September 30, 2024 • 52 mins
Can the family court system really be trusted to protect victims of abuse? Join us for a powerful and eye-opening episode as we welcome Dr. Christine Cocchiola and Amy Polacko, authors of the groundbreaking book "Framed: Women in the Family Court Underworld." Together, we tackle the systemic issues that plague family courts, often framing women as perpetrators rather than victims. Through their personal and professional experiences, Dr. Cocchiola and Amy Polacko reveal how patriarchal social conditioning and ingrained misogyny perpetuate these injustices, emphasizing the urgent need for greater awareness and education among legal and mental health professionals.
We share harrowing stories from "Framed," featuring 22 women from across the US, UK, Canada, and Australia who have faced abuse and manipulation within the family court system. This episode highlights the shocking tactics used by abusive partners and the profound emotional, physical, and financial toll on the victims. As we explore these heart-wrenching narratives, the urgent need for systemic change becomes glaringly apparent. We dive deep into the concept of coercive control, illustrating how it serves as a gateway to more overt forms of abuse and how it is often overlooked by the courts.
In our final segment, we focus on the crucial reforms needed to protect victims of abuse within the family court system. We discuss the inspiring efforts of advocates like Tina Swithin and the significance of grassroots movements in driving systemic change. The conversation underscores the importance of legislative action, collaboration among advocacy groups, and the necessity of believing and supporting victims. By spreading awareness through resources like "Framed," we hope to encourage societal involvement and push for changes that prioritize the safety and well-being of children and protective parents. Listen in as we advocate for better support and understanding within legal and social frameworks.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The subject matter of this podcast will address
difficult topics multiple formsof violence, and identity-based
discrimination and harassment.
We acknowledge that thiscontent may be difficult and
have listed specific contentwarnings in each episode
description to help create apositive, safe experience for
all listeners.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
In this country, 31 million crimes 31 million crimes
are reported every year.
That is one every second.
Out of that, every 24 minutesthere is a murder.
Every five minutes there is arape.
Every two to five minutes thereis a sexual assault.
Every nine seconds in thiscountry, a woman is assaulted by
someone who told her that heloved her, by someone who told
(00:43):
her it was her fault, by someonewho tries to tell the rest of
us it's none of our business andI am proud to stand here today
with each of you to call thatperpetrator a liar.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Welcome to the podcast on crimes against women.
I'm Maria McMullin.
The following episode wasoriginally released on our
sister show, genesis, thePodcast, where my guests Dr
Christine Cochiola and AmyPalacco discuss their new book
Framed Women in the Family CourtUnderworld to understand how
the influence of patriarchalsocial conditioning and the
(01:14):
misogyny it legitimates hasshaped the family court system
and how we can change that.
Christine Marie Cochiola hasbeen a social justice advocate
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
(01:37):
coercive control as thefoundation of domestic abuse,
writing policy briefs supportingthese efforts and providing
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
(01:58):
that coercive control has onboth adult and child victims.
A college professor teachingsocial work for over 20 years,
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
(02:19):
greater awareness for attorneys,mental health clinicians,
divorce coaches and other alliesto understand the often
insidious, nuanced nature ofcoercive control.
Amy Polacco is an award-winningjournalist, investigative
reporter and divorce coach whosurvived a narcissist's
nightmare.
After her own experience, sheformed Freedom Warrior Coaching
(02:40):
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
reporting team covering the TW8Flight 800 crash for Newsday.
She has coached hundreds ofwomen going through divorce,
runs a support group and writesfor national news outlets about
(03:01):
coercive control, domestic abuse, divorce, online dating and
singlehood.
Her work has been featured inthe Huffington Post, ms Magazine
, 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
(03:23):
divorcing women about theprocess, warnings about family
court, how to divorce anarcissist and tips for avoiding
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
(03:48):
title.
What does that look like withinthe context of abuse in family
court, and who is being framedand by whom and how?
