed to be abusers. I don’t believe that’s true, and I’ve lived through the damage of that stereotype. It destroys lives — and it’s happening more often than people want to admit.
Let’s keep the focus on truth and accountability — for everyone, not just one side.
Thank you for taking the time to respond so quickly.
While I understand that your personal experience has been painful, mine has as well. But its not about you and I and our individual experiences when it comes to systemic bias.
Individual anecdotes, however heartbreaking, cannot erase the systemic patterns that exist nationwide. Family court bias against mothers, especially protective mothers, is not simply a matter of opinion — it is documented in federal research, national studies, and fatality statistics. The United States has built its family law system around preserving paternal access, not prioritizing the safety of women and children. This is not rhetoric. It is fact.
Federal fatherhood initiatives, beginning in the 1990s and expanding aggressively through the Access and Visitation Grants program, shifted the primary purpose of family court intervention. Congress allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to programs designed to increase father involvement after separation and divorce, with no corresponding federal mandates to require domestic violence risk assessment, lethality screening, or protection of women’s or children's autonomy. Agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and state child welfare systems have adopted guides and best practices focused on father engagement — not mother protection. There are no parallel federally funded programs aimed at protecting abused mothers and children in family court settings.
As a result, today’s family courts often operate under the presumption that lack of father involvement is a greater societal harm than father-perpetrated violence. This dangerously misguided belief has led to tragic outcomes. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, at least 870 children have been murdered by a divorcing or separating parent in the United States between 2008 and 2023, and the overwhelming majority of these deaths involved a father killing the child(ren) during a custody dispute. There is no corresponding epidemic of mothers murdering children after losing custody battles. The violence is statistically lopsided and gendered.
Moreover, major research studies consistently show that protective mothers face systemic disbelief and punishment. In Joan Meier’s 2019 national study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, mothers who alleged child abuse or domestic violence lost custody 28% of the time, and when fathers counterclaimed with “parental alienation,” mothers lost custody 80% of the time — even when credible evidence of abuse was presented. This is not anecdotal; this is nationwide systemic harm built into the structure of custody adjudication.
The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence also found that false allegations of abuse are rare, occurring in less than 2% of cases — while courts treat protective mothers as if false reporting is the norm. Meanwhile, studies such as the 2023 American Psychological Association (APA) resolution formally acknowledge that “parental alienation” claims are used overwhelmingly to strip protective mothers of custody and silence disclosures of abuse. The bias is built into judicial training, Guardian ad Litem frameworks, and access and visitation grant conditions that focus on “reuniting families” regardless of violence history.
The misuse of the Social Ecological Model (SEM) further exacerbated this crisis. Originally designed to map how violence and behavior are shaped across individual, relational, and societal levels, the SEM was corrupted by federal fatherhood policy advocates to argue that father absence was itself a form of child abuse. Thus, family courts were trained to view removing a violent father as more dangerous than forcing a child to maintain contact with an abuser. This inversion of logic weaponized family policy against mothers who fled violence, reframing them as barriers to their children's health instead of their protectors.
Despite repeated warnings from domestic violence experts, Congress has failed to pass meaningful legislation that mandates trauma-informed, evidence-based custody evaluations in cases involving abuse allegations. Initiatives like the Safe Child Act have been proposed but systematically blocked or ignored. Instead, millions continue to be funneled into fatherhood grants with virtually zero oversight regarding domestic violence screening, creating a funding and legal environment where mothers’ and children’s lives are actively endangered by outdated, biased legal doctrines.
You claim that focusing on protecting mothers and children risks unfairly harming fathers. Yet the real, documented harm falls overwhelmingly on women and children — not on men. Statistically, women and children are being killed, silenced, disbelieved, and erased from public policy, while the rhetoric of "false allegations" and "father discrimination" is amplified without any proportional evidence to support it. This narrative, repeated without critical examination, continues to place survivors at greater risk and undermines efforts to make courts truly safe and just.
We must always center the conversation around who is being systematically harmed and killed — and the answer is overwhelmingly women and children, not fathers. Until Congress, state governments, and courts implement mandatory, evidence-based protections for survivors, the reality remains: the system protects access for fathers, not the safety of mothers and children. This is not a gender war. This is about the right to survive.
I respect your pain and your desire to advocate for your own child. But personal hardship does not excuse ignoring systemic realities. No amount of personal anecdote can outweigh the mass of research, government data, and the blood of women and children who are casualties of a system rigged against their safety. Truth and accountability mean facing that reality, not minimizing it.
Fatherhood flames. Scorching women across the United States. Diversity, equity and inclusion used for a gender. Experimental psychology , social policy and massive federal funding to dominate the family court conversation. Biological rights and entitlements over best interest standards. Marsha Kline Pruett first of it's kind studies " the problematic father". The neglectful and domestic batter. High risk studies yield big financial resources for colleges across the nation. Marsha Kline Pruett husband is the head of the children psychiatric department at a prominent hospital. A parent of the fatherhood initiative. The high conflict couple. The promotion of the AFCC.
Damn, you’re dropping harder truth bombs than Eminem on a bad day. 🔥
But real talk — if the solution is just "scorch all fathers to the ground," what exactly are we building back?
Good fathers, the ones who actually love and fight for their kids, are being tossed into the same fire as the deadbeats and abusers — all because there's more grant money and academic clout in treating every dad like a walking crime scene.
That’s not justice. That’s just a new kind of systemic abuse — dressed up in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” buzzwords while colleges and family court industries cash checks off destroyed families.
The system doesn't want to vet who’s safe — it just wants to profit from chaos.
And the worst part? Our kids are the ones who pay the real price for it.
Here is the reality.I tried working with some of the fathers claiming victim. With all due respect, I learned real quick that these dads yelling they were alienated the court was currupt. They were decetful , degrading, and attempting to silence not only me , but women I know . . I have seen women who were suffered serious physical abuse trying to co-parent with a diagnosed dangerous father.. , Called an alienator by the Connecticut expert when she couldn't flip her in the shared parenting group. I know a woman who tried to get out of the group and told she has to stay in it. I've meet women who reported sexual abuse and pass lie detector test be labeled an alienator. Equal and shared parenting will not fix the problem at the court house. Neither will the alienation industry. Yes ,children are paying the price. No faith or trust in the judicial system. It's got nothing to do with not wanting to help good dads.
I appreciate you sharing all of this — honestly, I don’t think we’re as far apart as it might seem.
The truth is, it’s hard to talk to men who feel completely voiceless, stripped of their kids, and attacked by a system that’s supposed to protect everyone.
When men are harmed and silenced — just like women have been — you're gonna get met by rabid wolves because they feel like there’s no other way to be heard.
Making it a gender war just turns it into a turf battle, when really the bigger enemy is the system itself — and it’s corrupt against everyone.
Look up the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 — that’s when our constitutional rights started getting quietly removed from family courts.
I personally know women who have been arrested, jailed, and destroyed by the same broken machine.
I don't just write about fathers — I write about injustice wherever I see it, and sadly, dumb and dishonest people exist on both sides.
But don’t let the bad apples wipe out the good work you’re doing. You keep talking until you find someone who will listen. Men have the same problem with women.
The real battle isn’t men vs. women — it’s people vs. a system built to profit off all of our suffering.
Yes, however I am not going to enable the people who are abusing others. Man or woman. I have to much experience and knowledge of the abuse of parental Alienation. I have watched AFCC videos. Watched the parental alienation videos. I did not come to the conclusion because it just happened to me. The courts need to kick the alienation industry out of the court house. Therapist have been taught to tell if children are not telling the truth. Narrastic and manipulative personality and traits have been known for decades. They alienation industry has hijacked the family court system. We the people need to take it back. Evidencary hearings and transparency from our judicial system. Too many dirty tricks going on at the courthouse
I hear your frustration—and I agree with your call for transparency, evidentiary hearings, and an end to dirty courthouse tricks. But I need to respectfully push back on one thing.
Dismissing the term parental alienation because it’s been co-opted or weaponized by some professionals doesn’t erase the very real, lived experiences of those of us being systematically erased from our children’s lives without cause. You say you won’t “enable the people who are abusing others.” Neither will I. But I also won’t let the abuse I’ve endured be silenced or made invisible because some therapists and judges corrupted the term.
If there’s no better term yet, then we need to rally the grassroots to create one. Because I need a name for what’s happening to me. And millions of other parents need one too.
What do we call it when your child is withheld from you for years based on lies? When a parent manipulates and brainwashes them? When the court shrugs while your relationship is destroyed? If not alienation—then what?
Until someone gives me a better word, I’m going to keep using the one that speaks the truth of my experience.
The truth about diversity equity and inclusion. The commission on women child seniors equity and inclusion in CT. They ignore women and don't address child safety. Senitor Martin Looney put the former head of ccadv on the commission. She left the ccadv because her husband was found unjustly enriching himself from his father's estate while he was diagnosed with Alzheimers. It's a matter of court records. I attempted to contact them about the fatherhood legislation they endorced with federal funding attached. They never answered. They are supposed to weigh in on legislation for the group that they are in charge of commissioning. That doesn't happen in my opinion. They endorse what brings funding into the state. I called my Republican representative and told them to save the tax payer. They are useless and don't allow the group to weigh in. Don't say them weighing on the DCF nightmare in CT. The plea bargaining and nullying of domestic violence charges. As well as the arrest of domestic violence victims for costodial interference. The three strikes your out. When child have contact reluctants. These so-called commission are not for the public they are for the politicians to promote projects for funding. Like the fatherhood initiative bringing money into the state. A project that effects everyone.
