Family Justice Systems Got It Wrong

The Family Justice System’s Got It Wrong Families rely on the court Justice system to provide security and protection from any criminals or offenders that may terrorize or threaten them. Without the help of the system, the protection and security of their children are in danger of being exposed to violence and abuse. With that being said, the family Justice system’s current involvement in child abuse cases is ineffective when ensuring the safety and well-being of a child. It is crucial, as a society, to take further action to prevent anymore harm.

The controversy involving the Justice system proves they are reluctant to help a child in need. Part of the controversy states that family Justice systems are using any tactic to seize custody of a parent’s child, whether or not they are an abusive parent. When a parent or guardian brings in evidence of misconduct or child abuse to the court’s attention, the court promptly forms an argument against that parent, suggesting the parent is “alienating” the child from the alleged abusive parent.

The court refers to these parents as being overprotective and are typically demonic by he court as an “alienator. ” Family courts commonly try to pass this off as a discredited theory known as PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome). “PAS suggests that a parent “coaches” a son or daughter to fabricate false abuse allegations” (Russell 13). As soon as this happens, the court’s attention immediately shifts away from investigating an alleged crime and instead focuses on the protective parent who refuses to share custody of the child with the alleged abuser.

PAS is often difficult for courts due to the constant badmouthing of the parents and the overemphasized they put on the situation. Recent studies on child abuse indicate that close to ninety- eight percent of children who claim abuse is occurring at home are telling the truth, yet the family courts choose to believe otherwise. Unfairly, protective parents will generally lose their child or children in the process of trying to protect them. Not only that, but they lose their life savings as well.

Many of which cannot afford lawyers to represent them, but are left with a tremendous amount of fees and costs. They are often threatened with a loss of custody if they choose not to pay the expenses of “court-appointed experts” that the judge assigns to their case. The bills rapidly grow, leaving many parents in massive debt, which ultimately leads them to bankruptcy. The family Justice system appears to be preying on desperate parents trying to escape with their children from family violence and abuse.

According to Judith Wilson, a child psychologist, there are four main factors that conspire against protective parents: Family law Judges are granted broad discretion in their decision making, Juries are nonexistent in most family law courtrooms, costly appeals are out of reach for most parties, children are not allowed a voice in these recordings that determine their future (Wilson 32) One relevant key factor that needs to be acknowledged is the family court system sending children off into foster and child care when abuse was present in their Family Justice Systems Got It Wrong By linguistically system sends the children to an unrecognizable place with unrecognizable people expecting them to adapt.

Further reasons why the family courts in the United States should do not be trusted with the lives of children, is in the due process of five months, an investigation was lead that revealed an epidemic of violence and corruption acclimated by the courts. Children are being forced out of the care of the mother and being delivered to abusers, which typically is the father. During this process, billions of dollars collected by U. S. Taxpayers are disappearing every year. Experts believe this is the work of organized networks involved in multiple acts of felony and corruption. In addition, insurance companies are specifically targeted and victimized by medical and mental health professionals who are being rewarded for providing false allegations against innocent mothers. By portraying these mothers as criminals, hey are providing favors for the abusive fathers and protecting them in the process.

Rather than using the system for good, family courts use it to destroy innocent mothers and bring suffering to the children. An issue involving the family court Judges arose in the mid sass’s indicating they were sending thousands of children into unsafe, unsupervised homes with the abusive parent, usually the father. In worse circumstances, family courts would grant custody to the parent with a record of violence. Mothers were denied any form of custody and in some cases would lose all contact with their children. For the past thirty years, Judges along with court officials, still remain to abuse the system and break families apart by taking their children away. Recently, advocates from social services have met to address this issue.

Together, they thought of strategies and courses of action to take to ensure the protection of mothers and families from the system that often fails to do so. Parents, especially mothers, are afraid of applying for a protective order due to the chances of their children being taken away from them. This fear, has them seek no attention for help from the government. If child protective services discover violence in a home, whether its from both parents or Just one parent, they will remove the child, leaving the non abusive parent with no custody rights. The worst of it is, if a child witnesses any form of abuse at home, the victim, not the abuser, will be tried and convicted for allowing their children to witness the crime. S. K.

Willow’s recommended new laws should be enforced when he wrote in”The Advocates For Human Rights” stating: Domestic violence laws should require that protective orders place temporary custody with the non-violent parent. Doing so will laminate a deterrent to victims from seeking protective orders, avoid further trauma to children, and reinforce the parent-child bond. Protective orders should facilitate victims’ ability to continue to care for their children and provide stability to the household. These terms should include allowing victims and their children to remain in the family home regardless of ownership, and requiring perpetrators to pay child support (Wilson par. 5).