Speaker 3 (03:56):
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
(04:19):
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 can be any kind of coercionand control and when it happens
in the parameters of physicalviolence, it's when it's the
(04:39):
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
(04:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
Sure, 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
(05:42):
millions of people around theworld who do not, and so it's
really important for us to getthis in their hands too.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
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
(06:15):
Framed yet, tell us what it isabout.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
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.
(06:40):
And I think one of the mostinteresting parts is we said to
our contributors these bravewomen who we are eternally
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?
(07:00):
And so we really believe thatevery woman out there will be
able to identify and empathizewith these women, and we hope
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
(07:22):
epilogue.
And then we have an incrediblecall to action at the end.
Dr C, do you want to talk aboutthat?
Yeah, sure.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
I mean, I think we hope that people read these
stories and they're so movedthat they actually, if they're
living in the world of and Iwish I lived in this world of
rose colored glasses, wherethere's equity in family court,
where children are entirelyprotected 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,
(07:52):
there's no doubt about it, butthe reality is is that the
systems are based in patriarchyand that this harms, in
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
(08:15):
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
, 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?
(08:35):
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.
This is an epidemic 35% of womenin the world suffer violence in
their lifetime.
That's violence, physicalviolence, sexual violence.
What if all the women who arenot suffering something that we
(08:57):
can see, but they are sufferingoppression of all kinds, and
their children how many childrenare in these family systems
that are 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
(09:22):
are not doing that.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
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?
(09:47):
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
(10:07):
and see if it helps maybe solvesome of the problem?
Speaker 4 (10:11):
I think, maria, that you know I'm holding the book up
here at the bottom.
We say no, the abuser'splaybook, 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.
Their abusers are in differentfields and the reader will
(10:32):
explore that as they read thestories.
But the common denominator iscoercive control, as Dr C talks
about so eloquently, and also asyou move into the divorce or
custody process.
It is a weaponization of thefamily court system that we are
seeing over and over again.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
So I think the signs are there.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
They're filing motion after motion.
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 forcustody which then, can you know
(11:15):
, become permanent when theystart out as 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 as pawns.
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
(11:37):
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 (11:50):
So does that not put up a red flag for a judge when a
man is filing motion aftermotion and just trying to delay
this process?
Or does it not become clear insome way that there's something
going on here that is Is morethan just trying to get custody
of children or divide propertyequally?
Speaker 3 (12:12):
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.
(12:32):
There's research study now outcalling this.
Like these abusers are, havethese qualities in them, where
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
(12:54):
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
(13:15):
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'sreally problematic, and I think
I just want to go back tosomething that Amy alluded to in
this idea that these abusersare charlatans.
They don't show up in courtwith a sign saying I'm an abuser
(13:38):
.
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
(13:59):
the adult victim and use.
The weaponization of childrencontinues to happen as a matter
of fact in the UK they have nowmade love bombing, which our
stories all you know.
When you read through thestories, you saw that there is a
process of love bombing, whichour 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
(14:20):
say I'm an abuser, I'm going toabuse you.
They come in with this, they'rechameleons, right, they have
this Dr Jekyll, mr Hydeside andthe victim.
Initially, nobody goes into thissaying he was a bad man.
People go into this thinkinghe's a great man, he, what he
does as part of his pathology ismirrors, her wonderful
(14:41):
qualities.
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 set little boys up
honestly in society to have anunderstanding that they're
supposed to be strong and havecontrol and have power over, and
(15:05):
that's how they show theirmanhood.
We have to start really youngeducating people about this and
about the harms that are createdwhen there's inequality in
relationships.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Yeah, those messages are 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 tocreate a future for them that's
built with a healthy foundationfor healthy relationships.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
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
(15:58):
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 Zakour
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.
(16:21):
It's a misogynistic trope wesee all the time, and she said
and I thought this was reallyinsightful that it's easier for
judges to believe that women arecrazy and unhinged than to
believe that this many men areactually abusers.
So I think that plays into ittoo.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
And I think it kind of alludes to those stats I
mentioned just a few minutes ago, 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 (17:02):
How is it that we are not talking about it and having
conversations and protectingwomen and children, when we know
having conversations andprotecting women and children
when we know Right, I think youknow, in order to admit what's
going on here means the wholething has to be blown up and
start over.