I appreciate you sharing your experience and shedding light on what’s happening in Connecticut. But I need to ask—what about Maryland?
Because here in Maryland, I’ve been erased from my child’s life for no valid reason. My requests for disability accommodations have been ignored, my truth about enduring abuse has been buried, and my motions—over 100 of them—have been dismissed without hearings. That’s not equity. That’s exclusion.
You want to talk about public safety? Let’s talk about mothers who throw their children out of windows or alienate them so severely they no longer recognize a loving father. Let’s talk about new partners who murder ex-husbands—and how courts often ignore red flags and protect abusers because they wear the mask of the “primary caretaker.”
These so-called “Commissions on Equity and Inclusion” aren’t protecting families—they’re prioritizing optics, funding, and bureaucracy over human lives. If a program gets endorsed, it’s because it brings in money. Not because it protects children. Not because it preserves parental bonds. And not because it offers accountability to the disabled, the erased, or the truth.
The public deserves better than weaponized commissions and hollow initiatives. We need actual oversight. Actual enforcement. And actual representation for every parent, not just the politically favored ones.
PA was discussed by Bob Hoffman in his book, “Negative Love Syndrome,” in 1967, Chapter 9, page 75. I give no thought to Gardner, when Hoffman came up with it first. This affects well over 20 million parents in the United States alone. The judges condone it and enable it as they write their no contact orders. They are part of the problem as well.
What he came up with is another version of Narrastist family dynamics. Well known to the phycologists and psychiatrist for years. Flying monkey , scape goat child, the golden child. The gaslighting and a whole host of other things. Rebranding and weapons against victims of domestic violence and child reporting. It's doesn't take a special group of psychologist to figure it out. It takes a special group to cover it up. Exploting children. When they after Tina but leave every one else who given media coverage, we don't have a conversation. We have a linch mob and a giant bunch of hypothetical people. How many times has your friend brought up her step children? How many articles have been written about the Ambrose children? How many times has the Derubba children been reported on? . Linda Gotlibe insists and your friend insists Tina is a narrastist and interfering in court orders. Just because a court order it doesn't mean it eithical. When the alienation industry landed in the hotel in CT, did they tell your friend to stop exploting children on the internet? If the alienation industry can talk about children, so can advocates.
Daubert or Frye standards are standards. They aren't even law. Technically, they shouldn't even be used before law. It's like Russian roulette when a court actually decides to apply them, because courts aren't based on constitutional law; they are based on a judge's discretion, and not even on evidentiary standards.
“The Baltimore BSF program [Loving Couples, Loving Children] had negative effects on couples’ relationships. BSF couples were less likely than control group couples to remain romantically involved, 59 percent versus 70 percent. Baltimore BSF couples reported being less supportive and affectionate toward each other than control group couples did. In addition, women in the Baltimore BSF program were more likely than women in the control group to report having been severely physically assaulted by a romantic partner in the past year, 15 percent compared with 9 percent. Baltimore BSF couples also rated the quality of their co-parenting relationship lower than control group couples did and reported that BSF fathers spent less time with their children and were less likely to provide them financial support than control group fathers were.”
Aka these fatherhood programs, especially Doug Edwards programs for “fatherhood inclusion” aka “male inclusion” are a FAILURE, and harm women/mothers/children at the benefit of MEN/FATHERS.
The state of Connecticut is often referred to as the leader and the head of the snake. The biggest problems in the family court system is the push for failing programs. The benefits of the fatherhood initiative are not the population the program is designed to help. Monitized fathers predominantly white charges for DV are dropped and not in investigated. Many leaders of the " reform group". They go after voluntarable women who have lost custody of their children. A system that they have bought and paid for. The very system they have curpted hijacked the interest and call anyone with information a deatractor. Liar and discredit them. Possibly even a child abuser. A one billion dollars lawsuit. Don't post your legal details. We are the 5 o'clock news now. Only this plan will work. We are bypassing legal stadiged. When you support the branch dividien. The endocrination to a cult like mentity. Stay tuned for for the podcast behind the scene of the contracts . The men's rights groups. The break down of cases with all the documents from the court house. Male domestic violence victims welcome. Bring your evidence . A full break down of cases and the players behind the scenes. Including the changing of documents of reform leaders. It's gonna be a hum dinnger . Let the real stories be told. Including the Ohio and Oklahoma attorney disqualified and losing license for x parta commutation. The California connection to the state of Connecticut. All things will be disclosed. Stay tuned
Fraud upon the court. The history of " parental alienation" is known by most survivors of the family court great custody capture. The entire industry became the rage when prodomity abusive fathers did not wish to go to jail and/or children support obligations,as well as alimony. The fatherhood initiative was the first to coin the gatekeeper term. A barrier to fatherhood engagement. Hawkins was a former CEO and director of health and human services. During the Bush administration. The population of using parental alienation appearing to be spun of the gatekeeper. Dr. Pine a disgrace phycologists began to appear in the New York times. A supporter of the fatherhood initiative. Pine convinced of other fraud appeared in Connecticut family court. In the initial phase of parental alienation claims a regerous investigation and look at estrangement was implemented. In today's family court market any negative comment in regards to a parent gets the ball rolling. Despite evidence of the claim. The fatherhood initiative began to look at the barriers. How to overcome them. Including DV and child abuse. In my attempt to take legal action against the GaL in the family law case. Not because I lost custody. Because I believe she is a danger to other children. I got sent on a wild goose chase. Until the recommendation was to another GaL on the human rights commission. I proceeded to get a lecture on father's rights. " Unless they are extremely physical or sexually abusive they will have visitation. " So it would appear anything else is ignored. According to the 2013 study from Yale 32 percent of children with a parent who engaged in domestic violence resisted contact. Linda Gotlibe insists based on videos it most be brain washing. Now a days even father's with legitimate concerns are at risk to be malicious alienator. Even when you are in favor of a relationship if the person gets help for what ever the barriers are . The parent REPORTING IS THE BARRIERS!!!!! It doesn't take an elite group of psychologist to tell if a child is lying. But it takes a group willing to pull off the custody capture. The resident " parental alienation expert" running the study group claims in video on line 90 percent of alligations are false. 99 percent in her opinion are false. Factually incorrect. These "Alienation expert" are all typed to equal and shared parenting. Identified with men's rights groups. Now that 70 percent of the " alienated" parents are women the industry wishes to help. " The domestic violence community has abandoned them". The Alienation industry targeted them. Malicious Mommy syndrome, liar, gold digger , Mounchouen mommy and Narrssits. 75 percent of Narrastist are men. Boardeline . Unspecified. All of the symptoms of alienation are the symptoms of abused children. There are no regulations on this and no consequences!!!! Joan made a list of Detractors and Linda Gotlibe is going after them in her videos. In a 2018 study was published Does shared parenting help or hurt children in high conflict divorce. ( J divorce remarriage). Where it was discovered in polimanary findings that children suffered poor adjustments in higher levels of shared parenting. Yet, all these alienation experts support it. FB a million fathers against the currupt child support system. $113 billions in arrange. " Women are now paying child support, are they ready to give it up". " Deadbeat bitch, child support caught up and hauled at ya" . " Bitter baby mommas". Hammel ( women are the peritrators). THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AN ATTACK ON WOMEN. Costodial interference, DV victims are arrested when children resist contact. Alienation industry coaching prior to family court cases. The list is endless!!!!!
I hear you — and I can tell you’ve clearly done a lot of digging into the history and politics around this.
At the same time, it’s tough because it doesn’t feel like there’s much room here for an actual conversation.
It seems like your goal is mostly to disprove and attack anything that mentions fathers' struggles, rather than talk about solutions that help kids and both parents.
Not everything is as black-and-white as you’re painting it.
At the end of the day, if we can’t even acknowledge that good mothers and good fathers are getting hurt by the same broken system, we’re just repeating the same mess, not fixing it.
My parents were divorced in the 80s when I was 13. I asked to live with my dad. The court set a social worker to the house. He went back to the court and the judge granted my request. Not because my mother abused me. No one was calling a malicious alienator and everything worked out. Women in the United States involved in divorce and custody have to defend themselves relentlessly. Against a system that has gender profiling is when you report concerns. I had everything but the kitchen sink tossed at me. I'm pist off. Yes, I am attacking the reason I had to defend myself. Do the best for my child who was forced into reunification therapy. With the GaL engaged in it. Epic failure and tried to make it look to the child like something was wrong with me. I never went to the court with anything I could not prove.
And what about fathers who face the same things? What you described is exactly what my ex-wife has done to me, and gotten away with it. My son is much younger than you at the time, so he can't make those requests. I have seen him twice in over the past year, and that was only for appointments. I have been denied my parenting time, and I was also forced into court by false accusations. But, everything you argue is that your case is more important than mine, that I don't have an equal right to fight for what is right, for me to obtain justice, because I am a man.
Fatherless initiative was not meant to be used against mothers. The entire state of Connecticut is parented with it. Fatherless households are made up of widows incarcerated fathers deployment and other situations. Men make up 80 percent of the suicide rate in the US. The highest rate of suicide for both genders is the same age as the average age of divorce. The state of Connecticut was the first to enact fatherhood legislation. All fathers to be engaged in the lives of their children with funding. Prioritize fatherhood over criminal matters. In the sratigic planning assistants to other states. DCF and the welfare office are handing out the funding for " high risk studies". CGS government solutions aggressively promoting the project. Parental Alienation is a weapon not a diagnosis.
