September 23, 2024 • 51 mins
Can the family court system be a perpetuator of misogyny? Join us as we uncover the profound influence of patriarchal social conditioning on this vital institution. We welcome Dr. Christine Cocchiola and Amy Polacko, authors of "Framed: Women in the Family Court Underworld," who share their compelling expertise and personal experiences. They reveal how women are often unfairly painted as problematic parents in cases involving coercive control and domestic abuse, and we underscore the pressing need for systemic change to protect victims and their children.
Through gripping narratives from survivors like Michelle, Lucy, and Charlotte, we highlight the systemic failures of family courts and the dire consequences faced by women striving to protect their children from abuse. We detail the complicated nature of the family court system, the lack of constitutional protections, and judicial immunity that often leaves victims vulnerable. Our discussion emphasizes the critical need for educating and empowering women, drawing on insights from journalism, coaching, and social work backgrounds.
Finally, we explore the urgent call for a grassroots movement to reform the family court system. Contributions from experts like Dr. Ramani Durvasula and Tina Swithin stress the importance of public accountability, support for victims, and a unified effort among advocacy groups. We also celebrate community resources like Genesis Women's Shelter & Support, which offer crucial pathways for women to escape abusive situations. This episode serves as a powerful call to action for equity and justice in family courts.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We continue our discussions about the influence
of patriarchal socialconditioning, with a focus on
how the misogyny it legitimateshas shaped the family court
system, with Dr ChristineCocciola and Amy Polacco,
authors of the new book FramedWomen in the Family Court
Underworld.
I'm Maria McMullin and this isGenesis, the podcast.
Christine Marie Cocciola hasbeen a social justice advocate
(00:28):
since the age of 19, as adomestic abuse sexual assault
crisis counselor and a childwelfare advocate.
She served as a board member onthe National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence and hasactively supported codifying
coercive control as thefoundation of domestic abuse,
writing policy briefs supportingthese efforts and providing
(00:48):
expert testimony at legislativehearings.
Most importantly, through herown experiences as a protective
parent, her clinical expertiseas a trauma-trained therapist, a
researcher and educator, drCotiola understands the impact
that coercive control has onboth adult and child victims.
A college professor teachingsocial work for over 20 years,
(01:10):
she's the creator of theProtective Parenting Program, a
program to support protectiveparents navigating parenting
children harmed by a coercivecontroller.
Her other educationalprogramming supports creating a
greater awareness for attorneys,mental health clinicians,
divorce coaches and other alliesto understand the often
insidious, nuanced nature ofcoercive control.
(01:32):
Amy Polacco is an award-winningjournalist, investigative
reporter and divorce coach whosurvived a narcissist's
nightmare.
After her own experience sheformed Freedom Warrior Coaching
to become the guide she wishedshe'd had.
Amy earned a master's degreefrom Columbia University School
of Journalism and was part ofthe Pulitzer Prize-winning
(01:53):
reporting team covering the TW8Flight 800 crash.
For Newsday.
Going through divorce runs asupport group and writes for
national news outlets aboutcoercive control, domestic abuse
, divorce, online dating andsinglehood.
Her work has been featured inthe Huffington Post, ms Magazine
(02:14):
, the Washington Post, newsweek,nbc News, the Independent and
Observer.
Amy helps women take their powerback during and after divorce.
She created a digital courseDivorce Decoded to educate
divorcing women about theprocess, warnings about family
court, how to divorce anarcissist and tips for avoiding
(02:34):
devastating mistakes.
Amy, christine, welcome to theshow, thank you.
Thank you so much for having us.
Congratulations on thepublication of your new book
Framed Women in the Family CourtUnderworld.
So framed is an interestingchoice of words for the book's
title.
What does that look like withinthe context of abuse in family
(02:55):
court, and who is being framedand by whom and how?
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Well, we see it over and over again.
Amy and I have worked togetherfor quite a few years and we
just continue to see womanframed in family court for the
egregious acts by an abusivepartner, and so the idea to call
it framed really seemed tosettle really well with us
because it just seems like, overand over and over again, a
(03:22):
victim who has suffered asignificant abuse in her life
and, maria, you and I have hadthese conversations about
coercive control.
You know coercive control isbeyond the physically violent
incident model it is.
It can be any kind of coercionand control and when it happens
in the parameters of physicalviolence, it's when it's the
(03:43):
most violent.
Typically we know that aboutcases.
But when women come forwardabout any form of abuse that
they are not believed at a verysignificant rate upwards of over
50%.
There's been some research thatsays upwards of 85% and the
reality is is that in the courtsystem when they come forward
(04:03):
they are often punished,retaliated against and they are
perceived by the courtoftentimes as the bad parent,
when actually there's only oneperson who is a bad parent and
that is the abuser.
So framed seems to fit prettywell.
It happens over and over again,amy, I don't know if you have
anything to add to that Sure.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
I'd love to add to that, maria, that we hope the
title and the cover areprovocative.
We hope they shock people.
We hope people are ticked offafter they read this book,
because that's the idea here.
We want to start a movement forchange, and we believe that
those of us who are in thisfamily court world and work in
this field every day, we knowthese stories, but there are
(04:46):
millions of people around theworld who do not, and so it's
really important for us to getthis in their hands too.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Yeah, I mean just reading through the book myself.
Some of the stories areoutrageous, the tactics that
occur by abusive partnersagainst not only their wives or
partners but their children.
I mean, there's so much atstake in these cases.
Now for listeners who haven'tread the book yet or heard of
(05:19):
Framed yet, tell us what it isabout yet Tell us what it is
about.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, it's really a compilation of 22 stories from
women around the world the US,the UK, canada and Australia and
of course we've changed theirnames to protect them and their
identities.
But we really trace theirstories from when they met their
partner through the familycourt nightmare.
And I think one of the mostinteresting parts is we said to
our contributors, these bravewomen who we are eternally
(05:51):
grateful to because you knowthey're sharing their stories
not just with us but with theworld to help other people we
said how did you meet him?
You know how did it start?
How did he court you?
What happened before themarriage?
And so we really believe thatevery woman out there will be
able to identify and empathizewith these women, and we hope
(06:11):
men read this book too.
So we have our stories and thenwe have our notes at the end of
each chapter.
We are grateful to Dr Romney,who wrote our foreword, and Tina
Swithin, the founder of OneMom's Battle, who wrote our
epilogue.
And then we have an incrediblecall to action at the end.
Dr C, do you want to talk aboutthat?
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, sure, they're living in the world of and I
wish I lived in this world ofrose colored glasses, where
there's equity in family court,where children are entirely
protected from abusive parents.
And I just want to back up for amoment because I think it's
really important to highlight weknow this happens to men,
there's no doubt about it, butthe reality is is that the
systems are based in patriarchyand that this harms, in
(07:04):
particular, women and childrenat vastly greater rates.
We're not diminishing theexperiences of men in the family
court system.
What we're trying to do ishighlight the most vulnerable so
that if we can actually shine abright light on the most
vulnerable, then everyone willsay wait a minute, what's going
on, how do we fix this?
And if we can fix thissituation for women and children
(07:27):
, of course others who areharmed are going to have the
same, better experience in thefamily court system.
The call to action is reallyabout what do you do next, how
do you help victims andsurvivors?
Part of the call to action isalso this idea of what do you do
if you know someone, because,frankly, maria, you know, we all
know someone suffering abuse.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
This is an epidemic.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
35% of women in the world suffer violence in their
lifetime.
That's violence, physicalviolence, sexual violence.
What of all the women who arenot suffering something that we
can see, but they are sufferingoppression of all kinds and
their children?
How many children are in thesefamily systems that are
(08:11):
suffering?
Those rates have to beabsolutely astronomical.
And the amount of children inthese family systems?
We could preventintergenerational trauma if we
could protect children fromabusers, and the family courts
are not doing that.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, your points are very well taken, for sure, and
we're going to dive into some ofthat.
I want to go back to somethingthat Amy was saying.
And there's 20 or so stories inthe book, 20 or more different
perspectives of how, which is alot, by the way.
I mean, if there's 20, there'sgot to be 200,000, right?
(08:51):
There's just so many ways thatthis can happen.
Did you notice any patternsacross these stories?
Was there anything that stoodout for you that we can identify
as patterns, that perhaps asresearchers, law enforcement
academics and others, that wecan look at and try to dissect
(09:11):
and see if it helps maybe solvesome of the problem?
Speaker 3 (09:15):
I think, maria, that you know I'm holding the book up
here at the bottom we say no,the abuser's playbook.
That's the MO.
That's the common thread we see.
By the way, this is a diversegroup of women from around the
world, all different walks oflife, different professions.
You know their abusers are indifferent fields and the reader
(09:35):
will explore that as they readthe stories.
But the common denominator iscoercive control, as Dr C talks
about so eloquently.
Is coercive control, as Dr Ctalks about so eloquently?
And also, as you move into thedivorce or custody process, it
is a weaponization of the familycourt system that we are seeing
over and over again.
(09:56):
So I think the signs are there.
They're filing motion aftermotion.
You know, we think that a judgeshould be able, anyone in the
court system, should look at acase and say there are this many
motions filed on one side?
I mean it's a red flag, right?
You know they are filing exparte motions, you know
emergency motions for custodywhich then, can you know, become
(10:20):
permanent when they start outas temporary.
They are using the children aspawns.
We see this over and over again.
There's a lot of financialabuse.
We were talking about theinvisible kind of abuse.
A lot of these women are cutoff from the family funds.
They're begging for money.
They can't pay their legal feesand these cases don't just
(10:41):
emotionally, physically decimatethem, but financially as well.
Many of these women have todeclare bankruptcy if they can't
come up with a huge fortune tofight for their children in
family court.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
So does that not put up a red flag for a judge when a
man is filing motion aftermotion and, you know, just
trying to delay this process?
Or does it not become clear insome way that there's something
going on here that is more thanjust trying to get custody of
children or divide propertyequally?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
We would hope so.
I actually just posted on myInstagram vexatious litigation
and we have a story in our bookcalled Scorched Earth and it's
really when everyone engaged inthe process the abuser, his
attorneys are engaged in aprocess of wiping away anything
that matters to the victim.
It's sadistic, it actually is.
(11:36):
There's research study now outcalling this like these abusers
have these qualities in themwhere they want someone to feel
pain.
That's how they feel good, andI think you and I have had this
conversation a little bit aboutthe pathology of abusers and
that's really where we need tobegin to look is if the court
system could understand that.
