Karen Woodall counteracts anti PA stories

[Esme]

There are more and more radical feminists (a barrister, an MP and various others) putting out a lot of false anti PA info and getting a lot of media coverage. Karen Woodall address that here.

Attack, Allege and Assert: The Tactic Being Used to Hide Child Abuse in the UK

I am in Switzerland on vacation, but woke this morning to an inbox full of emails from distressed mothers and fathers (and some grandparents too) on the topic of (yet another) round of media claims…

karenwoodall.blog

 

[Maya]

I know from my situations and different experiences, that situations vary and PA is a big and poisonous thing for the children as well as the fathers, mothers, new partners and stepchildren.
As far as our children go, my DDs and their half-brothers get along well. Also my YDD and ESS get along. YSS lives far away and that relationship is a bit more loose, but thankfully he calls his father if anything is really wrong.
H then calls ESS who makes sure their mother is informed.
He recently had a serious injury when he fell and wouldn’t see a doctor, so this had to be taken care of. Interestingly YSS didn’t call his mother.

Classical PA.
Years ago, H was traveling for work and stopped by to spend a few hours with his son and not stay over night, he had a hotel booked in a different city, different country. His son knew that and yet she pushed him to ask his father to sleep over.

She made sure H felt ungrateful. H had to ask me if he did the right thing by not sleeping over at his ex wife’s home. Stupid man, who really hurt me, by even considering staying there.

After the nasty proposal done through her son and after her sons asked her why she doesn’t talk to H, she said it was obviously not the right time yet, I’ve had enough of her jerking me around.

I was upset and had to put an end to it, so I emailed her and shut down this sick play.
I told her to leave my family and H alone and get a life and told her if she ever comes after my family, she will be dealing with me, because I will protect my family, my DDs.

This is how the EFH relationship looks like with all the lawsuits and all the lies. And PA in these cases is unavoidable. They do anything and everything to destroy any relationship, even with the children. No mercy.

 

[Esme]

They do indeed - the article mainly is about a group of Radical feminists promoting that PA doesn't exist and is a "pseudoconcept" invented by abusive men. These include a group called Shera, an academic, a barrister and a few more extreme feminists who are getting a lot of publicity in the media - including the BBC article mentioned in the Karen Woodall link. PA is horrific and yet these people are trying to tell the world - via journalists - that it is a made up thing. They are probably all Efh's!

 

[Noodle]

Very interesting thank you. I would like to see what these radical feminists have to say about PA if you have any links.
I was saying the other day, we are a very dramatic society these days. We seem to exaggerate everything using psuedo/pop psychology. Everyone is "post traumatic" everyone is "ADHD" everyone is ill. We have way too many labels but does that mean these issues do not exist? Certainly not. We have human problems.
EFH is a prime example of someone who will use the worst words she can find to explain her example of interaction with me and H. She recently communicated with us regarding the house. H merely stated in an email, as you may be familiar, " if you do not put the house on the market you may be in contempt of court" . EFHs response is...(exaggerated drama) " how dare you threaten me with such malicious language".
Threats? Malice?
No there is no threat and malice in there. I believe that women are THE worst culprits in PA and zero to do with any abuse. I have seen and heard the lies spouted by EFHs who want their own way and will stop at nothing to get their own way. I have seen EFH cooing and flirting with H on her doorstep when he has dropped kids home. She stands in her dressing gown and starts giggling and talking about her day. Next day she is emailing him, telling him what a bad father he is because he has a new girlfriend. These women are off the scale psychopaths. Or to use more simple language from days gone by she is a nutcase.
PA exists and its not going anywhere its a part of life as is bullying, racism, jealousy and all the other ugly sides of human nature.
Call it what you like, give it a label or dont but it exists, myself and H are witnesses and have blatantly seen 2 children purposely turned against us because of a bitter, jealous ex wife. In fact I hope she comes across this site one day and reads these articles.