Thanks for sharing the APSAC link—I'm actually familiar with their position. And you're right that they call for deeper analysis into why a child might be estranged from a parent, which is exactly what responsible people advocating for parental alienation awareness also want. No one’s saying every case of estrangement is unjustified. The key is distinguishing between justified estrangement and manipulated alienation—that’s what the conversation should really be about.
And sure, the research on PA as a standalone diagnosis is still debated. But the behaviors associated with it—coaching, denigration, emotional manipulation—are documented in family courts, regardless of the label. It’s less about the term, more about the pattern.
So rather than throw out the whole conversation because it doesn’t pass a rigid evidentiary threshold in every jurisdiction, maybe we should be asking: how do we better protect all kids from emotional harm—no matter who’s causing it?
PA is the distraction mothers use to live in denial of their own negligence.
Or lying to receive a protective order to cover up for mothers who want independence and freedom from being married and having to share their children with the father. Quitters lie about abuse instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
This is the problem darvo. Deflecting and projecting the fault onto other people. I agree with Dr. Bandi Lee. It's normally the parson claiming Alienation. You are attacking me for something someone else said. I'm a compassionate person but I have learned not to be gualiable. I don't spread hate. I research information speak about it. Give my opinion on what I believe is in the best interest. If it doesn't match with yours doesn't mean I hate you.
I don't hate anyone either. Personally, I don't subscribe to groups because of the negativity it causes, whether it is red vs. blue, or men's groups vs. women's groups. I can see you are compassionate about your POV. I just struggle to see a way in to find common ground.
I'm not a skilled debater. You have lots of facts. It is quite overwhelming. My learning disabilities make it difficult to engage in the manner you probably wish me to engage in. I am more of a boots on the ground how can I help someone who is right in front of me kind of person.
I apologize for grouping you with the other members of the female species commenting on this article, claiming I must be the abuser. Maryland actually took a step in the right direction that could have prevented my issues by requiring screenings for mothers-to-be experiencing a high risk pregnancy to try and catch any issues with postpartum. I had a friend who took her life only months after she had her first child. So there is a husband now widowed and child without a mother and her other family I know I grew up with who lost a sister and a daughter. What about those cases? My ex was never abused by me. She had postpartum and turned me into her scapegoat. That is what I care about. Where are those stats and facts? I care about other cases to. There is no place for abuse, or dysfunctional court systems.
Maybe there is some satirical way to expose why Canada is funding American men to breastfeed babies. Or why Maryland is funding studies on women who might have a penis. What are you hoping I am gaining from all the knowledge you are trying to drop?
Whew—lot to unpack here. First off, I haven’t attacked anyone personally, but I have pushed back on false claims and double standards, which seems to have struck a nerve. Disagreeing isn’t abuse. Asking hard questions isn’t projection. And calling out flawed logic doesn’t make someone frantic—it makes them engaged.
Second, using phrases like “PA is a weapon used by fathers” just proves the bias I’ve been pointing out from the start. That kind of blanket statement erases the reality of thousands of parents—fathers and mothers—who’ve been cut off from their kids without cause.
And let’s not pretend that an issue isn’t real just because the APA hasn’t stamped it yet. By that logic, gaslighting didn’t exist either until it trended on TikTok.
But hey, if we’re really after truth and mutual understanding, maybe we start by listening instead of labeling. Up for that?
Alright. That was quite a wall of text, but let me just say this plainly:
I’m not here to debate conspiracy theories, be put on trial, or be lectured on what a “healthy man” looks like by someone who clearly came into this conversation with their mind already made up. You’ve labeled me everything from emotionally manipulative to aligned with sex offenders, all based on your personal interpretation of a topic that’s far more nuanced than the black-and-white view you're presenting.
You talk about critical thinking, but offer one-sided sources, distorted history, and wildly aggressive conclusions while demanding I answer to things I never even said or supported. That’s not critical thinking—that’s projection with a thesaurus.
Parental alienation is real. The tactics it describes—whether or not the label appears in a manual—have been documented across thousands of custody cases around the world. Yes, it can be misused, just like any term in court. But to claim that every father who raises the issue is part of a pedophile protection ring is not just false—it’s dangerous.
I’m not going to argue in circles or defend my character against unhinged accusations. You don’t know me, and clearly, you’re not interested in actually listening—just preaching.
If you ever want a real, respectful discussion, cool. Until then, I’m out.
Reader Comment from B.H.:
PA was founded by pedofile Richard Gardner, he defended sex abuse and said kids seduce adults.
PA has actually, a fact, been rejected by the APA, WHO, Board of Social Workers and some pediatric groups It is NOT in the DSM or ICD 9.
Please read Richard Gardners OWN works and you will see for yourself. He also believes incest should be normalize in kids. Anyone who uses this as a defense is supporting child sexual abuse and pedofilia.
The "A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases" as published by the National Counsel of Juvenile and Family Court Judges clarifys that PA does NOT meet any evidentiary standards, especially Daubtert and Frye and shall be INADMISSABLE to and be stricken from the record!
https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/judicial-guide_0_0.pdf
It can be dowloaded from thier homepage!
This was also published by the American Professional Society on Abuse of Children (APSAC)
While you may not like Tina Swithin her info is accurate, credible, verifiable.
Leadership Counsel on PA and Gardner: (in his own words)
https://leadershipcouncil.org/pas/
https://leadershipcouncil.org/richard-gardners-opinions/
Hopefully unbiased reporting allows the comment to be posted.
We welcome all comments so long as they are respectful and foster a robust debate.
I have no problem with Tina Swithin. She is doing great work with One Mom's Battle.
I have nothing against Tina Swithin as a person. But we can agree to disagree on how accurate, credible, or verifiable all her information is. Some people stoke the gender war directly or indirectly, which is not good for the overall movement of court reform.
I get where you’re coming from — and I agree that good debate should stay focused on substance.
But I think it’s important to also call out that what gets labeled “tangential” or “irrelevant” is often totally subjective — especially in systems like family court, where the rules aren’t even based on constitutional law.
Family court doesn’t really follow evidentiary standards the way people assume it does. It’s all policies, guidelines, and judge discretion — not actual law. So even when something should matter based on evidence or rights, it can be tossed out because it’s "not relevant" to their goals. And that's a big part of why real debate (and real justice) is so hard in these systems.
Here are those direct links from the commenter:
https://leadershipcouncil.org/pas/
https://leadershipcouncil.org/richard-gardners-opinions/
Both types of “parental alienation” are real - one where the parent weaponizes the kid, intentionally creating loyalty conflicts, and the defense tactic used by abusive parents. It’s unfortunate that they share the same word, because it is confusing. It divides people that should be working together to solve family court issues - not generating more conflict.
This was a great article until you attacked Tina Swithin. She’s arguing a different issue that happens to use the same word. Please don’t attack other family court victims- that only serves to weaken the whole movement.
She has criticized the fathers' rights movement. She has blocked people trying to communicate with her to get a better understanding of her viewpoints. She doesn't return messages. This isn't about her as a victim, its about her unwillingness to bridge a divide and unify in any fight against the court system. As with politics, there used to be a time you could disagree with someone's views and not be accused of attacking them, and still grab a beer with each other.
I wish Tina would be more open and talk to everyone. The key is education. I think she is right on a lot of issues. There are a few we disagree on. But the things that bind people together who want to take down the Family Court Fraud Mill are far greater than petty squabbles.
I would love for Tina Swithin to be an advocate for ALL PARENTS.
In 95% of cases, BOTH PARENTS are the PROTECTIVE PARENTS.
But that's not what you see in Family Court. It's almost the exact opposite.
LITIGATION produces LABELS. And fees for lawyers and court-appointed.
In any other courtroom, if 95% of the PURPLE people were found to be ABUSERS by the Court, the ACLU would be all over it. (Substitute any protected class in for PURPLE)
Why is Family Court Different?
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
https://luthmann.substack.com/i/153237466/cutting-off-the-money-supply
My alma mater's primary color is purple. I am deeply offended by your color choice. :) But you are right. I have contacted Legal Aid, ACLU, DOJ, Disability Rights Maryland, Maryland Coalition on Civil Rights, Maryland Volunteer Lawyer Services, multiple bar associations, and even several organizations who claim to "help" victims of domestic violence (but they help file protective orders with no investigation), and they all seem to avoid family law cases like the plague. Why is that? How can you alienate a class of people most in need? It has to be money, policy, negative pressure, etc... Even local universities have stopped allowing law school students to participate in FL cases.
The father's rights group has commented they wanted to put her in a Wood chipper and turn her into fish food when 50/50 didn't pass.
And you believed them? Which group said that?
Please go onto One Mom battle Facebook page. I've been called every name in the book on father's rights page. For trying to correct statics and point out the fatherhood statics were not meant to be used as a weapon against women. " Mothers are failing, especially the white ones" . " Privalaged white women" the Connecticut fatherhood initiative. A thesis paper blaming single mothers for school shootings. No policy Maker supports the theory. Neither does the FBI that I know of. I'm a toxic femanist because I support Mom's. These are the nice things I have been callied. These fellas don't hold back.
Yeah, I hear you.
If you walk into the lion’s den, you usually don’t leave without a few scratches — and honestly, it happens on both sides.
Men have been burned by the system, too. But you seem to be discounting that. Throwing stats at someone isn't going to solve the problem.
I’ve posted in some women’s groups too, and gotten pretty much the same treatment just for bringing up father’s rights or trying to talk about the bigger picture.