But the problem is and what wekeep seeing over and over again
(11:58):
and every advocate I believe inthe field is seeing this over
and over again is that it's notthat they don't see it.
They don't.
The court system doesn't wantto see it.
They don't want to deal withthese cases.
They call these cases highconflict and you know we have
research that affirms thesepeople are drawn towards
conflict and when you have otherplayers on your team who
(12:19):
actually are enjoying the fightand have a payoff, that will be
really like wonderful for them,right?
They're happy about this payoff.
They're going to keep going inthat direction, regardless of
who the abuser is.
And it's really problematic.
And I think I just want to goback to something that Amy
alluded to in this idea thatthese abusers are charlatans.
They don't show up in courtwith a sign saying I'm an abuser
(12:42):
.
They're showing up in court asprofessionals, as plumbers, as
teachers, as counselors, itdoesn't matter and they are
performative in the court.
That I say the stage is set.
Once they get into family court, they are so happy because this
is when they can use the courtsystem to really further harm
(13:02):
the adult victim and use.
The weaponization of childrencontinues to happen.
As a matter of fact, in the UKthey have now made love bombing,
which our stories all you know.
When you read through thestories, you saw that there is a
process of love bombing.
Love bombing is now consideredpart of the law explaining
coercive control, because theseabusers don't just come in and
(13:24):
say I'm an abuser, I'm going toabuse you.
They come in with this.
They're chameleons, right?
They have this Dr Jekyll, mrHydeside and the victim.
Initially nobody goes into thissaying he was a bad man.
People go into this thinkinghe's a great man, what he does
as part of his pathology ismirrors her wonderful qualities.
(13:46):
And so you know, as I said,this can happen to men.
But in general, who in societyhas more power and control?
Men do Men do.
This is, you know, like we setlittle boys up honestly in
society to have an understandingthat they're supposed to be
strong and have control and havepower over, and that's how they
(14:09):
show their manhood.
We have to start really youngeducating people about this and
about the harms that are createdwhen there's inequality in
relationships.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Yeah, those messages are absolutely everywhere for
young men and for little boys,even absolutely everywhere for
young men and for little boys.
Even so, as parents, we have,you know, the work of educating
boys differently and creating,you know, trying to create a
future for them that's builtwith a healthy foundation for
healthy relationships.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Yes, Two points.
Going back to your questionabout do the courts see it, Do
the judges see it, I think wehave to be honest here that
there are a lot of people makinga lot of money in these
situations.
They appoint parent coordinator, custody evaluator, guardian ad
litem all of these people,attorneys they're all making
(15:01):
money.
So you have to ask what's theirincentive for ending it quickly
, and we believe the judges areaware of this too.
And then also, I want to bringup something that Suzanne Zachor
said.
She's a Canadian attorney andresearcher and I interviewed her
for an article I did in MsMagazine about how women are
depicted as hysterical and outfor revenge in family court.
(15:25):
It's a misogynistic trope wesee all the time.
And she said and I thought thiswas really insightful that it's
easier for judges to believethat women are crazy and
unhinged than to believe thatthis many men are actually
abusers.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
So I think that plays into it too, and I think it
kind of alludes to those stats Imentioned just a few minutes
ago.
Right, it's this idea that theworld doesn't want to recognize
that there is this much harmbeing inflicted on women all of
the time, like the world ingeneral, is just.
I mean, how is it that this isnot considered an epidemic?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
How is it that we are not talking about it and having
conversations and protectingwomen and children when we know,
right, I think you know, inorder to admit what's going on
here means the whole thing hasto be blown up and start over.
And it also means that forcenturies the courts were wrong
(16:27):
or the courts did not do rightby women and children.
And you know, amy, to yourpoint of, it's easier to believe
this many women are crazy quoteunquote than this many men
abused.
But it's this, it's really thissame number of people.
It's just that I don'tunderstand, like how the courts
(16:49):
could think, yes, this manywomen could be completely crazy,
but there's no way that thismany men abuse these women.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It's so upside down and that's misogyny, isn't it?
I mean that's, that's what ourworld, the way that we have
personified women in general insociety, which is why it's so
heartbreaking when you have amom who has lost custody to an
abuser or has lost partial timeto an abuser, and she is, of
(17:18):
course, emotionally wrought andso overwhelmed and distressed
and we call out that as apsychological illness instead of
saying this is a normal traumareaction.
It's a normal trauma reactionand it's not hard to discern the
difference between an abuserand the victim.
(17:41):
It's not, but people are notwilling to really unpack that.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Yeah, for sure.
Now, in your opening remarks ofthe book, each of you commented
on your personal connection tothis work.
Can you share why this projectis important to you and what
outcomes you hope for?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Well, I always describe myself as a babe in the
woods when I entered familycourt.
I have been married anddivorced twice, so I say I've
been to this rodeo twice, I'veseen a lot and I was blown away.
I just remember thinking thisis happening in America, it's.
I liken it to the cognitivedissonance you have in the
(18:19):
abusive relationship, where it'shard to accept that the person
you thought had your back andwas the love of your life is
actually out to harm and destroyyou and was the love of your
life is actually out to harm anddestroy you, and I think that's
why this trauma is a hugesecondary trauma for women the
institutional betrayal right.
And so I experienced that whereI had professionals bragging
(18:41):
about how much money they madepeople not caring about domestic
abuse and I realized this is apattern.
This isn't just me, and I thinkthat for many, including people
like Angelina Jolie, after yousee what happens in family court
, you can't look away.
You can't walk away and dosomething else.
You've got to reach back andhelp the women who are still
(19:05):
there.
So I really believe thateveryone who's healing it's
always a process from abuse hastheir own journey, and for me it
was getting back to journalism,I used to be a full-time
investigative reporter and so Ithought I can use these skills
to write about this, which I'vedone, and obviously the book is
an extension of that, and thathas helped me.
(19:27):
What I hope is to educate andempower women.
That's what I do in my coachingpractice.
I became a coach to help womenbecause I believe that they were
just walking into this systemblindly.
So many of us.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
And I think it's purposeful.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
We've been kept in the dark.
We've been kept in thisvulnerable, powerless situation
in the dark.
We've been kept in thisvulnerable, powerless situation
and it's time for women to beeducated and at least know what
they're stepping into and knowthe playbook they could be up
against.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
So, maria, I obviously am a victim and a
survivor and a protective parentand had no.
I met my ex he was thecharlatan when I was 16 years
old and fell in love and waswith him my whole life, frankly,
until 2019.
So I didn't realize that he wasalso indoctrinating my children
(20:19):
into a false narrative about meand that I found out about nine
years later.
So that's why I created theProtective Parenting Program and
I'm trying to educateclinicians and attorneys and
coaches on what really happenswith coercive control, because
the trauma to our children is sopreventable, is so preventable.
(20:39):
And had my ex not been soabusive or finally abusive
during post-separation via emailexchanges that I was getting,
abusive during post-separationvia email exchanges that I was
getting or I wasn't exchangingwith him, but via the abuse that
I was getting in emails, andhad he not done such a terrific
job of trying to make mychildren think there was
(21:01):
something wrong with me, I mightnot have left.
I might have gone back again.
I tried leaving like five times, so you know if it could happen
to me.
I've been doing this work sincethe age of 19.
I've worked in child welfare.
I'm a therapist.
I have been educating on thepower and control wheel in my
social workforces for the last20 years and didn't know it was
(21:23):
happening to me.
That's how insidious it is,that's how nuanced it is.
I always say and I want yourlisteners to hear this and I
probably have said this beforewith you but the idea that we
think that abuse has to beextreme, we think he has to lock
us in a room or turn off theelectricity, which my ex did, or
(21:43):
maybe he has to physicallyassault you that's not always
the case.
It can be so nuanced and reallyhighlighting the fact that the
psychological tactics theseabusers use are their gateway to
using further abuses when thosedon't work anymore.
It's a gateway gaslighting,manipulation, intimidation,
(22:06):
isolation, and then, as we talkabout and Amy and I talk about
this in the book, then the veilbegins to start to like, get a
little clarity, thedisassociation doesn't happen as
much and now that person isgoing to use on, move on to the
other tactics, especially ifyou're going to end up in family
court.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Yeah, thank you for really clarifying all of that,
because I think it's importantfor everyone listening whether
they are living with abuse,survived abuse, a family court,
judge, law enforcement, legalcommunity to understand that
these are steps right, that overtime build the wall and when it
(22:46):
comes crashing down, it reallycomes crashing down.
For reference for peoplelistening.
Dr Cotiola and I have talkedmany times on this podcast and
on our sister show, the podcaston Crimes Against Women.
I can't remember how many timesit's been.
It may have been two, it mayhave been seven, I'm not really
sure but if you go back in thelibrary for both of our podcasts
(23:08):
you'll be able to find thoseepisodes.
I do remember a two-parter oncoercive control, which we
condensed it down to two parts.
It was a very complex topic tocover, but many of the things
that have been mentioned here byboth Dr C and Amy are those are
terms and concepts that you canfind more information on in
(23:33):
those previous episodes.
There's also some episodes withLundy Bancroft that dive into
some of those topics as well.
To kind of give you a betteridea of the terminology that
we're talking about If you'renot familiar with it, the
bookamed also has a condensedglossary of terms that include
some of these things and lots ofother bullet point lists and
(23:58):
stuff of information that areeasy to kind of breeze through
and kind of get the lay of theland on the topic.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
May I, maria, just for your listeners here, just do
really brief, just to make surethat they kind of so.
I think it's really importantthat everyone understands that
coercive control is about oneperson or group of people
exerting power and control overanother person or group of
people.
It is the underpinning of allabuse.
When we think of all abuse, andthis is how I see it- I wish the
(24:29):
vernacular can really broadenwhen we think of any way that
someone is abused, whether it'sracism, right, whether it's in
an intimate relationship,whether it's your employer.
If someone is doing this andit's a pattern of behavior that
is occurring, then it is someonewho wants to exert power and
control over you, and that iscoercive control, and so it
(24:51):
doesn't have to be extremelyviolent.
It can be, and when it is, it'sthe most deadly.
It's about someone diminishingyou, diminishing your agency and
your autonomy.
And I'll stop it there, andthen they can go back and look
at the other episodes.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Now.
That's extremely helpful.
I appreciate the context.
Now in the book, the storiesshared represent many facets of
domestic violence andexperiences of survivors in
family court.
Give us an idea of thosestories that you shared in the
work.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
So, as we said, these women represent all walks of
life.