 

[Esme]

Ok here you go. The first shocking one I came across was this one in the Guardian, by the Barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman (who is a pretty notorious feminist). After seeing that I swore I will never ever read the Guardian again!. Dr P has occasionally been labelled a "Feminazi" due to her extreme views (including her views about "Father" Christmas - she's a real killjoy!).

The discredited legal tactic that’s putting abused UK children in danger | Charlotte Proudman

Our family courts are allowing perpetrators to use the bogus idea of ‘parental alienation’ to gain access to their victims, says the human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman

www.theguardian.com

The next big thing was a Channel 4 Dispatches programme called "Torn Apart" which was outrageously biased and tried to make out it was attacking the family courts for forcibly removing children away from Mothers (the only time that happens is when serious PA has been proved in court). Guess who the "experts" were on the programme? Dr Charlotte Proudman and another radical anti PA academic called Dr Adrienne Barnett, who just happens to be on a Cafcass committee and also an adviser to the Government! Making some very biased claims with cherry picked statistics on the Dispatches programme - which was narrated/done by Louise Tickle - who appears to be afemininst anti PA journalist. There were masses of complaints to Ofcom about this programme which only showed Mothers and no Dads. And basically seemed to be enabling alienation.

The next thing to come along was this mysterious group called Shera who seemed to be anonymous and would mainly post on Twitter. But time has showed Shera composes of a bunch of academic feminists - the most radical one seems to be Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno - and another member is Dr Adrienne Barnett again (surely a conflict of interests?).

All of them make a big song and dance (especially in the media) about "unregulated court experts". What they mean is the psychologists who prove that a Mother has a personality disorder and is alienating the the children. Not many people can afford psychologists reports but it's the only way to prove alienation and achieve a transfer of residence in many cases.

So this group of women have set out to undermine

a) all men as abusers if they claim parental alienation
b) all psychologists who find in favour of Dads'
c) labelling PA as "pseudoscience" when even the courts know it exists

It is a full on attack and reaction to more and more 50/50 orders being made since 2012 and to try and keep sole residency for Mothers. They are basically probably all EFH's! They sound like them.

SHERA formal statement on so called 'parental alienation': A pseudoscientific and damaging belief system which renders children voiceless - SHERA Research Group - Leading Innovative Research into the Health Impacts of Domestic Abuse on Women and Chil

SHERA formal statement on so called 'parental alienation': A pseudoscientific and damaging belief system which renders children voiceless. - SHERA Research Group - Leading Innovative Research into the Health Impacts of Domestic Abuse on Women and Children

www.shera-research.com

They have made themselves look idiotic at times - they tried to get a UN conference to make a statement about banning PA or something but it was rebutted after many people wrote to the UN and said they were wrong (including the Woodalls).

Unfortunately people read newspapers and see all this stuff about PA being something that abusive men use in courts. And to deny that any woman can ever possibly be an abuser (which frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land).

 

[Esme]

Dr Proudman is of the "believe all women" camp and says some really daft (if scary) things sometimes. Including a video during the Johnny Depp trial where she was being interviewed and the interviewer said - but what about all the evidence that shows he's telling the truth. Her response was something along the lines of "the evidence in this case doesn't matter". Lol. The only thing that mattered, in her view, was believing what the woman said.

 

[Esme]

Basically they are a bunch of PA deniers. Which is shocking. When confronted with the idea that PA affects both men and women (there are some men who alienate the kids from the Mother but it's usually the other way round) they just ignore that and won't accept that PA is also abuse.

 

[Esme]

Dr P is not popular with other lawyers and Barristers - some of whom say she is an embarrassment to the legal profession. So she tried to get them accused of saying bad things about her (she is so outrageous that it makes people say bad things about her) and then accuses others of intimidating her. Sound familiar? Do some really outrageous anti men things and then accuse everyone else of intimidating her.