The second you don’t fit someone’s narrative 100%, you become the enemy.
It’s sad, because it just keeps people fighting each other instead of actually fixing the system that's hurting everyone.
Appreciate you sharing your experience — you’re definitely not alone.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.
I am sure she is trying. But, some people don't try hard enough.
There is a legal solution. We need to stand up together and force congress to get rid of this ADR system and demand courts follow the Constitution.
This publication embraces free speech and freedom of ideas. The purpose is exposure of family court corruption and reform.
Michael went out of his way to say he wasn't attacking Tina Swithin of One Mom's Battle. Michael views the issues as one in the same.
Tina hasn't returned my past inquiries or requests for comment, even though I admire her and her fight.
I would love to get to the bottom of why Michael thinks it's the same issue and you and Tina think they are different issues entirely.
The argument I don't agree with is that parental alienation is a tool exclusively used by fathers to take child custody away from mothers. As a father alienated from his child by a narcissistic mother, I have spoken to numerous mothers and fathers who have near-identical experiences. Over time, the child/ren begin to turn on the alienated parent for not being there for them.
It's not always the custodial parent speaking negatively about the other. It's the perception created by the long-term estrangement, the bonding with the harmful parent, that they must be right. Like most everything else, it's on a spectrum of severity. What else do you call it?
Discounting things like PA as a weapon only creates division between genders. That is what power players want. Any break in the armor, any division, diminishes the number of people unified fighting for court reform.
I'm all for equal/shared parenting laws, which Tina Swithin is against. She favors Kaden's Law, which makes it even easier for mothers to file false accusations for protective orders. I have two against me based on false allegations and actual harm caused to me.
None of these focuses on the real issue, which is that our courts don't even follow constitutional law. Why do you think so many argue that there is no due process? Our rights are constantly violated in the court system, but we are distracted by gender wars and discounting child abuse because PA isn't in the DSM. Neither is CPTSD. The UK recognizes it, but the US does not, which is shameful. There is a significant difference between physical and mental trauma, but both are real.
I think it leans more towards fathers being the alienated parent. My nephew has been in this horrific family court now for over 8 years. The judge in the case has jailed him numerous times and completely taken away his daughter. It is the most frustrating, anxiety inducing, overwhelming sadness I have ever seen and experienced. In the course of this time I have watched father after father go through the exact same scenario. It is criminal. My nephew is suing the judge, the jtc is in contact with him regarding the judge and he has had a first amendment case won in the supreme court. It is such a long process and in the meantime a child goes without a parent and extended family. There is no excuse for this, it is about a money making system, title IXD and judges who believe they are gods
I’m so sorry your nephew — and your whole family — has had to go through that.
You’re absolutely right: it leans heavily toward fathers being the ones erased, and it’s happening way more often than people want to admit. It has happened to me.
The patterns are too clear to ignore — jailing, gag orders, financial bleed-outs — all while the child loses not just a parent, but an entire side of their family.
It is criminal. And you’re spot on: it’s about money, control, and judges who have zero accountability.
I’m really glad your nephew is fighting back — it’s brutal, but it matters.
Sending strength to you and your family. You’re not alone in this fight. If it works, I would love to know what he did.
On a side not, I have spoken with mothers who have faced these same issues. It's really sad and not an exclusive gender issue. The court is just a severely broken system and something needs to be done.
Thank you and I know it is across the board. So sorry for you going through this also. We met with our state reps and laid out all of this. It is so ingrained in society regarding custody and visitation that they put up a wall. I sat with one women and showed her that in a month with 31 days a non custodial parent gets around 97 hours with their child and the custodial parents get over 600 hours. And out of the 97 you have drive time and sleeping. That is not a parent, that is a visitor. They can spend more time with the parents boyfriend/girlfriend then with their parent. Making it ripe for abuse or all manner of things to go wrong. It just make my stomach hurt. I will let you know if we get some justice here. Thank you again.
Thank you for sharing that — and seriously, huge respect for meeting with your state reps and laying it all out like that.
You’re absolutely right — when you actually break down the numbers, it’s obvious that a non-custodial parent isn’t really "parenting," they’re just visiting.
And like you said, it creates all kinds of risks when a child spends more time with random new adults than with their own parent.
It’s heartbreaking, and it should make everyone’s stomach hurt.
Please do keep me posted — rooting for you all the way.
Can you tell me the clear difference between a man and a woman? Because people seemed to have forgotten, but most of us base it off of experience of what we have seen, read, and observed. Do we need a formal diagnosis by a doctor to know our gender?
My experience to diagnose her is based on what I have seen, read, and observed, including speaking with mental health professionals. I don't say that about her lightly. She also fraudulently used my ADHD to claim it makes me violent and dangerous to obtain a protective order from a judge who did not even question any of it. So, I feel a lot more qualified than my ex and the judge to diagnose her, because I actually did my due diligence. But, name a narcissist who will walk into a psychiatry office and seek a diagnosis. They won't do it.
She is extremely controlling and possessive. She chose false accusations and to abandon our marriage in the manner she did as soon as our son was born, and to me was clearly suffering from postpartum depression. But, she is a master of masking her issues from others. All of this is based on what I have seen, read, and observed and discussed with professionals, because she refused to see any professional to be evaluated or diagnosed. Instead she turned on me, and has kept up the facade for 6 years.
So please tell me how my arguments are invalid because I am not a professional, or I am not a woman, or I am a man so I must have done something to her. She's a compulsive liar, and the courts have denied me any due process or to properly review my evidence or witnesses.
Do you understand now?
There are plenty of other works and studies on PA to not have to focus on the OG who is obviously quite disturbing of an individual. You can't always rewrite history, but the discussion had to start somewhere. Our founding fathers were pretty much all slave owners. Should we stop calling ourselves Americans?
Richard, have you seen the tic toc videos? Another mothers battle. These are the people who want to chat.? With all due respect these people don't want to have a discussion. They want it one way. Aubrey think we should keep the AFCC going. I think both sides think it is time to get the AFCC the hell out of family court. These so-called alienation warriors. Especially the woman, the manicured mommy , the war room. These women are not interested in conversation. They are bashers. The hate for women advocating for change is real. I don't blame Tina.
The hate for men advocating for change is real.
The government has invested billions into fatherhood.
The government has invested billions into motherhood.
What?? Where? Show me that money? Show me the proof of the government investing billions onto motherhood "access". I'll wait.
Really, please explain. Is there a motherhood initiative? I'd like to volunteer.
In 2023 fatherhood initiatives received maybe $250 million from the government. Maternal initiatives surpassed $9 billion.
A website doesn’t receive that much money. Fathers get one resource and women are up in arms over it. Every other resource out there is for women.
No, actually women support fathers when they are able. If you can give us more information on your situation. We would be inclined. If we could see all your court papers. Cause I have not advocted for some mothers after I read the entire documentation. Women are devastated when they don't have a co- parent for what ever reason. Mothers ( with the exception of a few) want nothing more than a healthy father for their children. The change we hate is the legalization of abuse. The court ordered Stockholm syndrome ( reunification therapy) . Not fathers.
I appreciate your comment, but I need to speak plainly: I have a court order. She refuses to follow it. No co-parenting. No communication. Just years of stonewalling, false allegations, and legal games.
Justifying my pain to strangers—or sharing every court document—isn’t going to fix what’s broken in Maryland. I was a faithful husband and a devoted father. I supported her through everything, including a very real and very difficult battle with postpartum depression, among other pregnancy traumas. But she refused treatment and instead turned that pain outward—onto me. It became a weapon. And the system enabled it.
I lost my career. I lost my home. I lost my wife. I lost my family. I lost my relationship with my child. Six years later, she still refuses to speak to me. And no, it’s not because I was abusive—it's because I wasn't. I stayed. I helped. I loved. And somehow, that made me the enemy.
You say women want healthy fathers. So do I. I am one. But the courts didn’t care. They still don’t. And every time someone asks for “more documentation” instead of just believing that men can be victims too, it adds to the silence and suffering so many of us are already buried under.
What about healthy mothers? How many times do women turn on men in similar circumstances? How many women refuse to be treated for postpartum and try to hide it? The little sister of a close friend of mine took her life following the birth of her first child. I was scared my ex would do something when we were together. So please tell me why I have to be interrogated over male abuse when women do nothing to address postpartum depression or their own mental health around the birth of children?
We don’t need to legalize more therapy. We need to legalize truth. And equal protection. And accountability.
Would love for the alienation industry to under go a full and complete department of justice investigation. As well as the FBI. If they would like any information I would be happy to supply some. They could twirling around the internet. There is plenty of contraindications and contradiction.
The ENTIRE Family Court Industrial Complex needs an enema.
What when need are arrests of the bad actors. The judge who ran the illegal criminal out the side door. We need this happen. What is allowed will continue.
I can agree with that. More accountability and transparency on judges. Say a child is severely injured, or worse, killed, by a parent the judge placed the child with, the judge should face criminal charges.
Great
The Alienation industry feeds the system
You falling into the gender war feeds the system.
A grassroots movement to find a more accurate "label" sounds really encouraging. What authority is going to pick this new label? How long do we have to wait for this new label, to probably be chosen by a woman, while so many of us suffer, especially children?
Coincidentally, only 5% of child custody cases go to trial, er, tribunal. Not because of two high-conflict parents, which si definitely mislableled, but because of one abusive and alienating parent. So what do I do when I can't get a court to label my case as DV/DA/PSA/IPV/CC, but they listen to whatever my ex says with no witnesses or evidence?