I'm going to read reallybriefly from one called the
Abuser's Playbook.
It's Michelle's story.
She's a very successfulprofessional woman just to give
you a little background wholives on the East Coast, and she
says my name is Michelle and Iwant a divorce.
(25:46):
These are the very words thatinitiated my living hell.
Three years ago I was free ofdebt, naive and trusting.
Now, with over 300,000 in legalfees and deep in personal debt,
I'm acutely aware of what canhappen in divorce.
Let me make something clear youdon't have free will in these
coercively controlling,narcissistic relationships.
(26:07):
You are being controlled anddominated by someone in all
aspects of your life, and it'sby someone who's telling you
they love you.
It's coercive control.
The confusion they create ispowerful.
Now she's someone who is stillembroiled in a divorce case with
her abuser, but she has notlost custody of her kids.
(26:27):
I just want to read a reallyquick snippet from another story
called Spiritual Abuse.
This is Lucy and she's a muchyounger mom, I would say.
She has no contact with one ofher children and she said
however, time keeps passing andmy abuser continues to delay,
manipulate and weaponize thekids to maintain separation from
(26:49):
me.
I have spent $600,000 in legalfees thanks to my parents
generously offering me theirentire retirement to fight for
my kids, but so much time haspassed that I wonder if there
will be any kids at the end ofthis.
They are quickly approachingmanhood and there is no end in
sight for the divorce.
And there is no end in sight forthe divorce.
Trial dates are booking over ayear out and custody
(27:10):
determinations teeter on thesuccess or failure of ongoing
reunification efforts.
I tell my story with the hopethat it can demonstrate the
devastation that occurs infamilies when the institutions
that were set up to protect thevulnerable are broken.
My situation exemplifies theneed for change within the
family court system and servesas a cautionary tale.
(27:32):
Of course, all of these arecautionary tales, but I think
each woman has her own voice,obviously, and brings different
nuances and lessons for thereader.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
So just right there we're at a million dollars in
legal fees and just anoutrageous custody battle and
just however many lives tornapart just from this one, these
two situations.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Well, I think that, maria, people often think well,
this doesn't affect me.
You know, they might think ofthese type of divorces as Jerry
Springer cases and maybe there'snobody they know Chances are
there's someone they know, afriend, family member, somewhere
in their community.
But in a blink of an eye itcould be them, it could be their
daughter, their sister, theirfriend.
(28:15):
I mean, this isn't justdevastating the women and
children involved.
It's the parents.
We hear this all the time.
People emptied their savingsaccount.
They've sold homes.
The parents have lost theirretirements, I mean, and the
taxpayers you know, taxpayersare paying for these long drawn
out wars in family court thatdon't need to happen.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
It's a multiple billion dollar industry, double
digit billion dollar industry.
There's a lot of money to bemade on this and family court
judges, which I'm not sureeveryone is aware, actually do
not have to take courses indomestic abuse.
And here's the other problem, Ithink, is that oftentimes
they're taking courses in we'llcall it domestic violence,
(28:57):
because that's the word most ofthese courses are called, and
that is actually looking atexperiences through the violent
incident model, and what theyalso do is they talk about how
children need two parentsincident model and what they
also do is they talk about howchildren need two parents.
A lot of these courses are,first of all, about physical
violence and, second of all, whychildren need two parents.
That's not true.
Children need one healthy,protective parent and they need
(29:21):
to be safe from an abusiveparent.
And the courts are not beingtrained on that.
And even if they were, thequestion becomes would they
actually be doing this work andprotecting children?
It's really mind-blowing to methat if a stranger did to the
child what the parent did, whichmeans if there was a stranger
in the street who beat up thechild's mother or who maybe cut
(29:44):
off her electricity or, you know, locked her car so she couldn't
get into it.
That stranger would be arrestedand they would.
That child would never beforced into repair therapy or
any kind of circumstances withthat abusive parent.
Yet we're doing it every daywith children Exactly and we're
wondering so from a trauma lens.
As a therapist, I am justfloored over and over again with
(30:05):
the amount of therapists whothink this is a good idea.
I mean, I can't even.
I have no words, honestly.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
So yeah, we say this a lot on the show, using the
very same example.
If a stranger beat up a woman,he would be arrested and charges
would be filed.
It's a criminal act, butbecause it happens within the
domicile, it's a family matter.
It's a private matter, but isit Because it seems just as
(30:33):
criminal to me?
And all of the examples thatyou gave?
What other stories are in thebook, dr Singh?
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Yeah, so I will share with you Congrats.
You lost custody.
This is Charlotte's story.
She's in the United States andso, since I had supposedly done
so many egregious things forexample, attempted to protect my
children from their abusivefather and his abusive family
members I needed to be punished.
Her children were disclosingsexual abuse.
(31:00):
The judge remanded me to spendsix days in jail, at the height
of the COVID pandemic, forwithholding my children from
their father.
Finally, the worst of this wasthat I was not allowed to have
any contact with my children forfive weeks.
I was devastated.
There was no way to know if mychildren were okay and, of
course, there was no way toprevent the abuse from occurring
(31:21):
.
My attorney filed an appeal but, as expected, the appeals court
completely agreed with thetrial court's findings.
The case was all over theinternet and the oral arguments
were published on YouTube.
Anyone can look them up.
I even received a bright yellowcongratulations you did it
award from a large law practicefour hours away for losing
(31:43):
custody and decision-making ofmy children.
They posted it on their website.
My children and I wereshattered.
We had long ago lost faith thatanyone would protect them, but
we could not have predicted thismockery of our situation, but
my brave six-year-old would notbe silenced.
And that six-year-old went onto tell someone at his school
(32:04):
that they were being sexuallyabused and in this her case cost
more than $400,000 inattorney's fees, psychological
evaluations and therapy.
Charlotte tells us there willmore than likely be thousands
more needed for the ongoingtherapy my children will need to
heal.
The worst part is none of thisneeded to happen.
(32:24):
The evidence was always there,but the family court was more
intent on supporting an abusivefather than protecting my
children.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
Yeah, that is an outrageous, outrageous case, and
I mean I really have no wordsfor it.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
But I should say this because I think this is so
important what we know fromresearch is that when a mother
says her children of beings arebeing sexually abused, she's
disbelieved at a rate of 85%.
Now, if I'm a predator and myoriginal background started with
domestic abuse and sexual abuseof children, if I'm a predator,
(33:03):
then what better way to gainaccess to children than to maybe
marry someone and have children?
And I don't mean to be.
I mean, I know this is a hardsubject for people, but not all
coercive controllers arepedophiles.
But, frankly, all pedophilesare using the same strategies
the grooming process of coercionand control to gain access not
(33:23):
only to the adult victim but toher children, and so it's not
surprising to me.
I believe that many of thesecases are predators who have
intentionally said I'm going tostart a family or I'm going to
meet a woman who has childrenand prey upon them, and I saw
this over and over again in mychild welfare work.
This is the pipeline to childpredators gaining access to
(33:45):
children.
It's the pipeline.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
And this problem, all of these problems are so deep
and so complex and so, as yousay, insidious and tied into the
very culture that isperpetrated by family courts and
patriarchy.
Let's dive into the familycourt system just a bit more.
To begin, we need to understandhow this court system was
developed and how it is shapedby patriarchal history, laws and
(34:12):
leaders.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Well, I can speak to our system in the United States,
which is similar in the othercountries we cover in the book.
In 1910, actually, probationofficers are the ones who pushed
for the creation of a specialdomestic relations court system,
and these were designed ascourts of equity instead of
really courts of law.
(34:33):
So they started in thebeginning to prosecute
non-support cases and then grewto handle, you know, child
neglect, guardianship, paternity, family offenses, and then were
eventually granted jurisdictionover abandonment custody
adoption, post-divorce issues.
The thing is, they became morecivil in nature and this started
(34:56):
in 1933 when New Yorkestablished an independent
family court called the DomesticRelations Court.
But they're a combination ofcriminal and civil components.
So the important thing here, Ithink, is that in family court,
we've removed some of theconstitutional protections
offered by criminal procedures.
(35:17):
For instance, a woman doesn'tget a free attorney, or a man
for that matter.
But you know, if you're incriminal court, you're entitled
to an attorney, Right.
So we're talking about thesecourt costs and we have heard of
many cases in the millions, andthese are not necessarily
millionaires.
They are people who have soldall of their assets and
(35:39):
liquidated and borrowed to savechildren, basically.
So you know, the otherimportant thing is that most of
these family court cases arepresided over by a judge without
a jury.
So you know it happens behindclosed doors.
These are very secretive.
This is a big topic right now.
(36:01):
No fault divorce, Right.
Right In 1969, Governor RonaldReagan of California started the
no-fault divorce trend.
He thought it was a good idea.
Every state has a variation ofit.
Now, Of course, Project 2025wants to get rid of it something
I've written about and spokenout about, which would trap
(36:22):
domestic abuse victims inunhealthy marriages, but that's
another story.
But I think things got a littlebit better for women in that
case where, with no-faultdivorce, you don't have to prove
you have a right to getdivorced right?
Because before you had to, youknow it's a laborious process to
actually prove abandonment,adultery and all of these things
(36:44):
.
So that was one good step, butoverall, as we've discussed,
maria, this is a patriarchalsystem.
Lawyers are allowed tocontribute to a judge's
political campaign.
Judges may go work for a lawfirm after they leave the bench.
There are really cozyrelationships.
At the end of the day, this wasa system created by men to help
(37:08):
men, and that's what we'redealing with and as Dr C said,
you know it goes by the violentincident model for domestic
abuse.
So that's another roadblock thatwomen have.
I mean we see cases all thetime I see them where women
cannot get a restraining order,still to this day.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
For things that were not related to physical violence
.
Right, is what you're talkingabout.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
And physical violence .
I still see cases.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
Yeah, I think that's what you were saying, amy, right
is that?
In other words, if you haven'tsuffered physical violence, it's
very you don't get arestraining order, and so that's
part of the problem.
You don't get a restrainingorder, and so that's part of the
problem.
Now, that's the good news aboutcoercive control legislation
that is trying to change that,where coercive control is now
codified as a form of domesticabuse in seven states.
So that means that we can lookbeyond the violent incident
(37:58):
model when we're looking atabuse.
The question is is a judge goingto actually look at a
restraining order and say he'ssending me harassing emails, I'm
afraid of him?
And are they going to actuallysay, oh, you deserve a
restraining order?