This article is about her. She gets a lot of media attention (and therefore work and money) by her extreme views and loves the publicity. She is single by the way and doesn't have children. She doesn't like that people are calling her a narcissist. Lol

Barrister condemns regulator for inaction over colleagues’ foul-mouthed tweets

Exclusive: Charlotte Proudman reported more than 50 barristers to the Bar Standards Board over abusive messages

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Esme]

This is Dr Adrienne Barnett. Who apparently specialises in PA (ie specialises in saying it doesn't exist) and is a member of various womens groups and also teaches people the law which is a bit scary.

Dr Adrienne Barnett | Brunel University London

Adrienne Barnett was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1981 and practised at the independent Bar in London for over 30 years, for most of which she specialised in Family Law, primarily representing parents and children in serious care cases and in private law cases involving allegations...

www.brunel.ac.uk

 

[Esme]

Basically the whole thing is a backlash after the Family Justice review in 2012 and the Child Arrangements Programme being brought in. Both changes led to a) no legal aid for family court b) no automatic sole residency for Mothers. This was a good thing as it was being abused - Mothers with automatic sole residency "stopping contact" left right and centre and getting free legal aid for court.

I well remember our EFH gloating saying - you'll lose if you take me to court as I'm a Mother and get automatic legal aid (hence OH didn't apply to court until after 2012!).

There was then a focus on equal parental responsibility, more and more Dads getting 50/50 orders and it being seen more as the norm. Then during the pandemic, this bunch of women seemed to appear and seem to want to put things back to where they were before.

Another interesting thing is that once legal aid for family court was scrapped (except in cases of domestic abuse) the claims of domestic abuse increased about 300% apparently.

 

[Noodle]

Ok here you go. The first shocking one I came across was this one in the Guardian, by the Barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman (who is a pretty notorious feminist). After seeing that I swore I will never ever read the Guardian again!. Dr P has occasionally been labelled a "Feminazi" due to her extreme views (including her views about "Father" Christmas - she's a real killjoy!).

The discredited legal tactic that’s putting abused UK children in danger | Charlotte Proudman

Our family courts are allowing perpetrators to use the bogus idea of ‘parental alienation’ to gain access to their victims, says the human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman

www.theguardian.com

The next big thing was a Channel 4 Dispatches programme called "Torn Apart" which was outrageously biased and tried to make out it was attacking the family courts for forcibly removing children away from Mothers (the only time that happens is when serious PA has been proved in court). Guess who the "experts" were on the programme? Dr Charlotte Proudman and another radical anti PA academic called Dr Adrienne Barnett, who just happens to be on a Cafcass committee and also an adviser to the Government! Making some very biased claims with cherry picked statistics on the Dispatches programme - which was narrated/done by Louise Tickle - who appears to be afemininst anti PA journalist. There were masses of complaints to Ofcom about this programme which only showed Mothers and no Dads. And basically seemed to be enabling alienation.

The next thing to come along was this mysterious group called Shera who seemed to be anonymous and would mainly post on Twitter. But time has showed Shera composes of a bunch of academic feminists - the most radical one seems to be Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno - and another member is Dr Adrienne Barnett again (surely a conflict of interests?).

All of them make a big song and dance (especially in the media) about "unregulated court experts". What they mean is the psychologists who prove that a Mother has a personality disorder and is alienating the the children. Not many people can afford psychologists reports but it's the only way to prove alienation and achieve a transfer of residence in many cases.

So this group of women have set out to undermine

a) all men as abusers if they claim parental alienation
b) all psychologists who find in favour of Dads'
c) labelling PA as "pseudoscience" when even the courts know it exists

It is a full on attack and reaction to more and more 50/50 orders being made since 2012 and to try and keep sole residency for Mothers. They are basically probably all EFH's! They sound like them.

SHERA formal statement on so called 'parental alienation': A pseudoscientific and damaging belief system which renders children voiceless - SHERA Research Group - Leading Innovative Research into the Health Impacts of Domestic Abuse on Women and Chil

SHERA formal statement on so called 'parental alienation': A pseudoscientific and damaging belief system which renders children voiceless. - SHERA Research Group - Leading Innovative Research into the Health Impacts of Domestic Abuse on Women and Children

www.shera-research.com

They have made themselves look idiotic at times - they tried to get a UN conference to make a statement about banning PA or something but it was rebutted after many people wrote to the UN and said they were wrong (including the Woodalls).

