The more I read by you and your colleagues, the more skewed and exploitative our systems seem to be against women. It must be men who take these decisions and lead the way. It must be people who have never raised or cared about children and what has stuck with me most about your brilliant book, Emma, is how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child isn’t employed to protect our children at all, despite its very core being that children are to be protected from neglect, abuse and exploitation (paraphrasing obvs.). This PA directive is supremely dangerous but if one were to explore the behaviours of abuse perpetrators there would be evidence of their tactics and it could be seen in its place as part of the pattern coercive control. Not paying child support, for example, is rife, but the law says this has to be treated separately to child contact. Why? Who does this suit? The perpetrator should be charged with neglect and it would be one of the most telling tactics, clarifying accusations of PA for what they are.
Thank you for raising your voice and encouraging others to do the same. We must rise against all of this.
Emma, I wonder what you think of the extreme response of Australian family courts regarding parental alienation mentioned by Jess Hill in her book "See What You Made Me Do" wherein the mothers are banned from any and all forms of contact with the children entirely for a period of 3, 6 months or longer after the abusive father claims parental alienation. It was not something I had heard of here in my country (Ireland), nor in others, and I am finding it difficult to learn more about it or how it can be justified by the courts without the mother's right to appeal. Deeply disturbing part of family law in Australia that I did not know about.
The more I read by you and your colleagues, the more skewed and exploitative our systems seem to be against women. It must be men who take these decisions and lead the way. It must be people who have never raised or cared about children and what has stuck with me most about your brilliant book, Emma, is how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child isn’t employed to protect our children at all, despite its very core being that children are to be protected from neglect, abuse and exploitation (paraphrasing obvs.). This PA directive is supremely dangerous but if one were to explore the behaviours of abuse perpetrators there would be evidence of their tactics and it could be seen in its place as part of the pattern coercive control. Not paying child support, for example, is rife, but the law says this has to be treated separately to child contact. Why? Who does this suit? The perpetrator should be charged with neglect and it would be one of the most telling tactics, clarifying accusations of PA for what they are.
Thank you for raising your voice and encouraging others to do the same. We must rise against all of this.
Thank you for sharing our important work Emma. Protective parents and children must be protected themselves.
Emma, I wonder what you think of the extreme response of Australian family courts regarding parental alienation mentioned by Jess Hill in her book "See What You Made Me Do" wherein the mothers are banned from any and all forms of contact with the children entirely for a period of 3, 6 months or longer after the abusive father claims parental alienation. It was not something I had heard of here in my country (Ireland), nor in others, and I am finding it difficult to learn more about it or how it can be justified by the courts without the mother's right to appeal. Deeply disturbing part of family law in Australia that I did not know about.