And you know here's the otherproblem Women are most at risk
the day that they actually get arestraining order, and you know
, you know this, so you know wehave so much research out there
(38:23):
that women are actually atgreater risk, yet we tell them
to get these restraining orders.
I think it's important tomention, too, that you know, as
Amy said, this history of thefamily court system.
I mean judges in general havebeen given judicial immunity as
a result of being in theirposition.
So in 1607 is when this started.
But we basically said is, aslong as they're acting within
(38:45):
the range of their jurisdictions, even if they're acting and
this says it in the law even ifthey are acting maliciously and
found to do something egregious,they do not have to be held to
account.
And so it's rather disconcertingto think about, rather
(39:06):
disconcerting to think about.
And then when we think about theViolence Against Women's Act
that was created in 1994, I meanthat wasn't that long ago and
that's the first time that webegan researching what happens
to women in these intimaterelationships, and we actually
were preventing by 1994.
So prior to 1994, if a womanactually was egregiously harmed
(39:26):
physically, the only way that weactually recognized it, her
abuser could flee to anotherstate and never face arrest.
And now, thankfully, we can gobeyond state lines.
So there's just an unfortunate,we're slow.
As a matter of fact, dr EvanStark, who I worked under his
tutelage for my doctoral work incourse of control, evan Stark
(39:46):
who I worked under his tutelagefor my doctoral work in course
of control, I mean he talksabout this idea that he was part
of that battered women'smovement back in the seventies
and he opened his home.
He and his wife opened theirhome to victims and survivors,
and we are still nowhere nearwhere we need to be in
recognizing this as the epidemicthat it is.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
No, I mean the whole system and understanding of
domestic violence is.
It's different now.
A lot of things need to bedismantled and rebuilt so that
they become equitable foreveryone, and the way that you
describe some of these cases andthe people who are involved in
(40:23):
handling the cases the judge,court appointees, court
appointed.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Guardian ad litems, forensic evaluators, custody
evaluators, minors counselthere's a lot of different words
that are used for some ofsimilar, some similar things,
similar practices.
Some are lawyers for thechildren, some are doing custody
evaluations.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
So the way that all of this is described, it sounds
like there's more than oneabusive person in this courtroom
.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
Oh, it's a circus.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, it's like a network of different levels of
abuse.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
And there's payoff.
We know that.
We see it over and over againthat there is money to be made.
If you know, I mean think aboutthe story that you know Amy did
such an amazing job and such asad story of Catherine Casanoff
and exposing.
You know what we?
There's just too many, too manypeople connected in a variety
(41:15):
of ways to think otherwise.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Yeah, and you know, the opening line of the
introduction of this book,framed by Dr Ramani Devasala, is
I remember the first time Iheard someone call it the
divorce industrial complex.
And she goes on to talk aboutthe multi-billion dollar
enterprise that is almostincentivized to drag out marital
(41:40):
dissolution and child custodydecisions and fill the pockets
of participants, includingevaluators, consultants, experts
, judges and attorneys.
And it goes on from there, butshe calls it out right from the
very beginning.
So you know it just begs thequestion is this really about
money?
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Some would argue yes, I mean, it's a cottage industry
.
And again, what willincentivize people in the system
who are benefiting from this tochange?
I believe two things.
I think there's increasedscrutiny and people like Tina
Swithin, who wrote our epilogue,who regularly on her social
(42:18):
media will call out a judge oran evaluator who they've gotten
complaints about.
I think the public shame of whatis going on is one thing, and I
believe that we need agrassroots movement for change,
like every other social justicemovement in our country, and
that's what we hope to ignitewith Framed.
(42:41):
We hope that not just those ofus who work in this field or
have been directly affected, butthose who care about women's
rights and these are male alliesto join us in this, because
that's really what it's going totake.
I think there's been anincrease in some news coverage
of this topic, though we don'thave time for me to list all the
(43:02):
places I've pitched thesestories that have not run them.
We don't have time for me tolist all the places I've pitched
these stories that have not runthem.
I'm incredibly grateful to theones that have, and especially
Ms Magazine, which has allowedme to shine a light on this.
Speaker 2 (43:16):
So I think that's what it's going to take.
I just think that it'sinteresting, because even people
that I love dearly, that areclose friends and family members
, you know, we show them thebook and I think Amy would agree
is that you know, people arelike, oh well, yeah, but that
doesn't really, that's, thatdoesn't impact me, and what we
really want people to know isthat this impacts everyone.
(43:39):
And if I could go back to mychild welfare days, where there
were, I mean, I, of course, workwith protective mothers now,
but even back in the 90s, therewere experiences over and over
again where the most importantthing, no matter what the abuse
was, was to ensure that wecreated visitation between an
(44:01):
abusive parent and a protectiveparent.
And oftentimes and Dr Starkactually exposes this oftentimes
mothers are blamed in thesesituations for not protecting
their children.
How do you protect your childwhen you're a victim?
Also, how do you do that?
So we need to stop blamingwomen for not coming forward.
We need to support them inleaving and we need everyone to
(44:23):
know that again, we all knowsomeone.
And this is like this is suchan easy fix.
It just feels like to me it'snot rocket science.
It's like how hard is it torealize that we have a problem
in our family court system?
It's not working.
These people are not trained.
Train people who understand thetactics of abusers.
(44:44):
And then we need to pivot toperpetrators.
Pivot to the perpetrator andbegin to call out their
behaviors and hold themaccountable.
And children do not needtwo-parent family homes.
Speaker 1 (44:55):
They don't.
Those are great suggestions.
So what are the strategies,what are the key strategies to
getting, as you say, agrassroots movement off the
ground, to getting changeenacted in these courts and
getting to the other side ofthis type of abuse?
Speaker 2 (45:19):
So, we do that in our call to action you know, listen
, it is about finding yourlegislator, parliament members,
whoever is active in victims'rights, and ask them to begin to
elevate the conversation aboutcourse of control as the
underpinning of all abuse and topivot to the perpetrator, to
begin to hold perpetratorsaccountable.
We're seeing this in the UK.
They've criminalized course ofcontrol in the UK.
(45:40):
So this is the beginning of us,this movement.
We need it to be a groundswell,as Amy refers to.
We need it to be a groundswell,as Amy refers to.
We need it to be a groundswell.
We need people to research andfind advocacy groups that really
will support this and thenbecome active in those advocacy
groups and find protectivemothers organizations to support
them and then maybe organizeaccountability advocates.
(46:02):
Like we can have a lot ofadvocates, but if we're not all
on the same page, I think theproblem, maria and I'm sure you
see this is that like we're allworking in silos, right, and
really if we could all worktogether for the common good,
how much more power would wehave?
I mean, you know, I tell peoplea story or about a piece of
legislation someplace andthey're like, really that that
(46:24):
happened, that happened.
We're not really having theconversations out in front,
front and center, the way thatwe need to have them front and
center.
We also talk about in our bookhow to best support victims and
like the philosophicalengagement like believe victims,
just let's believe victims whenthey come forward, understand
(46:45):
that there is someone who tendsto exert power and control
through the systems, be aware ofthe terminology that is used,
like understanding what DARVO isLike when I, you know, I have a
victim who comes forward to me,tells me her story, and then
she'll say to me you know, butdo you believe me?
And I'm like, of course, youknow, like just the idea that
we're validating people'sexperiences, that we're not
(47:07):
judging people for staying, thatwe're allowing them the space
and the freedom to stay ifthat's best for them.
But there's no shame in that.
And to lift the veil of shamehonestly in all of this.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
So we specifically go through how to actually
actively engage.
If that's something thatsomeone wants to do, excellent.
And I'm glad you mentionedDARVO, because that's actually a
subject we're going to cover inthe coming weeks.
I've already recorded theepisode.
I can't wait to bring it toeveryone, but that element is
something is a new term for alot of people, but I think it's
a really important one to know.
Amy.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
I would back up everything Dr C said and I think
if you can spread the wordabout framed, that will help
this movement.
We want this book to go intothe mainstream and we are very
grateful that it became abestseller on Amazon within a
few days in the divorce andfamily law category.
(48:06):
We are appreciative to anyonewho leaves a Goodreads review
for us, which you can do even ifyou're pre-ordering the book.
I don't think we've said yetthe book comes out on October
1st, but you can pre-order itnow.
We are having abusers playbookworkshops for anyone who
(48:26):
pre-orders the book, which alsoeducates women and starts this
conversation happening.
We really want to educate thosewho are out there dating right
now who are making the choice onthe partner they want to marry.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
It's a business contract.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
So our target market isn't just our age, know our age
group.
It is, you know, women in their20s and up to you.
Know the sky's the limit.
And, as I said, also men.
You know men have daughters,mothers, sisters.
I have some male clients.
I have men who update me oncases they know of of loved ones
that they can't believe, andsome of these are attorneys who
(49:02):
worked in other fields and can'tbelieve.
And some of these are attorneyswho worked in other fields and
can't believe what's happeningin family law.
So I think it's going to takeall of us together talking about
this and we hope that peoplewill share the book.
Speaker 1 (49:17):
Speaking of the book, where can people find it?
When it is released, I assumeit's going to be on every
platform all around the world,right?
Speaker 2 (49:24):
Actually available right now it is available For
pre-order.
Speaker 1 (49:26):
Okay, yes.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
It's on Amazon, barnes and Noble bookshelforg.
I mean it's in a variety ofplaces and we're super excited
to give people options on whereto buy it from and grateful for
their support.
We do think this should be oneveryone's coffee table.
If you have a, as Amy said,it's kind of a red flag warning
(49:47):
If you have a young daughter orson and you want them to know
what the experiences are ofwomen, you know, trying to
create equality discussions inyour home.
I mean, they're heartbreakingstories.
This is a.
This is a hard book to read, asyou know, maria, but it's a
must read and so if we can beginsharing these stories with
young people so they're aware ofthe red flags before they get
(50:08):
in relationships, right.
Speaker 3 (50:10):
And anyone can go to our website.
It's narkfreepresscom.
You can get on our email list.
We also have a framed booklaunch group on Facebook, so if
you would like to join us there,we have Zoom calls for our team
.
We have people helping tospread the word.
You can be as little or as muchas involved as you want to be,
(50:31):
but that is a great community.
You can find us on Facebookgroups, so we hope to see you
there.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Perfect.
Thank you both so much fortalking with me today.
Despite the onerous message ofFramed, know that there are
allies in the community forwomen ensnared by similar
circumstances.
Genesis, the podcast, is filledwith resources in past episodes
, including stories of survivorswho have experienced similar
challenges and found a waythrough.