And it also means that forcenturies the courts were wrong
(17:24):
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 really the same numberof people.
It's just that I don'tunderstand, like, how the courts
(17:45):
could think, yes, this manywomen could be completely crazy,
but there's no way that thismany men abuse these women.
It's so upside down.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
And that's misogyny, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
That's what our world , 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
course, emotionally wrought andso overwhelmed and distressed
(18:21):
and we call out that as apsychological illness, instead
of saying this is a normaltrauma reaction.
Right, it's a normal traumareaction and it's not hard to
discern the difference betweenan abuser and the victim.
It's not, but people are notwilling to really unpack that
yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Now, in your opening remarks of the book, each of you
commented on your personalconnection to this work.
Can you share why this projectis important to you and what
outcomes you hope for?
Speaker 4 (18:53):
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've seen a lot and I was blownaway.
I just remember thinking thisis happening in America, it's.
I liken it to the cognitivedissonance you have in the
(19:15):
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 I think that's why thistrauma is a huge secondary
(19:44):
trauma for women theinstitutional betrayal Right and
so I experienced that where Ihad professionals bra like
Angelina Jolie.
After you see what happens infamily 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
there.
Healing it's always a processfrom abuse has their own journey
(20:09):
, and for me it was getting backto journalism.
I used to be a full-timeinvestigative reporter and so I
thought I can use these skillsto write about this, which I've
done, and obviously the book isan extension of that and that
has helped me.
What I hope is to educate andempower women.
That's what I do in my coachingpractice.
(20:29):
I became a coach to help womenbecause I believe that they were
just walking into this systemblindly.
So many of us and I think it'spurposeful.
We've been kept in the dark,we've been kept in this
vulnerable, powerless situation,and it's time for women to be
educated and at least know whatthey're stepping into and know
(20:51):
the playbook they could be upagainst.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
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
(21:15):
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.
(21:35):
And had my ex not been soabusive, or finally abusive
during post-separation via emailexchanges that I was getting or
I wasn't exchanging with him,but via the abuse that I was
getting in emails, and had henot done such a terrific job of
(21:55):
trying to make my children thinkthere was something wrong with
me, I might not 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
(22:16):
social workforces for the last20 years and didn't know it was
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
(22:40):
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,
(23:03):
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 (23:19):
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
(23:42):
comes crashing down, it reallycomes crashing down.
For reference for peoplelistening.
Dr Cotiola and I have talkedmany times on this podcast.
I can't remember how many timesit's been it may have been two,
it may have been seven, I'm notreally sure but if you go back
in the library for both of ourpodcasts you'll be able to find
(24:03):
those episodes.
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 those are
terms and concepts that you canfind more information on in
(24:26):
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 book
Framed also has a condensedglossary of terms that include
some of these things and lots ofother, you know, bullet point
(24:51):
lists and stuff of informationthat are easy to kind of breeze
through and kind of get the layof the land on the topic.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
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
(25:23):
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
(25:45):
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 (26:01):
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 4 (26:19):
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.
Flee from one called theAbuser'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.
(26:40):
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.
(27:01):
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.
(27:21):
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
(27:43):
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.
Trial.
Dates are booking over a yearout and custody determinations
(28:04):
teeter on the success or failureof 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.
(28:26):
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 (28:36):
So just right there, right, 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 4 (28:47):
Well, I think that, Maria, people often think, well,
this doesn't affect me, youknow, they might think of these
type of divorces as JerrySpringer cases and maybe there's
nobody, they know.
Chances are there's someonethey know, a friend, family
member, somewhere in theircommunity.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
But in a blink of an eye.
It could be them.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
It could be their daughter, their sister, their
friend.
I mean, this isn't justdevastating the women and
children involved, it's theparents.
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, taxpayers are payingfor these long drawn out wars in
(29:28):
family court that don't need tohappen.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
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,
(29:51):
because that's the word most ofthese courses are called, and
that is actually looking atexperiences through the violent
incident model.