Unfortunately people read newspapers and see all this stuff about PA being something that abusive men use in courts. And to deny that any woman can ever possibly be an abuser (which frankly is living in cloud cuckoo land).

Its not very feminist at all though.
Society giving the full care of children to only women is actually harmful to a womans career prospects and social life.

Its ridiculous and circular. Women get full care of the children and limit time with the father so that they can get more money (in some cases). Obviously the children spend less time with their father in most circumstances. There are most probably a high percentage of women who do not encourage good relationships with their childrens father due to the nature of divorce and seperation and take ownership of the children and become authoritarian about visiting and finances. If things dont go their way they refuse fathers privileges because the state gives them that kind of authoritarian control to abuse as they please.
The men then rightly call PA and are labelled abusers for trying to exert their natural rights to their children???
The world is absolutely mad!

 

[Noodle]

EFH said the same to us though. She said, "take me to court and see who will win" the courts were on her side and she did win. Its an extremely biased system.
She proved she had no problem sending the children to our house every week and every other weekend for 3 nights so she couldn't claim the "bad father" bullshit or she would lose her babysitter. H only asked for 1 more night per fortnight with his children and they denied him .
H states EFH nearly agreed to the extra night during mediation but CAFCASS shooed him out the room and then it went to court where she sat like an immature child denied him everything and told lie after lie about him.
I believe CAFCASS encouraged her to not budge on the extra night.
She gloated that she had won but she never ever stuck to the rules and as you described, she had been outrageous enough for us to take her to court in the first place yet she sat and told a sob story of unfairness and harrassment and the woes of being a single mother.
No mention if the time where she wanted H and me to take on her son permanently because she decided she couldn't cope. No mention of the time she broke her arm and left the children with H for 6 weeks whilst she buggered off with her boyfriend and refused to come back.
Also I have said before, she got it written into the court order that both parties were not allowed to contact each others workplace. It was her who contacted my place of work. Yes , I did it back to her with knobs on, to see how she would like it. She then has the audacity to cry to the courts about us contacting HER place of work.
Absolute nutcase.

 

[Esme]

Its not very feminist at all though.

Exactly! She calls herself a feminist but I think there are a lot of women out there now who say they think the word feminism has become so loaded with all these radical man-hating so-called feminists, that they don't want to use the word any more. It's supposed to be about equality, not superiority! People like that are turning it into a gender war. Oh and Dr Proudman talks about the patriarchy a lot as well. When I first saw that I thought what? That was a 1970s feminist term. She really seems to hate men!

 

[Esme]

The men then rightly call PA and are labelled abusers for trying to exert their natural rights to their children???

I think for a long time, people have been warned not to directly accuse PA when applying to court because accusing PA is exactly the type of thing an alienator does - ie deflection. And the term has become so loaded now. But instead to describe the behaviours and effects on the child.

Yes it is a circular argument and it's quite clever what they're trying to do publicly and in the media. Playing on society's view that children need Mothers most and Mothers need protecting from bad men. Make out that all these women are terrified shrinking violets whose children really don't want to go because the ex H is abusive and now he's accusing PA blah blah. Now there will be cases of genuine domestic abuse victims. But we also know there are EFH's who lie and accuse things that are totally made up and manipulate the system.

These radical "feminists" are extremists - everything black and white. Which makes them sound a bit like alienators to me! All women are to be believed and all men are potentially abusers. Ridiculous. What they ignore, and should be looking at - is the women who lie and falsely claim abuse, because it is those women who are harming genuine victims of abuse. The idea that there are no bad women is just ridiculous.

I think the stastics show that of the children killed by a parent each year (awful) it is a 50/50 split between men and women.

 

[Noodle]

Thats the problem, I think the system is over precautious, a fear of missing an abuser so they have to call all men abusers. They come unstuck when women are proven to be the abuser.
There has to be some balance and the need to catastrophise should be reduced.