There are also numerousdomestic violence agencies
(50:59):
across the United States thatcan help.
You are not alone.
Genesis Women's Shelter andSupport exists to give women in
abusive situations a way out.
We are committed.
You are not alone and creatinga societal shift on how people
think about domestic violence.
You can learn more atGenesisShelterorg and when you
(51:29):
follow us on social media onFacebook and Instagram at
Genesis Women's Shelter and on Xat Genesis Shelter.
The Genesis Helpline isavailable 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, by call or text at214-946-HELP, 214-946-help,
214-946-4357.
We continue our discussions about the influence
of patriarchal socialconditioning, with a focus on
how the misogyny it legitimateshas shaped the family court
system, with Dr ChristineCocciola and Amy Polacco,
authors of the new book FramedWomen in the Family Court
Underworld.
I'm Maria McMullin and this isGenesis, the podcast.
Christine Marie Cocciola hasbeen a social justice advocate
(00:28):
since the age of 19, as adomestic abuse sexual assault
crisis counselor and a childwelfare advocate.
She served as a board member onthe National Coalition Against
Domestic Violence and hasactively supported codifying
coercive control as thefoundation of domestic abuse,
writing policy briefs supportingthese efforts and providing
(00:48):
expert testimony at legislativehearings.
Most importantly, through herown experiences as a protective
parent, her clinical expertiseas a trauma-trained therapist, a
researcher and educator, drCotiola understands the impact
that coercive control has onboth adult and child victims.
A college professor teachingsocial work for over 20 years,
(01:10):
she's the creator of theProtective Parenting Program, a
program to support protectiveparents navigating parenting
children harmed by a coercivecontroller.
Her other educationalprogramming supports creating a
greater awareness for attorneys,mental health clinicians,
divorce coaches and other alliesto understand the often
insidious, nuanced nature ofcoercive control.
(01:32):
Amy Polacco is an award-winningjournalist, investigative
reporter and divorce coach whosurvived a narcissist's
nightmare.
After her own experience sheformed Freedom Warrior Coaching
to become the guide she wishedshe'd had.
Amy earned a master's degreefrom Columbia University School
of Journalism and was part ofthe Pulitzer Prize-winning
(01:53):
reporting team covering the TW8Flight 800 crash.
For Newsday.
Going through divorce runs asupport group and writes for
national news outlets aboutcoercive control, domestic abuse
, divorce, online dating andsinglehood.
Her work has been featured inthe Huffington Post, ms Magazine
(02:14):
, the Washington Post, newsweek,nbc News, the Independent and
Observer.
Amy helps women take their powerback during and after divorce.
She created a digital courseDivorce Decoded to educate
divorcing women about theprocess, warnings about family
court, how to divorce anarcissist and tips for avoiding
(02:34):
devastating mistakes.
Amy, christine, welcome to theshow, thank you.
Thank you so much for having us.
Congratulations on thepublication of your new book
Framed Women in the Family CourtUnderworld.
So framed is an interestingchoice of words for the book's
title.
What does that look like withinthe context of abuse in family
(02:55):
court, and who is being framedand by whom and how?
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Well, we see it over and over again.
Amy and I have worked togetherfor quite a few years and we
just continue to see womanframed in family court for the
egregious acts by an abusivepartner, and so the idea to call
it framed really seemed tosettle really well with us
because it just seems like, overand over and over again, a
(03:22):
victim who has suffered asignificant abuse in her life
and, maria, you and I have hadthese conversations about
coercive control.
You know coercive control isbeyond the physically violent
incident model it is.
It can be any kind of coercionand control and when it happens
in the parameters of physicalviolence, it's when it's the
(03:43):
most violent.
Typically we know that aboutcases.
But when women come forwardabout any form of abuse that
they are not believed at a verysignificant rate upwards of over
50%.
There's been some research thatsays upwards of 85% and the
reality is is that in the courtsystem when they come forward
(04:03):
they are often punished,retaliated against and they are
perceived by the courtoftentimes as the bad parent,
when actually there's only oneperson who is a bad parent and
that is the abuser.
So framed seems to fit prettywell.
It happens over and over again,amy, I don't know if you have
anything to add to that Sure.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
I'd love to add to that, maria, that we hope the
title and the cover areprovocative.
We hope they shock people.
We hope people are ticked offafter they read this book,
because that's the idea here.
We want to start a movement forchange, and we believe that
those of us who are in thisfamily court world and work in
this field every day, we knowthese stories, but there are
(04:46):
millions of people around theworld who do not, and so it's
really important for us to getthis in their hands too.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Yeah, I mean just reading through the book myself.
Some of the stories areoutrageous, the tactics that
occur by abusive partnersagainst not only their wives or
partners but their children.
I mean, there's so much atstake in these cases.
Now for listeners who haven'tread the book yet or heard of
(05:19):
Framed yet, tell us what it isabout yet Tell us what it is
about.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
Well, it's really a compilation of 22 stories from
women around the world the US,the UK, canada and Australia and
of course we've changed theirnames to protect them and their
identities.
But we really trace theirstories from when they met their
partner through the familycourt nightmare.
And I think one of the mostinteresting parts is we said to
our contributors, these bravewomen who we are eternally
(05:51):
grateful to because you knowthey're sharing their stories
not just with us but with theworld to help other people we
said how did you meet him?
You know how did it start?
How did he court you?
What happened before themarriage?
And so we really believe thatevery woman out there will be
able to identify and empathizewith these women, and we hope
(06:11):
men read this book too.
So we have our stories and thenwe have our notes at the end of
each chapter.
We are grateful to Dr Romney,who wrote our foreword, and Tina
Swithin, the founder of OneMom's Battle, who wrote our
epilogue.
And then we have an incrediblecall to action at the end.
Dr C, do you want to talk aboutthat?
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, sure, they're living in the world of and I
wish I lived in this world ofrose colored glasses, where
there's equity in family court,where children are entirely
protected from abusive parents.
And I just want to back up for amoment because I think it's
really important to highlight weknow this happens to men,
there's no doubt about it, butthe reality is is that the
systems are based in patriarchyand that this harms, in
(07:04):
particular, women and childrenat vastly greater rates.
We're not diminishing theexperiences of men in the family
court system.
What we're trying to do ishighlight the most vulnerable so
that if we can actually shine abright light on the most
vulnerable, then everyone willsay wait a minute, what's going
on, how do we fix this?
And if we can fix thissituation for women and children
(07:27):
, of course others who areharmed are going to have the
same, better experience in thefamily court system.
The call to action is reallyabout what do you do next, how
do you help victims andsurvivors?
Part of the call to action isalso this idea of what do you do
if you know someone, because,frankly, maria, you know, we all
know someone suffering abuse.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
This is an epidemic.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
35% of women in the world suffer violence in their
lifetime.
That's violence, physicalviolence, sexual violence.
What of all the women who arenot suffering something that we
can see, but they are sufferingoppression of all kinds and
their children?
How many children are in thesefamily systems that are
(08:11):
suffering?
Those rates have to beabsolutely astronomical.
And the amount of children inthese family systems?
We could preventintergenerational trauma if we
could protect children fromabusers, and the family courts
are not doing that.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Yeah, your points are very well taken, for sure, and
we're going to dive into some ofthat.
I want to go back to somethingthat Amy was saying.
And there's 20 or so stories inthe book, 20 or more different
perspectives of how, which is alot, by the way.
I mean, if there's 20, there'sgot to be 200,000, right?
(08:51):
There's just so many ways thatthis can happen.
Did you notice any patternsacross these stories?
Was there anything that stoodout for you that we can identify
as patterns, that perhaps asresearchers, law enforcement
academics and others, that wecan look at and try to dissect
(09:11):
and see if it helps maybe solvesome of the problem?
Speaker 3 (09:15):
I think, maria, that you know I'm holding the book up
here at the bottom we say no,the abuser's playbook.
That's the MO.
That's the common thread we see.
By the way, this is a diversegroup of women from around the
world, all different walks oflife, different professions.
You know their abusers are indifferent fields and the reader
(09:35):
will explore that as they readthe stories.
But the common denominator iscoercive control, as Dr C talks
about so eloquently.
Is coercive control, as Dr Ctalks about so eloquently?
And also, as you move into thedivorce or custody process, it
is a weaponization of the familycourt system that we are seeing
over and over again.
(09:56):
So I think the signs are there.
They're filing motion aftermotion.
You know, we think that a judgeshould be able, anyone in the
court system, should look at acase and say there are this many
motions filed on one side?
I mean it's a red flag, right?
You know they are filing exparte motions, you know
emergency motions for custodywhich then, can you know, become
(10:20):
permanent when they start outas temporary.
They are using the children aspawns.
We see this over and over again.
There's a lot of financialabuse.
We were talking about theinvisible kind of abuse.
A lot of these women are cutoff from the family funds.
They're begging for money.
They can't pay their legal feesand these cases don't just
(10:41):
emotionally, physically decimatethem, but financially as well.
Many of these women have todeclare bankruptcy if they can't
come up with a huge fortune tofight for their children in
family court.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
So does that not put up a red flag for a judge when a
man is filing motion aftermotion and, you know, just
trying to delay this process?
Or does it not become clear insome way that there's something
going on here that is more thanjust trying to get custody of
children or divide propertyequally?
Speaker 2 (11:16):
We would hope so.
I actually just posted on myInstagram vexatious litigation
and we have a story in our bookcalled Scorched Earth and it's
really when everyone engaged inthe process the abuser, his
attorneys are engaged in aprocess of wiping away anything
that matters to the victim.
It's sadistic, it actually is.
(11:36):
There's research study now outcalling this like these abusers
have these qualities in themwhere they want someone to feel
pain.
That's how they feel good, andI think you and I have had this
conversation a little bit aboutthe pathology of abusers and
that's really where we need tobegin to look is if the court
system could understand that.
But the problem is and what wekeep seeing over and over again
(11:58):
and every advocate I believe inthe field is seeing this over
and over again is that it's notthat they don't see it.
They don't.
The court system doesn't wantto see it.
They don't want to deal withthese cases.
They call these cases highconflict and you know we have
research that affirms thesepeople are drawn towards
conflict and when you have otherplayers on your team who
(12:19):
actually are enjoying the fightand have a payoff, that will be
really like wonderful for them,right?
They're happy about this payoff.
They're going to keep going inthat direction, regardless of
who the abuser is.
And it's really problematic.
And I think I just want to goback to something that Amy
alluded to in this idea thatthese abusers are charlatans.