And what they also do is theytalk about how children 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
(30:15):
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 stranger, whatthe parent did which means if
there was a stranger in thestreet who beat up the child's
(30:36):
mother or who maybe cut off herelectricity or, you know, locked
her car so she couldn't getinto it that stranger would be
arrested and 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 and we're
wondering so from a trauma lens.
As a therapist, I am justfloored over and over again with
(30:59):
the amount of therapists whothink this is a good idea.
I mean, I can't even.
I have no words, honestly.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
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 is it?
Yeah, because it seems just ascriminal to me.
(31:28):
And all of the examples thatyou gave, what other stories are
in the book, dr C?
Speaker 3 (31:33):
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.
(31:56):
Her children were disclosingsexual abuse.
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
.
My attorney filed an appeal but, as expected, the appeals court
(32:19):
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
custody and decision making ofmy children.
(32:39):
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
that they were being sexuallyabused and in this, her case
(33:02):
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.
The evidence was always there,but the family court was more
intent on supporting an abusivefather than protecting my
(33:25):
children.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah, that is an outrageous, outrageous case.
Children yeah, that is anoutrageous, outrageous case, and
I mean, I really have no wordsfor it.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
But I should say this because I think this is so
important what we know fromresearch is that when a mother
says her children are beingsexually abused, she's
disbelieved at a rate of 85%.
Now, if I'm a predator predatorand my original background
started with domestic abuse andsexual abuse of children if I'm
a predator, then what better wayto gain access to children than
(34:00):
to maybe marry someone and havechildren?
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, for people, butnot all course of controllers
are pedophiles, but, frankly,all pedophiles are using the
same strategies, the groomingprocess of coercion and control,
to gain access not only to theadult victim but to her children
.
And so it's not surprising tome.
(34:22):
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
children.
It's the pipeline.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
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
(35:05):
leaders.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
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.
(35:27):
So they started in thebeginning to prosecute
non-support cases and then grewto handle child neglect,
guardianship, paternity, familyoffenses and then were
eventually granted jurisdictionover abandonment, custody,
adoption, post-divorce issues.
The thing is they became morecivil in nature, and this
(35:49):
started 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.
(36:10):
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
(36:33):
liquidated and borrowed to savechildren, basically.
So you know.
The other important thing isthat most of these family court
cases are presided over by ajudge without a jury.
So you know it happens behindclosed doors.
These are very secretive.
This is a big topic right now.
(36:55):
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
(37:15):
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
(37:36):
actually prove abandonment,adultery and all of these things
.
So that was one good step, butoverall, as we've discussed,
Maria, this is a patriarchalsystem.
You know, lawyers are allowedto contribute to a judge's
political campaign.
Judges may go work for a lawfirm after they leave the bench.
There are really cozyrelationships.
(37:57):
At the end of the day, this wasa system created by men to help
men, and that's what we'redealing with.
And, as Dr C said, you know itgoes by the violent incident
model for domestic abuse.
So that's another roadblockthat women have.
I mean we see cases all thetime I see them where women
(38:17):
cannot get a restraining order,still to this day.
Speaker 1 (38:21):
For things that were not related to physical violence
.
Right, is what you're talkingabout.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
And physical violence .
I still see cases?
Speaker 3 (38:29):
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.
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
(38:52):
model when we're looking atabuse.
The question is is a judgegoing to 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 other problem Womenare most at risk the day that
they actually get a restrainingorder.
And you know, you know this, soyou know we have so much
(39:13):
research out there that womenare actually at greater risk.
Yet we tell them to get theserestraining 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.
(39:35):
But we basically said is aslong as they're acting within
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 ratherdisconcerting to think about.
(39:57):
And then, when we think aboutthe Violence Against Women's Act
that was created in 1994, Imean that wasn't that long ago
and that's the first time thatwe began researching what
happens to women in theseintimate relationships, and we
actually were preventing by 1994.
So prior to 1994, if a womanactually was egregiously harmed
(40:20):
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 unfortunatewe're slow.