The laws permitted against child abuse are inadequate when trying to portray the seriousness and consequences of committing the crime. Much debate has taken ole in responding to child abuse. Critics, of increased prosecution point, conclude: “the law is a blunt and adversarial system that is poorly equipped to cope with the social and psychological dimensions of child abuse. ” They consider “prevention” and “therapy,” as opposed to reliance and litigation, the best way to reduce child abuse (Myers 56). Critics of prosecution also worry that bringing abusive parents to court worsens the situation, causing them to hide their defiance, when they could Just as easily seek professional help in therapy.

The issue at hand is, offenders are afraid of seeking treatment, as the therapist is obligated to inform child protective services, as well as the police. Although this may be true and may help in some cases, abusive parents should not have the alternative between counseling or prosecution. This is not an option as of right now, but it could Just as easily be one in the near given future. Nevertheless, abusive parents would be given full custody of their child, even if they had formerly abused them. As long as they’re seeking professional help, it is alright to retain your child. Along with the laws and regulations established, one in particular allows child abusers to get off easy.

To break it down, if a parent, or guardian abuses a child in any way and is caught, will have the ability to choose whether or not they want to live under the supervision of a probation or parole officer. Along with that, under the rule of the Judge, the assailant may be ordered to participate in therapy. If the assailant fails to follow these guidelines, then he/she will be incarcerated. That is the fundamental word, then. After failing to participate, then the child abuser will be imprisoned. When that should have been the one and only alternative in the matter. Allowing criminals onto the streets doesn’t guarantee children safety, it is exposing them, putting them at a higher risk of further abuse.

In addition, an abuser’s probation sentence will typically range between 1-3 years, depending on the severity of the crime, making it easier to do the time and go right back into old habits once the sentence is complete. Abuse crimes are reported daily, but little to none are actually investigated. When investigated, the police generally pursue the assailant. If acts of abuse was detected, the suspect would be arrested and handed over to the authorities and then tried. In most cases, the suspect would be released, as long as the child was taken into custody. In other cases, if no detection of misconduct was found, the victim, or the person who reported the crime would be tried and sentenced under false pretenses.

Constantly, evidence is being provided to authorities and yet nothing is being done. In a recent event, a mother came to the authorities asking for protection over her and her children against her abusive husband. Eventually the court sided with the father all because of the large amounts of money they were being paid off with. The children were forced to go back to living with the abusive father, while the mother was denied any access to her kids. In the end both parties, besides the mother, went away with large amounts of cash. A few months later, the father decided he didn’t want to take care of the children anymore, so he paved them to enter themselves into foster care.

But when that didn’t seem to work, he kicked them out, leaving them with no parents and no home. Luckily, the court allowed the mother to take full custody of manipulative the Justice system is, I don’t know what would. Robert A. Gaffer, who directs the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma at San Diego University claims, “It’s very common for people to make recommendations in child protective cases and child custody litigation without ever looking at clinical evidence of child abuse, spouse abuse or trauma. ” (Gaffer 2). The reality of the situation is that it is common for court officials to prosecute innocent parents without fully analyzing all the provided evidence.

This has lead to reforms in the nations family courts from women and abused children who are working to achieve Justice or victims involved in custody fights and abused crimes. Advocates say the only issue with this is “women involved, most often find themselves on the losing end” (Testier 3). A recent study showed that abusers seek sole custody more frequently than protective parents and seventy percent of the time they succeed. Gaffer, leader in the Leadership Council, states, Mimi have to do interviews with all the parties, look at the medical records and the criminal records, talk to the school therapists and teachers. Look at all the data and then put together all the pieces of the puzzle” in order to give custody to the right parent, the protective one (Gaffer 2) Frances S.

Waters, an authority on child abuse who practices in Marquette, and serves as an expert witness in child custody proceedings says, “There are a lot of problems with procedures that have a profound impact on the outcome of an investigation, and that often means that truthful allegations of child abuse are not found to be credible” (Waters 8) If the abuser brings in the child for an evaluation with an investigator, the child is likely to lie or give false information regarding the buses due to the perpetrator being present. When this takes place, the court allows the child to be sent back with the perpetrator due to insufficient evidence of abuse rather than keeping the child under safe care, until further investigation.

Leave a comment