They don't show up in courtwith a sign saying I'm an abuser
(12:42):
.
They're showing up in court asprofessionals, as plumbers, as
teachers, as counselors, itdoesn't matter and they are
performative in the court.
That I say the stage is set.
Once they get into family court, they are so happy because this
is when they can use the courtsystem to really further harm
(13:02):
the adult victim and use.
The weaponization of childrencontinues to happen.
As a matter of fact, in the UKthey have now made love bombing,
which our stories all you know.
When you read through thestories, you saw that there is a
process of love bombing.
Love bombing is now consideredpart of the law explaining
coercive control, because theseabusers don't just come in and
(13:24):
say I'm an abuser, I'm going toabuse you.
They come in with this.
They're chameleons, right?
They have this Dr Jekyll, mrHydeside and the victim.
Initially nobody goes into thissaying he was a bad man.
People go into this thinkinghe's a great man, what he does
as part of his pathology ismirrors her wonderful qualities.
(13:46):
And so you know, as I said,this can happen to men.
But in general, who in societyhas more power and control?
Men do Men do.
This is, you know, like we setlittle boys up honestly in
society to have an understandingthat they're supposed to be
strong and have control and havepower over, and that's how they
(14:09):
show their manhood.
We have to start really youngeducating people about this and
about the harms that are createdwhen there's inequality in
relationships.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Yeah, those messages are absolutely everywhere for
young men and for little boys,even absolutely everywhere for
young men and for little boys.
Even so, as parents, we have,you know, the work of educating
boys differently and creating,you know, trying to create a
future for them that's builtwith a healthy foundation for
healthy relationships.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Yes, Two points.
Going back to your questionabout do the courts see it, Do
the judges see it, I think wehave to be honest here that
there are a lot of people makinga lot of money in these
situations.
They appoint parent coordinator, custody evaluator, guardian ad
litem all of these people,attorneys they're all making
(15:01):
money.
So you have to ask what's theirincentive for ending it quickly
, and we believe the judges areaware of this too.
And then also, I want to bringup something that Suzanne Zachor
said.
She's a Canadian attorney andresearcher and I interviewed her
for an article I did in MsMagazine about how women are
depicted as hysterical and outfor revenge in family court.
(15:25):
It's a misogynistic trope wesee all the time.
And she said and I thought thiswas really insightful that it's
easier for judges to believethat women are crazy and
unhinged than to believe thatthis many men are actually
abusers.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
So I think that plays into it too, and I think it
kind of alludes to those stats Imentioned just a few minutes
ago.
Right, it's this idea that theworld doesn't want to recognize
that there is this much harmbeing inflicted on women all of
the time, like the world ingeneral, is just.
I mean, how is it that this isnot considered an epidemic?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
How is it that we are not talking about it and having
conversations and protectingwomen and children when we know,
right, I think you know, inorder to admit what's going on
here means the whole thing hasto be blown up and start over.
And it also means that forcenturies the courts were wrong
(16:27):
or the courts did not do rightby women and children.
And you know, amy, to yourpoint of, it's easier to believe
this many women are crazy quoteunquote than this many men
abused.
But it's this, it's really thissame number of people.
It's just that I don'tunderstand, like how the courts
(16:49):
could think, yes, this manywomen could be completely crazy,
but there's no way that thismany men abuse these women.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
It's so upside down and that's misogyny, isn't it?
I mean that's, that's what ourworld, the way that we have
personified women in general insociety, which is why it's so
heartbreaking when you have amom who has lost custody to an
abuser or has lost partial timeto an abuser, and she is, of
(17:18):
course, emotionally wrought andso overwhelmed and distressed
and we call out that as apsychological illness instead of
saying this is a normal traumareaction.
It's a normal trauma reactionand it's not hard to discern the
difference between an abuserand the victim.
(17:41):
It's not, but people are notwilling to really unpack that.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Yeah, for sure.
Now, in your opening remarks ofthe book, each of you commented
on your personal connection tothis work.
Can you share why this projectis important to you and what
outcomes you hope for?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Well, I always describe myself as a babe in the
woods when I entered familycourt.
I have been married anddivorced twice, so I say I've
been to this rodeo twice, I'veseen a lot and I was blown away.
I just remember thinking thisis happening in America, it's.
I liken it to the cognitivedissonance you have in the
(18:19):
abusive relationship, where it'shard to accept that the person
you thought had your back andwas the love of your life is
actually out to harm and destroyyou and was the love of your
life is actually out to harm anddestroy you, and I think that's
why this trauma is a hugesecondary trauma for women the
institutional betrayal right.
And so I experienced that whereI had professionals bragging
(18:41):
about how much money they madepeople not caring about domestic
abuse and I realized this is apattern.
This isn't just me, and I thinkthat for many, including people
like Angelina Jolie, after yousee what happens in family court
, you can't look away.
You can't walk away and dosomething else.
You've got to reach back andhelp the women who are still
(19:05):
there.
So I really believe thateveryone who's healing it's
always a process from abuse hastheir own journey, and for me it
was getting back to journalism,I used to be a full-time
investigative reporter and so Ithought I can use these skills
to write about this, which I'vedone, and obviously the book is
an extension of that, and thathas helped me.
(19:27):
What I hope is to educate andempower women.
That's what I do in my coachingpractice.
I became a coach to help womenbecause I believe that they were
just walking into this systemblindly.
So many of us.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
And I think it's purposeful.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
We've been kept in the dark.
We've been kept in thisvulnerable, powerless situation
in the dark.
We've been kept in thisvulnerable, powerless situation
and it's time for women to beeducated and at least know what
they're stepping into and knowthe playbook they could be up
against.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
So, maria, I obviously am a victim and a
survivor and a protective parentand had no.
I met my ex he was thecharlatan when I was 16 years
old and fell in love and waswith him my whole life, frankly,
until 2019.
So I didn't realize that he wasalso indoctrinating my children
(20:19):
into a false narrative about meand that I found out about nine
years later.
So that's why I created theProtective Parenting Program and
I'm trying to educateclinicians and attorneys and
coaches on what really happenswith coercive control, because
the trauma to our children is sopreventable, is so preventable.
(20:39):
And had my ex not been soabusive or finally abusive
during post-separation via emailexchanges that I was getting,
abusive during post-separationvia email exchanges that I was
getting or I wasn't exchangingwith him, but via the abuse that
I was getting in emails, andhad he not done such a terrific
job of trying to make mychildren think there was
(21:01):
something wrong with me, I mightnot have left.
I might have gone back again.
I tried leaving like five times, so you know if it could happen
to me.
I've been doing this work sincethe age of 19.
I've worked in child welfare.
I'm a therapist.
I have been educating on thepower and control wheel in my
social workforces for the last20 years and didn't know it was
(21:23):
happening to me.
That's how insidious it is,that's how nuanced it is.
I always say and I want yourlisteners to hear this and I
probably have said this beforewith you but the idea that we
think that abuse has to beextreme, we think he has to lock
us in a room or turn off theelectricity, which my ex did, or
(21:43):
maybe he has to physicallyassault you that's not always
the case.
It can be so nuanced and reallyhighlighting the fact that the
psychological tactics theseabusers use are their gateway to
using further abuses when thosedon't work anymore.
It's a gateway gaslighting,manipulation, intimidation,
(22:06):
isolation, and then, as we talkabout and Amy and I talk about
this in the book, then the veilbegins to start to like, get a
little clarity, thedisassociation doesn't happen as
much and now that person isgoing to use on, move on to the
other tactics, especially ifyou're going to end up in family
court.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Yeah, thank you for really clarifying all of that,
because I think it's importantfor everyone listening whether
they are living with abuse,survived abuse, a family court,
judge, law enforcement, legalcommunity to understand that
these are steps right, that overtime build the wall and when it
(22:46):
comes crashing down, it reallycomes crashing down.
For reference for peoplelistening.
Dr Cotiola and I have talkedmany times on this podcast and
on our sister show, the podcaston Crimes Against Women.
I can't remember how many timesit's been.
It may have been two, it mayhave been seven, I'm not really
sure but if you go back in thelibrary for both of our podcasts
(23:08):
you'll be able to find thoseepisodes.
I do remember a two-parter oncoercive control, which we
condensed it down to two parts.
It was a very complex topic tocover, but many of the things
that have been mentioned here byboth Dr C and Amy are those are
terms and concepts that you canfind more information on in
(23:33):
those previous episodes.
There's also some episodes withLundy Bancroft that dive into
some of those topics as well.
To kind of give you a betteridea of the terminology that
we're talking about If you'renot familiar with it, the
bookamed also has a condensedglossary of terms that include
some of these things and lots ofother bullet point lists and
(23:58):
stuff of information that areeasy to kind of breeze through
and kind of get the lay of theland on the topic.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
May I, maria, just for your listeners here, just do
really brief, just to make surethat they kind of so.
I think it's really importantthat everyone understands that
coercive control is about oneperson or group of people
exerting power and control overanother person or group of
people.
It is the underpinning of allabuse.
When we think of all abuse, andthis is how I see it- I wish the
(24:29):
vernacular can really broadenwhen we think of any way that
someone is abused, whether it'sracism, right, whether it's in
an intimate relationship,whether it's your employer.
If someone is doing this andit's a pattern of behavior that
is occurring, then it is someonewho wants to exert power and
control over you, and that iscoercive control, and so it
(24:51):
doesn't have to be extremelyviolent.
It can be, and when it is, it'sthe most deadly.
It's about someone diminishingyou, diminishing your agency and
your autonomy.
And I'll stop it there, andthen they can go back and look
at the other episodes.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Now.
That's extremely helpful.
I appreciate the context.
Now in the book, the storiesshared represent many facets of
domestic violence andexperiences of survivors in
family court.
Give us an idea of thosestories that you shared in the
work.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
So, as we said, these women represent all walks of
life.
I'm going to read reallybriefly from one called the
Abuser's Playbook.
It's Michelle's story.
She's a very successfulprofessional woman just to give
you a little background wholives on the East Coast, and she
says my name is Michelle and Iwant a divorce.
(25:46):
These are the very words thatinitiated my living hell.
Three years ago I was free ofdebt, naive and trusting.
Now, with over 300,000 in legalfees and deep in personal debt,
I'm acutely aware of what canhappen in divorce.
Let me make something clear youdon't have free will in these
coercively controlling,narcissistic relationships.
(26:07):
You are being controlled anddominated by someone in all
aspects of your life, and it'sby someone who's telling you
they love you.