Your case about PA is based on the guy who wrote the first text on it back in what, 1970? I wasn't born yet. I don't use it as a weapon. I use it as a term to describe what my son is going through being kept from me by his mother, despite a court order that our fake family court won't enforce. I can't speak for men being the primary traffickers or abusers, I can only speak for my case where that is not the case. What should I call it when my son cries over not seeing me, or yells at his mom or me on the phone over not seeing me? He is displaying negative behaviors. But, his pediatrician says he seems fine, so I can't call it child abuse.
If you believe our court system is constitutional and follows actual laws, then you have no standing to question whether PA can be used or not.
It is not just Richard Gardner. These parental alienation experts in modern day time a profound part of the problem. Talking about statistics , because they were brought up by fathers rights groups to begin with. We have watched the videos and the industry at AFCC conferences. Stating "alienation" is worse than SA. The Connecticut "expert" defends Richard Gardner. She says she knew him personally. From what I understand Dr. Pine is not the only " alienation" reunification therapist being looked at for fraud. There are no studies for false claims of parental alienation. These so called experts are arrogant, toss out diagnosis like Halloween candy. They are unregulated , univesstgated and trying to dominate the family court system. Coaching services. Hypocritical behavior. In 2023 Amy Barker made the statement that an evaluation was necessary to determine and role out good reason for contact resistance/ denial. She offers a One hour coaching session by phone for court cases for $240. Without an evaluation. In many opinions they want to operate in any fashion with no safety rails.
I get where your frustration is coming from — I really do.
But honestly, the system is already broken without the problems you’re describing.
It’s been broken for a long time — long before reunification therapists and "alienation experts" started cashing in.
The bigger question is: if what you're saying is the whole story, are dads like me just supposed to give up?
Because that’s what it feels like you’re arguing for — that fighting for your child is automatically suspicious or wrong.
And that’s heartbreaking.
The real problem isn’t that parents want to be involved — it’s that the system rewards chaos, punishes good parents, and refuses to put real safety standards in place for anyone.
We all deserve better than a system that chews up families for profit — moms, dads, and especially the kids caught in the middle.
And I guess that female judges are off the hook? All the moms getting in trouble are teachers sleeping with their students. Or what about the mothers who throw their children out windows? As a kid, a mother drowned her two children, one who was my friend.
Here is the reality of what I am attempting to say. 22 percent of children are growing up in single parent households. There are 5.97 million single father households. The majority of children are growing up in household with fathes and mothers Divorce is not the main reason for fatherless households. Probably not the main reason for motherless households. This is widespread problem that's unavoidable in situations. Child support is for income disparages. Parental Alienation is as Michael Volpe says is a broad and nebulous term. It's twisted and contorted. The reality is it's a weapon. In the past fathers were victims of raping of financial support. This has not been the case for some years. Yes, there are isolated cases. There are some mothers running around claiming abuse and Alienation that is not true. There are fathers running around claiming Alienation and abuse that are not true. The Alienation industry is a big part of the problem. 50/50 is not going to solve that problem. There is still going to be years of litigation abuse allowed at the court house. Children court napped. Children will not be served by splitting them in half. It's been 4 glorious years of litigation free life. I voice my opinions on the lived experience. The dedication to the future generations who will have to endure the court system. For The reason I have found through the funding. The CEO of the fatherhood initiative a 503c non governmental agency is making over $500 thousand a year I believe. The head of CGS government solutions contract to aggressively promote the project is making over $700 thousand dollars a year. Everyone is leaving the court house broke. Yet the men's rights groups are running around claiming single mother households are the worst thing ever. With statistics not broken down. The fatherhood initiative at Uconn is going to lavish conference at pricey locations. Minewhile the ccadv is beginning for scraps. Perhaps you gentleman should take a closer look at the bigger picture. No one is getting rich off domestic violence claims. It's not a money grabber. I just will not ever get behind parental alienation. Are the wealthy alienation industry people hiding behind closed doors. I think they are selling people on a notion. Failing to provide services to unhealthy parents in case. Attorney are pushing it to collect their money. Mediation is useless in high conflict. Just like men have the right to protect themselves so do women. The Alienation crew is not my tribe. I tried and I didn't find them to be engaged in above board behavior. My belief is with safe parents. People truly allowed to bring their cases to the court on merit. Not what benefits the people profiting off the court napping and holding children ransom at the court house. I believe these parental alienation " experts" are a procuring cause to the family court system failure.
I hear you — and I get that you have strong opinions shaped by your own lived experience. But let me be clear: I’m not part of the “alienation crew,” I’m not in anyone’s tribe, and I’m not out here repping any organization or conference I’ve never even been to. What other people do at some big hotel ballroom with funding I’ll never touch has nothing to do with why I started writing.
I started because I was wronged. I was lied to. I was taken advantage of by people who knew exactly what they were doing, especially my ex-wife who continues to exploit the system against me. And worst of all, my son has been kept from me by a court that refuses to enforce its own orders — all based on falsehoods, no evidence, and a system that treats due process like an optional suggestion.
And I don’t care if it happens to a man or a woman — it’s wrong. It’s broken. And it deserves to be exposed.
You say parental alienation is nebulous — okay. But tell that to the kids who grew up estranged from a safe, loving parent because of unchecked lies, biased professionals, and a court system that profits off confusion. Most of the stories I’ve learned about alienation came from mothers and adult children, not men’s rights groups. I don’t follow talking points — I follow patterns, I follow people, and I follow pain.
You’re free to believe what you want, and I respect your right to say it. But don’t lump me into some movement I never signed up for. I’m an independent thinker, not a mouthpiece — and my fight isn’t about gender. It’s about fixing a corrupt, unaccountable system that chews people up and leaves families broken, whether it’s in family court, civil court, or probate.
We don’t have to agree on everything. But if you’re serious about wanting justice for the next generation, then maybe we’re fighting the same monster from different angles — and the monster ain’t each other. Otherwise, you are barking up the wrong tree and I don't believe it will get you very far trying to fix the system.
What Connecticut Gained (or Avoided) by Prioritizing Unvetted Father Involvement Over Victim Protection
1. Financial Gain — Access to Larger Federal Grants By showing "father involvement" activities, Connecticut could tap into additional streams of federal funding.Federal agencies like ACF (Administration for Children and Families) and HRSA (HealthResources and Services Administration) rewarded states that promoted "responsible fatherhood, marriage promotion, and male involvement.
"Fatherhood engagement metrics became a way to show “improvement” and justify larger block grant awards, performance bonuses, and pilot project funding extensions. Example: MIECHV grants awarded points in competitive funding if states showed they were engaging fathers and building "two-parent support systems" — even though no points were deducted if safety protections for survivors were missing.
2. Political and Bureaucratic Gain — Appearing “Pro-Family” Without Spending Extra Pushing “father engagement” looked good politically. It allowed Connecticut leaders to say they were strengthening families. It allowed them to publicly say they were addressing poverty, crime, and family instability —without having to spend more on deep trauma recovery or shelters.
It was cheaper to promote father engagement than to fully fund domestic violence shelters, long-term trauma services, and housing supports for battered women and children.
It helped Connecticut avoid higher public costs like foster care placement, extensive welfare benefits, or prolonged shelter stays.In other words:They spent less by forcing women and children to 'reunify' with dangerous fathers than byprotecting them independently.
3. Statistical “Success” for Federal Benchmarks Home Visiting Programs (MIECHV) were graded by federal benchmarks. If Connecticut could show that "both parents" were participating in early childhood programs, they improved their compliance scores for things like: Child health Family engagement Economic stability.
There were NO penalties built into the system if states failed to screen fathers for violence —only rewards if they showed “engagement. ”Thus: Pushing fatherhood engagement padded Connecticut’s performance reports.They got credit federally, without showing that the "engaged father" wasn’t violent.
4. Avoiding Accountability for Systemic Domestic Violence Failures By shifting focus to “family engagement”, Connecticut agencies distracted from their failures to protect battered mothers and their children.Instead of fixing the rising rates of child abuse, domestic violence, and maternal poverty, they reframed the problem as "missing fathers" rather than "state negligence.
"This narrative blamed father absence — not systemic failures in: Child protection Law Enforcement Housing Welfare systems.
Thus, Connecticut avoided lawsuits and public criticism for not doing enough to protect survivors.
5. Empowering Agency Control — At the Expense of Survivor Autonomy When survivors are forced into “family engagement” programming, they lose control over decisions about their safety.
Agencies like DCF (Child Welfare), DSS (Social Services), and even DPH (Public Health) gained more power to dictate:
Custody outcomes
Home visitation plans
Family reunification schedules.
Survivors’ self-determination was stripped away.
The system, not the survivor, decided when and how fathers re-entered children's lives.
This increased agency power — agencies now controlled both the survivor's legal life and the survivor's parenting choices.
Summary: Connecticut benefited by gaining federal money, political prestige, statistical advantages, and greater bureaucratic control — all at the expense of battered women and vulnerable children ’s safety.
I appreciate you sharing all of this — it’s a really important breakdown.
But reading it, it does make me wonder: are we saying fathers should just be removed from the picture altogether?
Because the reality is, not every father is abusive, just like not every mother is automatically safe.
The real issue seems like it’s not father involvement itself, but the fact that states like Connecticut pushed fatherhood programs without doing any real vetting or prioritizing safety first.
It’s not about shutting fathers out — it’s about having a system that actually screens, protects, and makes decisions based on individual safety, not blanket policies chasing grant money.