As a matter of fact, dr EvanStark, who I worked under his
tutelage for my doctoral work,in course of control, I mean, he
(40:40):
talks about this idea that hewas part of that battered
women's movement back in the 70sand 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 and the way that youdescribe some of these cases
and the people who are involvedin handling the cases.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
The judge, court appointees.
Court appointed.
Speaker 3 (41:22):
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 (41:36):
So the way that all of this is described, it sounds
like there's more than oneabusive person in this courtroom
.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
Oh, it's a circus.
Speaker 1 (41:44):
Yeah, it's like a network of different levels of
abuse.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
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 Kasanoff
and exposing.
You know what we there's justtoo many people connected in a
(42:08):
variety of ways to thinkotherwise.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Yeah, and you know the opening line of the
introduction of participants,including evaluators,
consultants, experts, judges andattorneys, and it goes on from
there.
But she calls it out right fromthe very beginning.
So you know it just begs thequestion is this really about
money?
Speaker 4 (42:51):
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
(43:12):
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.
(43:34):
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
(43:56):
places I've pitched thesestories that have not run them.
I'm incredibly grateful to theones that have, and especially
Ms Magazine, which has allowedme to shine a light on this.
So I think that's what it'sgoing to take.
Speaker 3 (44:17):
I just think that and it's interesting because even
people that I love dearly, thatare close friends and family
members, you know, we show themthe book and I think Amy would
agree is that you know peopleare like, oh well, yeah, but
that doesn't really that's, thatdoesn't impact me.
And and what we really wantpeople to know is that this
impacts everyone.
And if I could go back to mychild welfare days where there
(44:39):
were I mean, I, of course, workwith protective mothers.
Now were experiences over andover again where the most
important thing, no matter whatthe abuse was, was to ensure
that we created visitationbetween an abusive parent and a
(44:59):
protective parent.
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
know that again, we all knowsomeone and this is like this is
(45:21):
such an 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 trainedand we need trained people who
understand the tactics ofabusers.
And then we need to pivot toperpetrators.
pivot to the perpetrator andbegin to call out their
(45:44):
behaviors and hold themaccountable, and children do not
need two parent family homes.
Speaker 1 (45:49):
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 3 (46:10):
So we do that in our call to action.
So the action steps foradvocates is 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.
(46:31):
They've criminalized course ofcontrol in the UK.
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.
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
(46:52):
them and then maybe organizeaccountability advocates.
Like we can have a lot ofadvocates but if we're not all
on the same page, I think theproblem 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
(47:15):
legislation someplace andthey're like, really, that that
happened.
They don't.
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
(47:39):
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, like, when I, you know,I have a victim who comes
forward to me, tells me herstory, and then she'll say to me
, you know, but do you believeme?
And I'm like, of course, youknow, like just the idea that
we're validating people'sexperiences, that we're not
(48:01):
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 thatand to lift the veil of shame
honestly in all of this.
So we specifically go throughhow to actually actively engage
if that's something that someonewants to do.
Speaker 1 (48:19):
Excellent, and I'm glad you mentioned DARVO,
because that's actually asubject we're going to cover in
the coming weeks.
I've already recorded theepisode.
I can't wait to bring it toeveryone.
But that element is somethingis a new term for a lot of
people, but I think it's it's areally important one to know,
amy.
Speaker 4 (48:38):
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 we want this book to gointo the mainstream and we are
very grateful that it became abestseller on Amazon within a
few days in the divorce andfamily law category.
(48:59):
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 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
(49:20):
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 choiceon the partner they want to
marry.
It's a business contract, soour target market isn't just,
you know, our age group.
It is, you know, women in their20s and up to you know, the
(49:44):
sky's the limit and, as I said,also men.
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.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
And some of these are attorneys who worked in other
fields and can't believe what'shappening in family law.
Speaker 4 (50:04):
So I think it's going to take all of us together
talking about this and we hopethat people will share the book.
Speaker 1 (50:11):
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 3 (50:18):
Actually available right now.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
It is a pre-order.
Speaker 3 (50:20):
Okay, yes it's on Amazon, barnes, noble,
bookshelforg.