It's coercive control.
The confusion they create ispowerful.
Now she's someone who is stillembroiled in a divorce case with
her abuser, but she has notlost custody of her kids.
(26:27):
I just want to read a reallyquick snippet from another story
called Spiritual Abuse.
This is Lucy and she's a muchyounger mom, I would say.
She has no contact with one ofher children and she said
however, time keeps passing andmy abuser continues to delay,
manipulate and weaponize thekids to maintain separation from
(26:49):
me.
I have spent $600,000 in legalfees thanks to my parents
generously offering me theirentire retirement to fight for
my kids, but so much time haspassed that I wonder if there
will be any kids at the end ofthis.
They are quickly approachingmanhood and there is no end in
sight for the divorce.
And there is no end in sight forthe divorce.
Trial dates are booking over ayear out and custody
(27:10):
determinations teeter on thesuccess or failure of ongoing
reunification efforts.
I tell my story with the hopethat it can demonstrate the
devastation that occurs infamilies when the institutions
that were set up to protect thevulnerable are broken.
My situation exemplifies theneed for change within the
family court system and servesas a cautionary tale.
(27:32):
Of course, all of these arecautionary tales, but I think
each woman has her own voice,obviously, and brings different
nuances and lessons for thereader.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
So just right there we're at a million dollars in
legal fees and just anoutrageous custody battle and
just however many lives tornapart just from this one, these
two situations.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Well, I think that, maria, people often think well,
this doesn't affect me.
You know, they might think ofthese type of divorces as Jerry
Springer cases and maybe there'snobody they know Chances are
there's someone they know, afriend, family member, somewhere
in their community.
But in a blink of an eye itcould be them, it could be their
daughter, their sister, theirfriend.
(28:15):
I mean, this isn't justdevastating the women and
children involved.
It's the parents.
We hear this all the time.
People emptied their savingsaccount.
They've sold homes.
The parents have lost theirretirements, I mean, and the
taxpayers you know, taxpayersare paying for these long drawn
out wars in family court thatdon't need to happen.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
It's a multiple billion dollar industry, double
digit billion dollar industry.
There's a lot of money to bemade on this and family court
judges, which I'm not sureeveryone is aware, actually do
not have to take courses indomestic abuse.
And here's the other problem, Ithink, is that oftentimes
they're taking courses in we'llcall it domestic violence,
(28:57):
because that's the word most ofthese courses are called, and
that is actually looking atexperiences through the violent
incident model, and what theyalso do is they talk about how
children need two parentsincident model and what they
also do is they talk about howchildren need two parents.
A lot of these courses are,first of all, about physical
violence and, second of all, whychildren need two parents.
That's not true.
Children need one healthy,protective parent and they need
(29:21):
to be safe from an abusiveparent.
And the courts are not beingtrained on that.
And even if they were, thequestion becomes would they
actually be doing this work andprotecting children?
It's really mind-blowing to methat if a stranger did to the
child what the parent did, whichmeans if there was a stranger
in the street who beat up thechild's mother or who maybe cut
(29:44):
off her electricity or, you know, locked her car so she couldn't
get into it.
That stranger would be arrestedand they would.
That child would never beforced into repair therapy or
any kind of circumstances withthat abusive parent.
Yet we're doing it every daywith children Exactly and we're
wondering so from a trauma lens.
As a therapist, I am justfloored over and over again with
(30:05):
the amount of therapists whothink this is a good idea.
I mean, I can't even.
I have no words, honestly.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
So yeah, we say this a lot on the show, using the
very same example.
If a stranger beat up a woman,he would be arrested and charges
would be filed.
It's a criminal act, butbecause it happens within the
domicile, it's a family matter.
It's a private matter, but isit Because it seems just as
(30:33):
criminal to me?
And all of the examples thatyou gave?
What other stories are in thebook, dr Singh?
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Yeah, so I will share with you Congrats.
You lost custody.
This is Charlotte's story.
She's in the United States andso, since I had supposedly done
so many egregious things forexample, attempted to protect my
children from their abusivefather and his abusive family
members I needed to be punished.
Her children were disclosingsexual abuse.
(31:00):
The judge remanded me to spendsix days in jail, at the height
of the COVID pandemic, forwithholding my children from
their father.
Finally, the worst of this wasthat I was not allowed to have
any contact with my children forfive weeks.
I was devastated.
There was no way to know if mychildren were okay and, of
course, there was no way toprevent the abuse from occurring
(31:21):
.
My attorney filed an appeal but, as expected, the appeals court
completely agreed with thetrial court's findings.
The case was all over theinternet and the oral arguments
were published on YouTube.
Anyone can look them up.
I even received a bright yellowcongratulations you did it
award from a large law practicefour hours away for losing
(31:43):
custody and decision-making ofmy children.
They posted it on their website.
My children and I wereshattered.
We had long ago lost faith thatanyone would protect them, but
we could not have predicted thismockery of our situation, but
my brave six-year-old would notbe silenced.
And that six-year-old went onto tell someone at his school
(32:04):
that they were being sexuallyabused and in this her case cost
more than $400,000 inattorney's fees, psychological
evaluations and therapy.
Charlotte tells us there willmore than likely be thousands
more needed for the ongoingtherapy my children will need to
heal.
The worst part is none of thisneeded to happen.
(32:24):
The evidence was always there,but the family court was more
intent on supporting an abusivefather than protecting my
children.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
Yeah, that is an outrageous, outrageous case, and
I mean I really have no wordsfor it.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
But I should say this because I think this is so
important what we know fromresearch is that when a mother
says her children of beings arebeing sexually abused, she's
disbelieved at a rate of 85%.
Now, if I'm a predator and myoriginal background started with
domestic abuse and sexual abuseof children, if I'm a predator,
(33:03):
then what better way to gainaccess to children than to maybe
marry someone and have children?
And I don't mean to be.
I mean, I know this is a hardsubject for people, but not all
coercive controllers arepedophiles.
But, frankly, all pedophilesare using the same strategies
the grooming process of coercionand control to gain access not
(33:23):
only to the adult victim but toher children, and so it's not
surprising to me.
I believe that many of thesecases are predators who have
intentionally said I'm going tostart a family or I'm going to
meet a woman who has childrenand prey upon them, and I saw
this over and over again in mychild welfare work.
This is the pipeline to childpredators gaining access to
(33:45):
children.
It's the pipeline.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
And this problem, all of these problems are so deep
and so complex and so, as yousay, insidious and tied into the
very culture that isperpetrated by family courts and
patriarchy.
Let's dive into the familycourt system just a bit more.
To begin, we need to understandhow this court system was
developed and how it is shapedby patriarchal history, laws and
(34:12):
leaders.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
Well, I can speak to our system in the United States,
which is similar in the othercountries we cover in the book.
In 1910, actually, probationofficers are the ones who pushed
for the creation of a specialdomestic relations court system,
and these were designed ascourts of equity instead of
really courts of law.
(34:33):
So they started in thebeginning to prosecute
non-support cases and then grewto handle, you know, child
neglect, guardianship, paternity, family offenses, and then were
eventually granted jurisdictionover abandonment custody
adoption, post-divorce issues.
The thing is, they became morecivil in nature and this started
(34:56):
in 1933 when New Yorkestablished an independent
family court called the DomesticRelations Court.
But they're a combination ofcriminal and civil components.
So the important thing here, Ithink, is that in family court,
we've removed some of theconstitutional protections
offered by criminal procedures.
(35:17):
For instance, a woman doesn'tget a free attorney, or a man
for that matter.
But you know, if you're incriminal court, you're entitled
to an attorney, Right.
So we're talking about thesecourt costs and we have heard of
many cases in the millions, andthese are not necessarily
millionaires.
They are people who have soldall of their assets and
(35:39):
liquidated and borrowed to savechildren, basically.
So you know, the otherimportant thing is that most of
these family court cases arepresided over by a judge without
a jury.
So you know it happens behindclosed doors.
These are very secretive.
This is a big topic right now.
(36:01):
No fault divorce, Right.
Right In 1969, Governor RonaldReagan of California started the
no-fault divorce trend.
He thought it was a good idea.
Every state has a variation ofit.
Now, Of course, Project 2025wants to get rid of it something
I've written about and spokenout about, which would trap
(36:22):
domestic abuse victims inunhealthy marriages, but that's
another story.
But I think things got a littlebit better for women in that
case where, with no-faultdivorce, you don't have to prove
you have a right to getdivorced right?
Because before you had to, youknow it's a laborious process to
actually prove abandonment,adultery and all of these things
(36:44):
.
So that was one good step, butoverall, as we've discussed,
maria, this is a patriarchalsystem.
Lawyers are allowed tocontribute to a judge's
political campaign.
Judges may go work for a lawfirm after they leave the bench.
There are really cozyrelationships.
At the end of the day, this wasa system created by men to help
(37:08):
men, and that's what we'redealing with and as Dr C said,
you know it goes by the violentincident model for domestic
abuse.
So that's another roadblock thatwomen have.
I mean we see cases all thetime I see them where women
cannot get a restraining order,still to this day.
Speaker 1 (37:27):
For things that were not related to physical violence
.
Right, is what you're talkingabout.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
And physical violence .
I still see cases.
Speaker 2 (37:35):
Yeah, I think that's what you were saying, amy, right
is that?
In other words, if you haven'tsuffered physical violence, it's
very you don't get arestraining order, and so that's
part of the problem.
You don't get a restrainingorder, and so that's part of the
problem.
Now, that's the good news aboutcoercive control legislation
that is trying to change that,where coercive control is now
codified as a form of domesticabuse in seven states.
So that means that we can lookbeyond the violent incident
(37:58):
model when we're looking atabuse.
The question is is a judge goingto actually look at a
restraining order and say he'ssending me harassing emails, I'm
afraid of him?
And are they going to actuallysay, oh, you deserve a
restraining order?
And you know here's the otherproblem Women are most at risk
the day that they actually get arestraining order, and you know
, you know this, so you know wehave so much research out there
(38:23):
that women are actually atgreater risk, yet we tell them
to get these restraining orders.
I think it's important tomention, too, that you know, as
Amy said, this history of thefamily court system.
I mean judges in general havebeen given judicial immunity as
a result of being in theirposition.
So in 1607 is when this started.
But we basically said is, aslong as they're acting within
(38:45):
the range of their jurisdictions, even if they're acting and
this says it in the law even ifthey are acting maliciously and
found to do something egregious,they do not have to be held to
account.