Otherwise, we just replace one injustice with another.
Appreciate you putting this all out there — it's a conversation that really needs to be had.
We are not saying all fathers should be removed from anything, I'm saying not all fathers should be included in everything as the polices, and guides which EVERY state agency follows. Which states all fathers are go be included in their children’s lives, especially violent Fathers. There is no language pertaining to mothers at all, in fact they've been erasing it the last 10 years especially with the gender equality b*******, All the language states is that fathers are to be included in their children’s lives and then they take that false theory to somehow inflame the statement, to make it true... even though it's not true. women have been supporting and raising children on their own for over a 150 years and we've been doing just fine not everyone is perfect of course but I mean really that's a pretty broad statement and the stats don't match it. Right now there is NO safety mandates implement and followed to assess if a father is violent or not. That's the problem. Therefore inclusion without assessments and safety first, IS A BIG PROBLEM. That's exactly 💯 what's happening. There is NO assessment used when dv, sa, are alleged. It's That's simple. Why keep up the rhetoric. I'm tired of it. If states say in their policies, and they do, all fathers are to be involved in their children’s lives, based on a THEORY falsely utilized as a fact, and ignore mandated safety and protections, EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THOSE WHO DEFLECT, AND THOSE WHO DONT ADDRESS THIS AS TRUTH, ARE THE ABUSERS THEY ARE THE PROBLEM.
SAFETY FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ACCESS AND INCLUSION LANGUAGE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN UP FOR FATHERS/NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT’S=MOSTLY FATHERS/FATHERS=MEN/MEN.
YOU KNOW IT, I KNOW IT, CONGRESS KNOWS IT.
SO EVERYONE SHOULD STOP PLAYING/ARGUING SEMANTICS.
LETS GET DIRTY!!!!
Hey, I hear you — but you don't need to yell at me in all caps.
I can zoom into the screen if I need to, promise.
Look, I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying — safety has to come first.
There should absolutely be real assessments when there's violence, abuse, or serious concerns — no argument there.
But it also can't be an all-or-nothing situation where every dad gets lumped in as dangerous just because he's a dad. Just like involving dads isn't an all-or-nothing solution.
What about when a mom is violent? Or when false accusations get used as a weapon? That happens too. It happened to me. Still does.
We have to protect everyone from abuse — men, women, and especially children — and we need systems that are based on truth, not just gender assumptions.
Appreciate your passion. We should be pushing for better — JUST HOPEFULLY WITHOUT SCREAMING AT EACH OTHER.
I wasn't screaming sorry wasn't my intention of having mycaps Locked as a scream.
Anyways onto more important things!
Thank you for your thoughtful points. Protecting all individuals from abuse is important. However, what is happening in family courts today is not gender-neutral.
Since the 1990s, federal funding programs like the Fatherhood Initiative and Access and Visitation Grants have reshaped policies to prioritize father involvement above child and mother safety.
Research shows that protective mothers who report abuse lose custody twice as often (Joan Meier, 2019). Fathers who claim “alienation” are believed and often regain custody, even with histories of violence.
This bias is not accidental. It stems from the misuse of models like the Social Ecological Model (SEM), which was originally designed to explain factors influencing behavior, but has been misapplied to claim that children need contact with both parents at all costs — even when one parent is violent.
This led to the false policy narrative that father absence is a greater harm than father violence, directly harming protective mothers.
Acknowledging isolated cases of false allegations doesn’t change the overwhelming systemic evidence:
Protective mothers, not abusive fathers, are the ones being punished under current family court frameworks.
If we want systems based on truth, we have to address actual documented bias — not theoretical parity.
Thanks for the response — and no worries about the caps. But as a hockey fan, I hate them.
I hear where you're coming from, and I agree that protecting all individuals from abuse should be the goal. But I have to be honest — what I experienced in court was far from gender-neutral. It was deeply biased against me as a father. I’ve had over 100 motions denied without hearings, and not a single judge has enforced the court’s own orders to let me see my son. Not once.
My #1 priority isn’t debating the flow of federal dollars — it’s getting my son back. Period. That’s why I write — to shed light on what’s happening, help others, and push back against the silence. But the writing is secondary. My son is not a policy discussion or a budget line. He’s my child. And I will never stop fighting for him.
As for the idea that protective mothers are always punished — I think we need to be really careful with that narrative. How do we know every “protective mother” isn’t lying about abuse? When we blindly accept one-sided claims as truth, it creates an epidemic where the majority of men are assumed to be abusers. I don’t believe that’s true, and I’ve lived through the damage of that stereotype. It destroys lives — and it’s happening more often than people want to admit.
Let’s keep the focus on truth and accountability — for everyone, not just one side.
Thank you for taking the time to respond so quickly.
While I understand that your personal experience has been painful, mine has as well. But its not about you and I and our individual experiences when it comes to systemic bias.
Individual anecdotes, however heartbreaking, cannot erase the systemic patterns that exist nationwide. Family court bias against mothers, especially protective mothers, is not simply a matter of opinion — it is documented in federal research, national studies, and fatality statistics. The United States has built its family law system around preserving paternal access, not prioritizing the safety of women and children. This is not rhetoric. It is fact.
Federal fatherhood initiatives, beginning in the 1990s and expanding aggressively through the Access and Visitation Grants program, shifted the primary purpose of family court intervention. Congress allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to programs designed to increase father involvement after separation and divorce, with no corresponding federal mandates to require domestic violence risk assessment, lethality screening, or protection of women’s or children's autonomy. Agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and state child welfare systems have adopted guides and best practices focused on father engagement — not mother protection. There are no parallel federally funded programs aimed at protecting abused mothers and children in family court settings.
As a result, today’s family courts often operate under the presumption that lack of father involvement is a greater societal harm than father-perpetrated violence. This dangerously misguided belief has led to tragic outcomes. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, at least 870 children have been murdered by a divorcing or separating parent in the United States between 2008 and 2023, and the overwhelming majority of these deaths involved a father killing the child(ren) during a custody dispute. There is no corresponding epidemic of mothers murdering children after losing custody battles. The violence is statistically lopsided and gendered.
Moreover, major research studies consistently show that protective mothers face systemic disbelief and punishment. In Joan Meier’s 2019 national study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, mothers who alleged child abuse or domestic violence lost custody 28% of the time, and when fathers counterclaimed with “parental alienation,” mothers lost custody 80% of the time — even when credible evidence of abuse was presented. This is not anecdotal; this is nationwide systemic harm built into the structure of custody adjudication.
The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence also found that false allegations of abuse are rare, occurring in less than 2% of cases — while courts treat protective mothers as if false reporting is the norm. Meanwhile, studies such as the 2023 American Psychological Association (APA) resolution formally acknowledge that “parental alienation” claims are used overwhelmingly to strip protective mothers of custody and silence disclosures of abuse. The bias is built into judicial training, Guardian ad Litem frameworks, and access and visitation grant conditions that focus on “reuniting families” regardless of violence history.
The misuse of the Social Ecological Model (SEM) further exacerbated this crisis. Originally designed to map how violence and behavior are shaped across individual, relational, and societal levels, the SEM was corrupted by federal fatherhood policy advocates to argue that father absence was itself a form of child abuse. Thus, family courts were trained to view removing a violent father as more dangerous than forcing a child to maintain contact with an abuser. This inversion of logic weaponized family policy against mothers who fled violence, reframing them as barriers to their children's health instead of their protectors.
Despite repeated warnings from domestic violence experts, Congress has failed to pass meaningful legislation that mandates trauma-informed, evidence-based custody evaluations in cases involving abuse allegations. Initiatives like the Safe Child Act have been proposed but systematically blocked or ignored. Instead, millions continue to be funneled into fatherhood grants with virtually zero oversight regarding domestic violence screening, creating a funding and legal environment where mothers’ and children’s lives are actively endangered by outdated, biased legal doctrines.
You claim that focusing on protecting mothers and children risks unfairly harming fathers. Yet the real, documented harm falls overwhelmingly on women and children — not on men. Statistically, women and children are being killed, silenced, disbelieved, and erased from public policy, while the rhetoric of "false allegations" and "father discrimination" is amplified without any proportional evidence to support it. This narrative, repeated without critical examination, continues to place survivors at greater risk and undermines efforts to make courts truly safe and just.
We must always center the conversation around who is being systematically harmed and killed — and the answer is overwhelmingly women and children, not fathers. Until Congress, state governments, and courts implement mandatory, evidence-based protections for survivors, the reality remains: the system protects access for fathers, not the safety of mothers and children. This is not a gender war. This is about the right to survive.
I respect your pain and your desire to advocate for your own child. But personal hardship does not excuse ignoring systemic realities. No amount of personal anecdote can outweigh the mass of research, government data, and the blood of women and children who are casualties of a system rigged against their safety. Truth and accountability mean facing that reality, not minimizing it.
Fatherhood flames. Scorching women across the United States. Diversity, equity and inclusion used for a gender. Experimental psychology , social policy and massive federal funding to dominate the family court conversation. Biological rights and entitlements over best interest standards. Marsha Kline Pruett first of it's kind studies " the problematic father". The neglectful and domestic batter. High risk studies yield big financial resources for colleges across the nation. Marsha Kline Pruett husband is the head of the children psychiatric department at a prominent hospital. A parent of the fatherhood initiative. The high conflict couple. The promotion of the AFCC.
Damn, you’re dropping harder truth bombs than Eminem on a bad day. 🔥
But real talk — if the solution is just "scorch all fathers to the ground," what exactly are we building back?
