Captive Children abused by the Family Law System
 By Charles Pragnell |
||
| `Coaching’ and `Alienation’ of
Children is naively simplistic One of the major flaws of the Family Law Act is that it gives each parent the right to have contact with the child and to have a `meaningful’ relationship with the child, but it does not give the child(ren) any equivalent or reciprocal right. Whether the child wishes it or not, the child is forced into having contact and a `meaningful relationship’ with that parent. Some children want to continue to have a relationship with both parents after they separate, but other children do not. If the child wants both relationships to continue, then there are usually few problems. However a child may intensely dislike a parent and may not wish to spend any time with that parent – yet they are being forced to do so by Family Courts, obsessively intent on ensuring the parent’s rights override the child’s rights. There are numerous instances where, for example a father has taken no interest in the child during the pregnancy or at birth and for several years has continued to show no interest, but then suddenly decides to assert his right to contact with the child even though he is a complete stranger to the child Providing an egg or sperm should not be acceptable as conferring a right of parenthood in such circumstances. Children in such situations react in great distress that they are being forced into a relationship with a person who is a complete stranger to them. Screaming and tears of grief and other signs of extreme distress are not uncommon. Such reactions are perfectly normal. Guided and influenced by Family Reporters, Independent Children’s lawyers, and some expert witnesses, Family Courts give little consideration to children’s wishes and feelings in these matters and uphold the paramountcy of the parent’s right to contact and a meaningful relationship with the child for that parent, although they wrongly claim that having such contact with a parent and a meaningful relationship is synonymous with `the Best interests of the child’. It is not in the best interests of the child if the child is being forced into such a relationship and is given no choice. I do not fully concur with the theory of `coaching' the child into making allegations of abuse by a parent with contact or alienation of the child by a parent with residency, as research shows that such occurrences are extremely rare, but that there is a very complex process occurring when a child is placed with one parent and has contact with another and there are frictions between the parents. There is no valid research into the wishes and feelings of children in such circumstances and most research is into their behaviours in other sets of circumstances. The following is therefore based on my knowledge gained from over thirty five years of working with children of all ages and especially the 22 years of caring for over 800 children in that time as a substitute parent. Before the breakup, children will have a preference and loyalty towards one parent over the other, just as parents have preferences and loyalties for one child over another - often there is no rational explanation for such preferences or loyalties but similarities in personalities of the child and that parent plays a large part. When children are placed with a parent with whom they have little liking or affinity, they realise they are captives and that even if they dislike or even hate where they live and the parent with whom they live, that no one can rescue them and in order to survive their ordeal, they must adapt in some way. But the survival instinct is extremely powerful in all of us and we each would adapt in similar ways if we were held captive against our will. In situations of extreme fear and danger or abject misery, the normal human reaction is `Fight or Flight’ but such reactions are not available to a child when there is a powerful and controlling parent. Some children develop an `attachment' or `bonding' with their captor as a means of survival and develop a false sense of loyalty to the captor (this has happened in the cases of Jaycee Dugart in America and Elizabeth Fritz in Austria and is a form of the Stockholm Syndrome.). In order to please their captor and to escape punishments and perhaps even to please their captor, they criticise and denigrate their former carers e.g. mothers/fathers. A second group of children will adopt a neutral stance and `go through the motions' of everyday living with their captor knowing they are dependent on their captor to meet their daily needs for food, warmth, clothing, shelter etc but will resist any form of emotional dependence or alliance with their captor. They become almost Zombie-like in their daily existence and are simply awaiting the day of their release. A third group of children will actively resist their captor and be sullen and resentful at every opportunity but knowing not to push it too far or risk severe punishment by their captor, mainly emotional withholding. The relationship between the captive child and the captor will be constantly fraught and tense and the child will often state their loyalty and preference for their previous carer (i.e. mother or father). Where a child is forced into a contact arrangement they may often suffer extreme mood swings and become angry and hostile towards the caring parent and at other times deeply depressed and withdrawn. The captor may of course make denigrating remarks about the former carer (mother/father in this instance) and the children in the first and some in the second of the above categories may adopt such beliefs as part of their survival tactics. But this is not necessarily in the simplistic sense of `coaching' by teaching or conditioning (brainwashing) the child to dislike the former carer and to criticise the former carer or in extreme cases, to make abuse allegations against the former carer. Children in the third group are most likely to resist and dismiss such denigrating remarks about the former carer but children in all groups are unlikely to change their position unless they can clearly see a means of escape. It is very unlikely that Jaycee Dugart and Elizabeth Fritz will give evidence against their former captors as they will be unable to free themselves from the dependency attachments they formed with their captors. Similar means of survival could be seen in people in France and other occupied countries in Europe during WWII when some became active `collaborators' with their enemies, others adopted a neutral stance and simply accepted their captivity, while others became part of a `Resistance' to their captors. So children are no different to adults in responding to situations not of their choosing, and which individually they can do nothing to change. System Abuse of Children Children who are forced into residency or contact arrangements by Family Courts against their will and wishes or suffer physical, emotional, or sexual abuse during such arrangements, usually experience great trauma, so such enforcement by Courts is psychologically and emotionally abusive to them. Such abuse by a system which ostensibly has a duty to act `In their Best Interests’, causes children to suffer Post Traumatic Stress and neurological change. This has been shown in research by American Psychological researchers who state that it has severe and serious effects on the child’s developing brain with a harmful imbalance of cortisone. “Adrenalin surges, setting the heart pounding and blood pressure soaring….. many children have disturbances in physiology, thinking, and behaviour. Many have elevated resting heart rates, temperature and blood pressure.” They are constantly hyper-vigilant and scanning for danger. They have great difficulty in concentrating in education whilst their fear levels are high and they cannot take in cognitive information. Consequently they greatly underperform in schools. There is a great danger of such children developing mental illness in later life characterised by panic attacks, severe depression, and in some instances suicidal thoughts and actions. So it is an extremely complex set of circumstances - no two children are the same in such situations and the nature and strength of their personalities play a large part in how they react, and cope and survive and are prepared to act in such situations. Charles Pragnell Expert Witness – Child Welfare and Child Protection. Back |
||