I mean.
It's in a variety of places andwe're super excited to give
people options on where to buyit 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
(50:41):
If you have a young daughter orson and you want them to know
what the experiences are ofwomen and you're trying to
create equality discussions inyour home.
I mean, they're heartbreakingstories.
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
(51:02):
in relationships.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
Right and anyone can go to our website.
It's narcfreepresscom.
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,
(51:25):
but that is a great community.
You can find us on Facebookgroups, so we hope to see you
there.
Speaker 1 (51:31):
Perfect, thank you both.
So much for talking with metoday.
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
(51:53):
across the United States thatcan help.
You are not alone.
Thanks so much for listening.
Until next time, stay safe.
The 2025 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women will take place in
Dallas, texas, may 19th throughthe 22nd at the Sheraton Dallas
.
Learn more and register atconferencecaworg and follow us
(52:15):
on social media at National CCAW.
The subject matter of this podcast will address
difficult topics multiple formsof violence, and identity-based
discrimination and harassment.
We acknowledge that thiscontent may be difficult and
have listed specific contentwarnings in each episode
description to help create apositive, safe experience for
all listeners.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
In this country, 31 million crimes 31 million crimes
are reported every year.
That is one every second.
Out of that, every 24 minutesthere is a murder.
Every five minutes there is arape.
Every two to five minutes thereis a sexual assault.
Every nine seconds in thiscountry, a woman is assaulted by
someone who told her that heloved her, by someone who told
(00:43):
her it was her fault, by someonewho tries to tell the rest of
us it's none of our business andI am proud to stand here today
with each of you to call thatperpetrator a liar.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Welcome to the podcast on crimes against women.
I'm Maria McMullin.
The following episode wasoriginally released on our
sister show, genesis, thePodcast, where my guests Dr
Christine Cochiola and AmyPalacco discuss their new book
Framed Women in the Family CourtUnderworld to understand how
the influence of patriarchalsocial conditioning and the
(01:14):
misogyny it legitimates hasshaped the family court system
and how we can change that.
Christine Marie Cochiola hasbeen a social justice advocate
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
(01:37):
coercive control as thefoundation of domestic abuse,
writing policy briefs supportingthese efforts and providing
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
(01:58):
that coercive control has onboth adult and child victims.
A college professor teachingsocial work for over 20 years,
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
(02:19):
greater awareness for attorneys,mental health clinicians,
divorce coaches and other alliesto understand the often
insidious, nuanced nature ofcoercive control.
Amy Polacco is an award-winningjournalist, investigative
reporter and divorce coach whosurvived a narcissist's
nightmare.
After her own experience, sheformed Freedom Warrior Coaching
(02:40):
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
reporting team covering the TW8Flight 800 crash for Newsday.
She has coached hundreds ofwomen going through divorce,
runs a support group and writesfor national news outlets about
(03:01):
coercive control, domestic abuse, divorce, online dating and
singlehood.
Her work has been featured inthe Huffington Post, ms Magazine
, 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
(03:23):
divorcing women about theprocess, warnings about family
court, how to divorce anarcissist and tips for avoiding
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
(03:48):
title.
What does that look like withinthe context of abuse in family
court, and who is being framedand by whom and how?
Speaker 3 (03:56):
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
(04:19):
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 can be any kind of coercionand control and when it happens
in the parameters of physicalviolence, it's when it's the
(04:39):
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
(04:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
Sure, 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
(05:42):
millions of people around theworld who do not, and so it's
really important for us to getthis in their hands too.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
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
(06:15):
Framed yet, tell us what it isabout.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
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.
(06:40):
And I think one of the mostinteresting parts is we said to
our contributors these bravewomen who we are eternally
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?
(07:00):
And so we really believe thatevery woman out there will be
able to identify and empathizewith these women, and we hope
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
(07:22):
epilogue.
And then we have an incrediblecall to action at the end.
Dr C, do you want to talk aboutthat?