Good fathers, the ones who actually love and fight for their kids, are being tossed into the same fire as the deadbeats and abusers — all because there's more grant money and academic clout in treating every dad like a walking crime scene.
That’s not justice. That’s just a new kind of systemic abuse — dressed up in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” buzzwords while colleges and family court industries cash checks off destroyed families.
The system doesn't want to vet who’s safe — it just wants to profit from chaos.
And the worst part? Our kids are the ones who pay the real price for it.
Here is the reality.I tried working with some of the fathers claiming victim. With all due respect, I learned real quick that these dads yelling they were alienated the court was currupt. They were decetful , degrading, and attempting to silence not only me , but women I know . . I have seen women who were suffered serious physical abuse trying to co-parent with a diagnosed dangerous father.. , Called an alienator by the Connecticut expert when she couldn't flip her in the shared parenting group. I know a woman who tried to get out of the group and told she has to stay in it. I've meet women who reported sexual abuse and pass lie detector test be labeled an alienator. Equal and shared parenting will not fix the problem at the court house. Neither will the alienation industry. Yes ,children are paying the price. No faith or trust in the judicial system. It's got nothing to do with not wanting to help good dads.
I appreciate you sharing all of this — honestly, I don’t think we’re as far apart as it might seem.
The truth is, it’s hard to talk to men who feel completely voiceless, stripped of their kids, and attacked by a system that’s supposed to protect everyone.
When men are harmed and silenced — just like women have been — you're gonna get met by rabid wolves because they feel like there’s no other way to be heard.
Making it a gender war just turns it into a turf battle, when really the bigger enemy is the system itself — and it’s corrupt against everyone.
Look up the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 — that’s when our constitutional rights started getting quietly removed from family courts.
I personally know women who have been arrested, jailed, and destroyed by the same broken machine.
I don't just write about fathers — I write about injustice wherever I see it, and sadly, dumb and dishonest people exist on both sides.
But don’t let the bad apples wipe out the good work you’re doing. You keep talking until you find someone who will listen. Men have the same problem with women.
The real battle isn’t men vs. women — it’s people vs. a system built to profit off all of our suffering.
Yes, however I am not going to enable the people who are abusing others. Man or woman. I have to much experience and knowledge of the abuse of parental Alienation. I have watched AFCC videos. Watched the parental alienation videos. I did not come to the conclusion because it just happened to me. The courts need to kick the alienation industry out of the court house. Therapist have been taught to tell if children are not telling the truth. Narrastic and manipulative personality and traits have been known for decades. They alienation industry has hijacked the family court system. We the people need to take it back. Evidencary hearings and transparency from our judicial system. Too many dirty tricks going on at the courthouse
I hear your frustration—and I agree with your call for transparency, evidentiary hearings, and an end to dirty courthouse tricks. But I need to respectfully push back on one thing.
Dismissing the term parental alienation because it’s been co-opted or weaponized by some professionals doesn’t erase the very real, lived experiences of those of us being systematically erased from our children’s lives without cause. You say you won’t “enable the people who are abusing others.” Neither will I. But I also won’t let the abuse I’ve endured be silenced or made invisible because some therapists and judges corrupted the term.
If there’s no better term yet, then we need to rally the grassroots to create one. Because I need a name for what’s happening to me. And millions of other parents need one too.
What do we call it when your child is withheld from you for years based on lies? When a parent manipulates and brainwashes them? When the court shrugs while your relationship is destroyed? If not alienation—then what?
Until someone gives me a better word, I’m going to keep using the one that speaks the truth of my experience.
The truth about diversity equity and inclusion. The commission on women child seniors equity and inclusion in CT. They ignore women and don't address child safety. Senitor Martin Looney put the former head of ccadv on the commission. She left the ccadv because her husband was found unjustly enriching himself from his father's estate while he was diagnosed with Alzheimers. It's a matter of court records. I attempted to contact them about the fatherhood legislation they endorced with federal funding attached. They never answered. They are supposed to weigh in on legislation for the group that they are in charge of commissioning. That doesn't happen in my opinion. They endorse what brings funding into the state. I called my Republican representative and told them to save the tax payer. They are useless and don't allow the group to weigh in. Don't say them weighing on the DCF nightmare in CT. The plea bargaining and nullying of domestic violence charges. As well as the arrest of domestic violence victims for costodial interference. The three strikes your out. When child have contact reluctants. These so-called commission are not for the public they are for the politicians to promote projects for funding. Like the fatherhood initiative bringing money into the state. A project that effects everyone.
I appreciate you sharing your experience and shedding light on what’s happening in Connecticut. But I need to ask—what about Maryland?
Because here in Maryland, I’ve been erased from my child’s life for no valid reason. My requests for disability accommodations have been ignored, my truth about enduring abuse has been buried, and my motions—over 100 of them—have been dismissed without hearings. That’s not equity. That’s exclusion.
You want to talk about public safety? Let’s talk about mothers who throw their children out of windows or alienate them so severely they no longer recognize a loving father. Let’s talk about new partners who murder ex-husbands—and how courts often ignore red flags and protect abusers because they wear the mask of the “primary caretaker.”
These so-called “Commissions on Equity and Inclusion” aren’t protecting families—they’re prioritizing optics, funding, and bureaucracy over human lives. If a program gets endorsed, it’s because it brings in money. Not because it protects children. Not because it preserves parental bonds. And not because it offers accountability to the disabled, the erased, or the truth.
The public deserves better than weaponized commissions and hollow initiatives. We need actual oversight. Actual enforcement. And actual representation for every parent, not just the politically favored ones.
I would suggest you investigate why this happened to you. Like we have and find the barriers
Hey, there's a novel idea. I don't know why I didn't think of that.
https://fatherandco.substack.com/
https://medium.com/@thunderwriter
https://buymeacoffee.com/thunderwriter
PA was discussed by Bob Hoffman in his book, “Negative Love Syndrome,” in 1967, Chapter 9, page 75. I give no thought to Gardner, when Hoffman came up with it first. This affects well over 20 million parents in the United States alone. The judges condone it and enable it as they write their no contact orders. They are part of the problem as well.
What he came up with is another version of Narrastist family dynamics. Well known to the phycologists and psychiatrist for years. Flying monkey , scape goat child, the golden child. The gaslighting and a whole host of other things. Rebranding and weapons against victims of domestic violence and child reporting. It's doesn't take a special group of psychologist to figure it out. It takes a special group to cover it up. Exploting children. When they after Tina but leave every one else who given media coverage, we don't have a conversation. We have a linch mob and a giant bunch of hypothetical people. How many times has your friend brought up her step children? How many articles have been written about the Ambrose children? How many times has the Derubba children been reported on? . Linda Gotlibe insists and your friend insists Tina is a narrastist and interfering in court orders. Just because a court order it doesn't mean it eithical. When the alienation industry landed in the hotel in CT, did they tell your friend to stop exploting children on the internet? If the alienation industry can talk about children, so can advocates.
Daubert or Frye standards are standards. They aren't even law. Technically, they shouldn't even be used before law. It's like Russian roulette when a court actually decides to apply them, because courts aren't based on constitutional law; they are based on a judge's discretion, and not even on evidentiary standards.
Now they are deleting their comments...
Figures. They were “told.” It’s a shame.
If they came for debate, they would want a record. They didn’t come for debate.
Digital Antifa. Many of their comments are deleted now. What was that? No matter what I said I was attacked, then gaslit. It was crazy.
“The Baltimore BSF program [Loving Couples, Loving Children] had negative effects on couples’ relationships. BSF couples were less likely than control group couples to remain romantically involved, 59 percent versus 70 percent. Baltimore BSF couples reported being less supportive and affectionate toward each other than control group couples did. In addition, women in the Baltimore BSF program were more likely than women in the control group to report having been severely physically assaulted by a romantic partner in the past year, 15 percent compared with 9 percent. Baltimore BSF couples also rated the quality of their co-parenting relationship lower than control group couples did and reported that BSF fathers spent less time with their children and were less likely to provide them financial support than control group fathers were.”
Aka these fatherhood programs, especially Doug Edwards programs for “fatherhood inclusion” aka “male inclusion” are a FAILURE, and harm women/mothers/children at the benefit of MEN/FATHERS.
- link: https://web.archive.org/web/20130720101532if_/http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/family_support/BSF_impact_finalrpt.pdf
The state of Connecticut is often referred to as the leader and the head of the snake. The biggest problems in the family court system is the push for failing programs. The benefits of the fatherhood initiative are not the population the program is designed to help. Monitized fathers predominantly white charges for DV are dropped and not in investigated. Many leaders of the " reform group". They go after voluntarable women who have lost custody of their children. A system that they have bought and paid for. The very system they have curpted hijacked the interest and call anyone with information a deatractor. Liar and discredit them. Possibly even a child abuser. A one billion dollars lawsuit. Don't post your legal details. We are the 5 o'clock news now. Only this plan will work. We are bypassing legal stadiged. When you support the branch dividien. The endocrination to a cult like mentity. Stay tuned for for the podcast behind the scene of the contracts . The men's rights groups. The break down of cases with all the documents from the court house. Male domestic violence victims welcome. Bring your evidence . A full break down of cases and the players behind the scenes. Including the changing of documents of reform leaders. It's gonna be a hum dinnger . Let the real stories be told. Including the Ohio and Oklahoma attorney disqualified and losing license for x parta commutation. The California connection to the state of Connecticut. All things will be disclosed. Stay tuned
It's going to be eye opening! I can not wait to bring the truth to the people! Stay tuned everyone! Truth podcast is coming soon!!