And so it's rather disconcertingto think about, rather
(39:06):
disconcerting to think about.
And then when we think about theViolence Against Women's Act
that was created in 1994, I meanthat wasn't that long ago and
that's the first time that webegan researching what happens
to women in these intimaterelationships, and we actually
were preventing by 1994.
So prior to 1994, if a womanactually was egregiously harmed
(39:26):
physically, the only way that weactually recognized it, her
abuser could flee to anotherstate and never face arrest.
And now, thankfully, we can gobeyond state lines.
So there's just an unfortunate,we're slow.
As a matter of fact, dr EvanStark, who I worked under his
tutelage for my doctoral work incourse of control, evan Stark
(39:46):
who I worked under his tutelagefor my doctoral work in course
of control, I mean he talksabout this idea that he was part
of that battered women'smovement back in the seventies
and he opened his home.
He and his wife opened theirhome to victims and survivors,
and we are still nowhere nearwhere we need to be in
recognizing this as the epidemicthat it is.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
No, I mean the whole system and understanding of
domestic violence is.
It's different now.
A lot of things need to bedismantled and rebuilt so that
they become equitable foreveryone, and the way that you
describe some of these cases andthe people who are involved in
(40:23):
handling the cases the judge,court appointees, court
appointed.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
Guardian ad litems, forensic evaluators, custody
evaluators, minors counselthere's a lot of different words
that are used for some ofsimilar, some similar things,
similar practices.
Some are lawyers for thechildren, some are doing custody
evaluations.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
So the way that all of this is described, it sounds
like there's more than oneabusive person in this courtroom
.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
Oh, it's a circus.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, it's like a network of different levels of
abuse.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
And there's payoff.
We know that.
We see it over and over againthat there is money to be made.
If you know, I mean think aboutthe story that you know Amy did
such an amazing job and such asad story of Catherine Casanoff
and exposing.
You know what we?
There's just too many, too manypeople connected in a variety
(41:15):
of ways to think otherwise.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Yeah, and you know, the opening line of the
introduction of this book,framed by Dr Ramani Devasala, is
I remember the first time Iheard someone call it the
divorce industrial complex.
And she goes on to talk aboutthe multi-billion dollar
enterprise that is almostincentivized to drag out marital
(41:40):
dissolution and child custodydecisions and fill the pockets
of participants, includingevaluators, consultants, experts
, judges and attorneys.
And it goes on from there, butshe calls it out right from the
very beginning.
So you know it just begs thequestion is this really about
money?
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Some would argue yes, I mean, it's a cottage industry
.
And again, what willincentivize people in the system
who are benefiting from this tochange?
I believe two things.
I think there's increasedscrutiny and people like Tina
Swithin, who wrote our epilogue,who regularly on her social
(42:18):
media will call out a judge oran evaluator who they've gotten
complaints about.
I think the public shame of whatis going on is one thing, and I
believe that we need agrassroots movement for change,
like every other social justicemovement in our country, and
that's what we hope to ignitewith Framed.
(42:41):
We hope that not just those ofus who work in this field or
have been directly affected, butthose who care about women's
rights and these are male alliesto join us in this, because
that's really what it's going totake.
I think there's been anincrease in some news coverage
of this topic, though we don'thave time for me to list all the
(43:02):
places I've pitched thesestories that have not run them.
We don't have time for me tolist all the places I've pitched
these stories that have not runthem.
I'm incredibly grateful to theones that have, and especially
Ms Magazine, which has allowedme to shine a light on this.
Speaker 2 (43:16):
So I think that's what it's going to take.
I just think that it'sinteresting, because even people
that I love dearly, that areclose friends and family members
, you know, we show them thebook and I think Amy would agree
is that you know, people arelike, oh well, yeah, but that
doesn't really, that's, thatdoesn't impact me, and what we
really want people to know isthat this impacts everyone.
(43:39):
And if I could go back to mychild welfare days, where there
were, I mean, I, of course, workwith protective mothers now,
but even back in the 90s, therewere experiences over and over
again where the most importantthing, no matter what the abuse
was, was to ensure that wecreated visitation between an
(44:01):
abusive parent and a protectiveparent.
And oftentimes and Dr Starkactually exposes this oftentimes
mothers are blamed in thesesituations for not protecting
their children.
How do you protect your childwhen you're a victim?
Also, how do you do that?
So we need to stop blamingwomen for not coming forward.
We need to support them inleaving and we need everyone to
(44:23):
know that again, we all knowsomeone.
And this is like this is suchan easy fix.
It just feels like to me it'snot rocket science.
It's like how hard is it torealize that we have a problem
in our family court system?
It's not working.
These people are not trained.
Train people who understand thetactics of abusers.
(44:44):
And then we need to pivot toperpetrators.
Pivot to the perpetrator andbegin to call out their
behaviors and hold themaccountable.
And children do not needtwo-parent family homes.
Speaker 1 (44:55):
They don't.
Those are great suggestions.
So what are the strategies,what are the key strategies to
getting, as you say, agrassroots movement off the
ground, to getting changeenacted in these courts and
getting to the other side ofthis type of abuse?
Speaker 2 (45:19):
So, we do that in our call to action you know, listen
, it is about finding yourlegislator, parliament members,
whoever is active in victims'rights, and ask them to begin to
elevate the conversation aboutcourse of control as the
underpinning of all abuse and topivot to the perpetrator, to
begin to hold perpetratorsaccountable.
We're seeing this in the UK.
They've criminalized course ofcontrol in the UK.
(45:40):
So this is the beginning of us,this movement.
We need it to be a groundswell,as Amy refers to.
We need it to be a groundswell,as Amy refers to.
We need it to be a groundswell.
We need people to research andfind advocacy groups that really
will support this and thenbecome active in those advocacy
groups and find protectivemothers organizations to support
them and then maybe organizeaccountability advocates.
(46:02):
Like we can have a lot ofadvocates, but if we're not all
on the same page, I think theproblem, maria and I'm sure you
see this is that like we're allworking in silos, right, and
really if we could all worktogether for the common good,
how much more power would wehave?
I mean, you know, I tell peoplea story or about a piece of
legislation someplace andthey're like, really that that
(46:24):
happened, that happened.
We're not really having theconversations out in front,
front and center, the way thatwe need to have them front and
center.
We also talk about in our bookhow to best support victims and
like the philosophicalengagement like believe victims,
just let's believe victims whenthey come forward, understand
(46:45):
that there is someone who tendsto exert power and control
through the systems, be aware ofthe terminology that is used,
like understanding what DARVO isLike when I, you know, I have a
victim who comes forward to me,tells me her story, and then
she'll say to me you know, butdo you believe me?
And I'm like, of course, youknow, like just the idea that
we're validating people'sexperiences, that we're not
(47:07):
judging people for staying, thatwe're allowing them the space
and the freedom to stay ifthat's best for them.
But there's no shame in that.
And to lift the veil of shamehonestly in all of this.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
So we specifically go through how to actually
actively engage.
If that's something thatsomeone wants to do, excellent.
And I'm glad you mentionedDARVO, because that's actually a
subject we're going to cover inthe coming weeks.
I've already recorded theepisode.
I can't wait to bring it toeveryone, but that element is
something is a new term for alot of people, but I think it's
a really important one to know.
Amy.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
I would back up everything Dr C said and I think
if you can spread the wordabout framed, that will help
this movement.
We want this book to go intothe mainstream and we are very
grateful that it became abestseller on Amazon within a
few days in the divorce andfamily law category.
(48:06):
We are appreciative to anyonewho leaves a Goodreads review
for us, which you can do even ifyou're pre-ordering the book.
I don't think we've said yetthe book comes out on October
1st, but you can pre-order itnow.
We are having abusers playbookworkshops for anyone who
(48:26):
pre-orders the book, which alsoeducates women and starts this
conversation happening.
We really want to educate thosewho are out there dating right
now who are making the choice onthe partner they want to marry.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
It's a business contract.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
So our target market isn't just our age, know our age
group.
It is, you know, women in their20s and up to you.
Know the sky's the limit.
And, as I said, also men.
You know men have daughters,mothers, sisters.
I have some male clients.
I have men who update me oncases they know of of loved ones
that they can't believe, andsome of these are attorneys who
(49:02):
worked in other fields and can'tbelieve.
And some of these are attorneyswho worked in other fields and
can't believe what's happeningin family law.
So I think it's going to takeall of us together talking about
this and we hope that peoplewill share the book.
Speaker 1 (49:17):
Speaking of the book, where can people find it?
When it is released, I assumeit's going to be on every
platform all around the world,right?
Speaker 2 (49:24):
Actually available right now it is available For
pre-order.
Speaker 1 (49:26):
Okay, yes.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
It's on Amazon, barnes and Noble bookshelforg.
I mean it's in a variety ofplaces and we're super excited
to give people options on whereto buy it from and grateful for
their support.
We do think this should be oneveryone's coffee table.
If you have a, as Amy said,it's kind of a red flag warning
(49:47):
If you have a young daughter orson and you want them to know
what the experiences are ofwomen, you know, trying to
create equality discussions inyour home.
I mean, they're heartbreakingstories.
This is a.
This is a hard book to read, asyou know, maria, but it's a
must read and so if we can beginsharing these stories with
young people so they're aware ofthe red flags before they get
(50:08):
in relationships, right.
Speaker 3 (50:10):
And anyone can go to our website.
It's narkfreepresscom.
You can get on our email list.
We also have a framed booklaunch group on Facebook, so if
you would like to join us there,we have Zoom calls for our team
.
We have people helping tospread the word.
You can be as little or as muchas involved as you want to be,
(50:31):
but that is a great community.
You can find us on Facebookgroups, so we hope to see you
there.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Perfect.
Thank you both so much fortalking with me today.
Despite the onerous message ofFramed, know that there are
allies in the community forwomen ensnared by similar
circumstances.
Genesis, the podcast, is filledwith resources in past episodes
, including stories of survivorswho have experienced similar
challenges and found a waythrough.
There are also numerousdomestic violence agencies
(50:59):
across the United States thatcan help.
You are not alone.
Genesis Women's Shelter andSupport exists to give women in
abusive situations a way out.
We are committed.
You are not alone and creatinga societal shift on how people
think about domestic violence.
You can learn more atGenesisShelterorg and when you
(51:29):
follow us on social media onFacebook and Instagram at
Genesis Women's Shelter and on Xat Genesis Shelter.
The Genesis Helpline isavailable 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, by call or text at214-946-HELP, 214-946-help,
214-946-4357.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!