Yeah, sure.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
I mean, I think we hope that people read these
stories and they're so movedthat they actually, if they're
living in the world of and Iwish I lived in this world of
rose colored glasses, wherethere's equity in family court,
where children are entirelyprotected 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,
(07:52):
there's no doubt about it, butthe reality is is that the
systems are based in patriarchyand that this harms, in
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
(08:15):
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
, 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?
(08:35):
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.
This is an epidemic 35% of womenin the world suffer violence in
their lifetime.
That's violence, physicalviolence, sexual violence.
What if all the women who arenot suffering something that we
(08:57):
can see, but they are sufferingoppression of all kinds, and
their children how many childrenare in these family systems
that are 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
(09:22):
are not doing that.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
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?
(09:47):
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
(10:07):
and see if it helps maybe solvesome of the problem?
Speaker 4 (10:11):
I think, maria, that you know I'm holding the book up
here at the bottom.
We say no, the abuser'splaybook, 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.
Their abusers are in differentfields and the reader will
(10:32):
explore that as they read thestories.
But the common denominator iscoercive control, as Dr C talks
about so eloquently, and also asyou move into the divorce or
custody process.
It is a weaponization of thefamily court system that we are
seeing over and over again.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
So I think the signs are there.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
They're filing motion after motion.
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 forcustody which then, can you know
(11:15):
, become permanent when theystart out as 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 as pawns.
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
(11:37):
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 (11:50):
So does that not put up a red flag for a judge when a
man is filing motion aftermotion and just trying to delay
this process?
Or does it not become clear insome way that there's something
going on here that is Is morethan just trying to get custody
of children or divide propertyequally?
Speaker 3 (12:12):
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.
(12:32):
There's research study now outcalling this.
Like these abusers are, havethese qualities in them, where
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
(12:54):
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
(13:15):
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'sreally problematic, and I think
I just want to go back tosomething that Amy alluded to in
this idea that these abusersare charlatans.
They don't show up in courtwith a sign saying I'm an abuser
(13:38):
.
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
(13:59):
the adult victim and use.
The weaponization of childrencontinues to happen as a matter
of fact in the UK they have nowmade love bombing, which our
stories all you know.
When you read through thestories, you saw that there is a
process of love bombing, whichour 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
(14:20):
say I'm an abuser, I'm going toabuse you.
They come in with this, they'rechameleons, right, they have
this Dr Jekyll, mr Hydeside andthe victim.
Initially, nobody goes into thissaying he was a bad man.
People go into this thinkinghe's a great man, he, what he
does as part of his pathology ismirrors, her wonderful
(14:41):
qualities.
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 set little boys up
honestly in society to have anunderstanding that they're
supposed to be strong and havecontrol and have power over, and
(15:05):
that's how they show theirmanhood.
We have to start really youngeducating people about this and
about the harms that are createdwhen there's inequality in
relationships.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Yeah, those messages are 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 tocreate a future for them that's
built with a healthy foundationfor healthy relationships.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
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
(15:58):
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 Zakour
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.
(16:21):
It's a misogynistic trope wesee all the time, and she said
and I thought this was reallyinsightful that it's easier for
judges to believe that women arecrazy and unhinged than to
believe that this many men areactually abusers.
So I think that plays into ittoo.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
And I think it kind of alludes to those stats I
mentioned just a few minutes ago, 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 (17:02):
How is it that we are not talking about it and having
conversations and protectingwomen and children, when we know
having conversations andprotecting women and children
when we know Right, I think youknow, in order to admit what's
going on here means the wholething has to be blown up and
start over.
And it also means that forcenturies the courts were wrong
(17:24):
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 really the same numberof people.
It's just that I don'tunderstand, like, how the courts
(17:45):
could think, yes, this manywomen could be completely crazy,
but there's no way that thismany men abuse these women.
It's so upside down.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
And that's misogyny, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (17:57):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
That's what our world , 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
course, emotionally wrought andso overwhelmed and distressed
(18:21):
and we call out that as apsychological illness, instead
of saying this is a normaltrauma reaction.
Right, it's a normal traumareaction and it's not hard to
discern the difference betweenan abuser and the victim.
