The contact of children under supervision is the alienation of parents imposed by the state.

Commentary

Millions of dollars of business are at the heart of our family law system. This is a classic example of women’s advocacy groups creating our judicial system and making the lives of many men hell.

The child contact service was designed to provide monitored access between the child and the dangerous parent for good and good reasons.

Parents who endanger their children are both males and females, and it makes sense to supervise their children so that they can see them without harm. However, supervised contacts have turned into state-imposed parental alienation in some places. Thereby, the contact center implements the concept that the father is dangerous to the children.

This system is essentially about distracting the scrutiny by the judiciary. So, for example, whenever a allegation of domestic violence or sexual abuse surfaced in a family court case, the decision makers of the court system know that something will happen to the child if this is not done. , Order supervised contact. They hang out to dry.

However, false allegations of violence and abuse are now the tactics used by partners in the battle of family law. Some angry women used it to take their partner out of the house, based on a simple claim.

Usually these dads can’t see their child for months, but it can even take years.

False accusations can cause permanent damage to his relationship with his children. (Fizkes / Shutterstock)

Eventually, when access to children is “permitted”, they will inevitably reach the clutch of the monitored contact system and through the teeth to have strangers monitor and report conversations with the children. I will pay. This process works very effectively in breaking the relationship between the child and the father.

Imagine being part of your child’s daily life, reading bedtime stories, doing rough housing on the lawn, and making pancakes for breakfast on Sundays. All that is needed is one false allegation, which will be treated like a dangerous criminal for months, perhaps years, and will never be tolerated near them.

Ultimately, the court system “allows” your first supervised contact visit. And finally, you are in the same room as your child and you can finally see them and talk to them. But that intense experience comes with a lot of painful humiliation. Here’s a real-life example of how a father is treated:

A child greeted his father in the center, “You’re not going to hit me, daddy?” The child later explained to his dad that his mom had told him to say so, but the supervisor who heard the conversation refused to report it.

The father is told not to be emotional. “Steve couldn’t control his emotions when he said goodbye to his children, even though his supervisor had instructed him to do so,” said one father’s report. It was a memo.

At the father’s suggestion to play soccer with his son, the supervisor issued the boy safe words to use if he felt threatened.

The father asked him to take his four-year-old child to the bathroom, which was mentioned in the report as if it was an ominous request.

On August 31, 2010, his father read a letter to his twin daughters at his home in Berlin, Germany. (Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

So it goes on. But, of course, this is not always the case. Some centers treat their fathers well and have individual supervisors who do their best to ensure that all men are treated fairly.

But even government-sponsored services run by some big companies like Relationships Australia have created horror stories, and many counselors in these organizations are clearly taking an anti-masculine approach.

Then there’s a huge private company player who takes advantage of the long waiting list of government-sponsored centers (6 months to 1 year delay) and charges horrific fees to strip men.

We talk up to $ 300- $ 400 (US $ 216- $ 288) in a session and easily add $ 20,000 (US $ 14,400) in a two-year contact visit at a more popular weekend location. increase. In addition, the cost of travel is high, forcing some men to travel for hours to get to their place.

That is an important point. In many cases, the father cannot choose which center to choose. The decision is made by the relationship and negotiation between the former partner’s lawyer and the local registrar.

As a result, the malicious woman has a number of cards she can play to ensure that the contact system destroys the leftovers of her ex-partner’s relationship with his child.

Given the contact information under his supervision, the father was also treated as if he had a black mark on later decisions regarding proper parenting arrangements and as leverage in the settlement of property. You can notice.

Worst of all is the plight of a man who drops out of supervised contact, even if he can’t afford to continue. It is seen as a lack of commitment to his children.

“Narcissists can’t handle monitored access,” commented one expert.

On July 17, 2012, a father and daughter walk through the city center of Berlin, Germany. (Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

Child contact services were aimed at providing the final transition to self-management of parenting arrangements, but that hasn’t happened. Instead, most people just drop out.

It’s annoying to read the official literature on what’s happening here. It attributed the dropout to mental illness, substance abuse, or “persistent conflict between parents” (pdf).

I can’t say a word about the fact that most fathers exposed to this humiliating process are not dangerous.

I made video We talked to Michael Jose, a lawyer who has worked for over 25 years to tackle prejudice against men, about this shameful business as a whole.

We aim to find ways to make changes, starting with advice to help fathers avoid supervised contact.

More men and their lawyers need to proactively resist supervised contact by managing disputes and providing alternatives for organizing secure takeovers. Men who have no choice must offer the best possible local options for service in their area.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.