Fraud upon the court. The history of " parental alienation" is known by most survivors of the family court great custody capture. The entire industry became the rage when prodomity abusive fathers did not wish to go to jail and/or children support obligations,as well as alimony. The fatherhood initiative was the first to coin the gatekeeper term. A barrier to fatherhood engagement. Hawkins was a former CEO and director of health and human services. During the Bush administration. The population of using parental alienation appearing to be spun of the gatekeeper. Dr. Pine a disgrace phycologists began to appear in the New York times. A supporter of the fatherhood initiative. Pine convinced of other fraud appeared in Connecticut family court. In the initial phase of parental alienation claims a regerous investigation and look at estrangement was implemented. In today's family court market any negative comment in regards to a parent gets the ball rolling. Despite evidence of the claim. The fatherhood initiative began to look at the barriers. How to overcome them. Including DV and child abuse. In my attempt to take legal action against the GaL in the family law case. Not because I lost custody. Because I believe she is a danger to other children. I got sent on a wild goose chase. Until the recommendation was to another GaL on the human rights commission. I proceeded to get a lecture on father's rights. " Unless they are extremely physical or sexually abusive they will have visitation. " So it would appear anything else is ignored. According to the 2013 study from Yale 32 percent of children with a parent who engaged in domestic violence resisted contact. Linda Gotlibe insists based on videos it most be brain washing. Now a days even father's with legitimate concerns are at risk to be malicious alienator. Even when you are in favor of a relationship if the person gets help for what ever the barriers are . The parent REPORTING IS THE BARRIERS!!!!! It doesn't take an elite group of psychologist to tell if a child is lying. But it takes a group willing to pull off the custody capture. The resident " parental alienation expert" running the study group claims in video on line 90 percent of alligations are false. 99 percent in her opinion are false. Factually incorrect. These "Alienation expert" are all typed to equal and shared parenting. Identified with men's rights groups. Now that 70 percent of the " alienated" parents are women the industry wishes to help. " The domestic violence community has abandoned them". The Alienation industry targeted them. Malicious Mommy syndrome, liar, gold digger , Mounchouen mommy and Narrssits. 75 percent of Narrastist are men. Boardeline . Unspecified. All of the symptoms of alienation are the symptoms of abused children. There are no regulations on this and no consequences!!!! Joan made a list of Detractors and Linda Gotlibe is going after them in her videos. In a 2018 study was published Does shared parenting help or hurt children in high conflict divorce. ( J divorce remarriage). Where it was discovered in polimanary findings that children suffered poor adjustments in higher levels of shared parenting. Yet, all these alienation experts support it. FB a million fathers against the currupt child support system. $113 billions in arrange. " Women are now paying child support, are they ready to give it up". " Deadbeat bitch, child support caught up and hauled at ya" . " Bitter baby mommas". Hammel ( women are the peritrators). THIS IS ABSOLUTELY AN ATTACK ON WOMEN. Costodial interference, DV victims are arrested when children resist contact. Alienation industry coaching prior to family court cases. The list is endless!!!!!
I hear you — and I can tell you’ve clearly done a lot of digging into the history and politics around this.
At the same time, it’s tough because it doesn’t feel like there’s much room here for an actual conversation.
It seems like your goal is mostly to disprove and attack anything that mentions fathers' struggles, rather than talk about solutions that help kids and both parents.
Not everything is as black-and-white as you’re painting it.
At the end of the day, if we can’t even acknowledge that good mothers and good fathers are getting hurt by the same broken system, we’re just repeating the same mess, not fixing it.
My parents were divorced in the 80s when I was 13. I asked to live with my dad. The court set a social worker to the house. He went back to the court and the judge granted my request. Not because my mother abused me. No one was calling a malicious alienator and everything worked out. Women in the United States involved in divorce and custody have to defend themselves relentlessly. Against a system that has gender profiling is when you report concerns. I had everything but the kitchen sink tossed at me. I'm pist off. Yes, I am attacking the reason I had to defend myself. Do the best for my child who was forced into reunification therapy. With the GaL engaged in it. Epic failure and tried to make it look to the child like something was wrong with me. I never went to the court with anything I could not prove.
And what about fathers who face the same things? What you described is exactly what my ex-wife has done to me, and gotten away with it. My son is much younger than you at the time, so he can't make those requests. I have seen him twice in over the past year, and that was only for appointments. I have been denied my parenting time, and I was also forced into court by false accusations. But, everything you argue is that your case is more important than mine, that I don't have an equal right to fight for what is right, for me to obtain justice, because I am a man.
Fatherless initiative was not meant to be used against mothers. The entire state of Connecticut is parented with it. Fatherless households are made up of widows incarcerated fathers deployment and other situations. Men make up 80 percent of the suicide rate in the US. The highest rate of suicide for both genders is the same age as the average age of divorce. The state of Connecticut was the first to enact fatherhood legislation. All fathers to be engaged in the lives of their children with funding. Prioritize fatherhood over criminal matters. In the sratigic planning assistants to other states. DCF and the welfare office are handing out the funding for " high risk studies". CGS government solutions aggressively promoting the project. Parental Alienation is a weapon not a diagnosis.
Thanks for sharing the APSAC link—I'm actually familiar with their position. And you're right that they call for deeper analysis into why a child might be estranged from a parent, which is exactly what responsible people advocating for parental alienation awareness also want. No one’s saying every case of estrangement is unjustified. The key is distinguishing between justified estrangement and manipulated alienation—that’s what the conversation should really be about.
And sure, the research on PA as a standalone diagnosis is still debated. But the behaviors associated with it—coaching, denigration, emotional manipulation—are documented in family courts, regardless of the label. It’s less about the term, more about the pattern.
So rather than throw out the whole conversation because it doesn’t pass a rigid evidentiary threshold in every jurisdiction, maybe we should be asking: how do we better protect all kids from emotional harm—no matter who’s causing it?
PA is the distraction mothers use to live in denial of their own negligence.
Or lying to receive a protective order to cover up for mothers who want independence and freedom from being married and having to share their children with the father. Quitters lie about abuse instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
This is the problem darvo. Deflecting and projecting the fault onto other people. I agree with Dr. Bandi Lee. It's normally the parson claiming Alienation. You are attacking me for something someone else said. I'm a compassionate person but I have learned not to be gualiable. I don't spread hate. I research information speak about it. Give my opinion on what I believe is in the best interest. If it doesn't match with yours doesn't mean I hate you.
I don't hate anyone either. Personally, I don't subscribe to groups because of the negativity it causes, whether it is red vs. blue, or men's groups vs. women's groups. I can see you are compassionate about your POV. I just struggle to see a way in to find common ground.
I'm not a skilled debater. You have lots of facts. It is quite overwhelming. My learning disabilities make it difficult to engage in the manner you probably wish me to engage in. I am more of a boots on the ground how can I help someone who is right in front of me kind of person.
I apologize for grouping you with the other members of the female species commenting on this article, claiming I must be the abuser. Maryland actually took a step in the right direction that could have prevented my issues by requiring screenings for mothers-to-be experiencing a high risk pregnancy to try and catch any issues with postpartum. I had a friend who took her life only months after she had her first child. So there is a husband now widowed and child without a mother and her other family I know I grew up with who lost a sister and a daughter. What about those cases? My ex was never abused by me. She had postpartum and turned me into her scapegoat. That is what I care about. Where are those stats and facts? I care about other cases to. There is no place for abuse, or dysfunctional court systems.
Maybe there is some satirical way to expose why Canada is funding American men to breastfeed babies. Or why Maryland is funding studies on women who might have a penis. What are you hoping I am gaining from all the knowledge you are trying to drop?
Whew—lot to unpack here. First off, I haven’t attacked anyone personally, but I have pushed back on false claims and double standards, which seems to have struck a nerve. Disagreeing isn’t abuse. Asking hard questions isn’t projection. And calling out flawed logic doesn’t make someone frantic—it makes them engaged.
Second, using phrases like “PA is a weapon used by fathers” just proves the bias I’ve been pointing out from the start. That kind of blanket statement erases the reality of thousands of parents—fathers and mothers—who’ve been cut off from their kids without cause.
And let’s not pretend that an issue isn’t real just because the APA hasn’t stamped it yet. By that logic, gaslighting didn’t exist either until it trended on TikTok.
But hey, if we’re really after truth and mutual understanding, maybe we start by listening instead of labeling. Up for that?
Alright. That was quite a wall of text, but let me just say this plainly:
I’m not here to debate conspiracy theories, be put on trial, or be lectured on what a “healthy man” looks like by someone who clearly came into this conversation with their mind already made up. You’ve labeled me everything from emotionally manipulative to aligned with sex offenders, all based on your personal interpretation of a topic that’s far more nuanced than the black-and-white view you're presenting.
You talk about critical thinking, but offer one-sided sources, distorted history, and wildly aggressive conclusions while demanding I answer to things I never even said or supported. That’s not critical thinking—that’s projection with a thesaurus.
Parental alienation is real. The tactics it describes—whether or not the label appears in a manual—have been documented across thousands of custody cases around the world. Yes, it can be misused, just like any term in court. But to claim that every father who raises the issue is part of a pedophile protection ring is not just false—it’s dangerous.
I’m not going to argue in circles or defend my character against unhinged accusations. You don’t know me, and clearly, you’re not interested in actually listening—just preaching.
If you ever want a real, respectful discussion, cool. Until then, I’m out.