It's not, but people are notwilling to really unpack that
yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Now, in your opening remarks of the book, each of you
commented on your personalconnection to this work.
Can you share why this projectis important to you and what
outcomes you hope for?
Speaker 4 (18:53):
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've seen a lot and I was blownaway.
I just remember thinking thisis happening in America, it's.
I liken it to the cognitivedissonance you have in the
(19:15):
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 I think that's why thistrauma is a huge secondary
(19:44):
trauma for women theinstitutional betrayal Right and
so I experienced that where Ihad professionals bra like
Angelina Jolie.
After you see what happens infamily 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
there.
Healing it's always a processfrom abuse has their own journey
(20:09):
, and for me it was getting backto journalism.
I used to be a full-timeinvestigative reporter and so I
thought I can use these skillsto write about this, which I've
done, and obviously the book isan extension of that and that
has helped me.
What I hope is to educate andempower women.
That's what I do in my coachingpractice.
(20:29):
I became a coach to help womenbecause I believe that they were
just walking into this systemblindly.
So many of us and I think it'spurposeful.
We've been kept in the dark,we've been kept in this
vulnerable, powerless situation,and it's time for women to be
educated and at least know whatthey're stepping into and know
(20:51):
the playbook they could be upagainst.
Speaker 3 (20:54):
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
(21:15):
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.
(21:35):
And had my ex not been soabusive, or finally abusive
during post-separation via emailexchanges that I was getting or
I wasn't exchanging with him,but via the abuse that I was
getting in emails, and had henot done such a terrific job of
(21:55):
trying to make my children thinkthere was something wrong with
me, I might not 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
(22:16):
social workforces for the last20 years and didn't know it was
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
(22:40):
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,
(23:03):
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 (23:19):
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
(23:42):
comes crashing down, it reallycomes crashing down.
For reference for peoplelistening.
Dr Cotiola and I have talkedmany times on this podcast.
I can't remember how many timesit's been it may have been two,
it may have been seven, I'm notreally sure but if you go back
in the library for both of ourpodcasts you'll be able to find
(24:03):
those episodes.
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 those are
terms and concepts that you canfind more information on in
(24:26):
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 book
Framed also has a condensedglossary of terms that include
some of these things and lots ofother, you know, bullet point
(24:51):
lists and stuff of informationthat are easy to kind of breeze
through and kind of get the layof the land on the topic.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
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
(25:23):
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
(25:45):
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 (26:01):
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 4 (26:19):
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.
Flee from one called theAbuser'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.
(26:40):
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.
(27:01):
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.
(27:21):
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
(27:43):
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.
Trial.
Dates are booking over a yearout and custody determinations
(28:04):
teeter on the success or failureof 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.
(28:26):
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 (28:36):
So just right there, right, 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 4 (28:47):
Well, I think that, Maria, people often think, well,
this doesn't affect me, youknow, they might think of these
type of divorces as JerrySpringer cases and maybe there's
nobody, they know.
Chances are there's someonethey know, a friend, family
member, somewhere in theircommunity.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
But in a blink of an eye.
It could be them.
Speaker 4 (29:06):
It could be their daughter, their sister, their
friend.
I mean, this isn't justdevastating the women and
children involved, it's theparents.
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, taxpayers are payingfor these long drawn out wars in
(29:28):
family court that don't need tohappen.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
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,
(29:51):
because that's the word most ofthese courses are called, and
that is actually looking atexperiences through the violent
incident model.
And what they also do is theytalk about how children 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
(30:15):
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 stranger, whatthe parent did which means if
there was a stranger in thestreet who beat up the child's
(30:36):
mother or who maybe cut off herelectricity or, you know, locked
her car so she couldn't getinto it that stranger would be
arrested and 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 and we're
wondering so from a trauma lens.
As a therapist, I am justfloored over and over again with
(30:59):
the amount of therapists whothink this is a good idea.
I mean, I can't even.
I have no words, honestly.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
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 is it?
Yeah, because it seems just ascriminal to me.
(31:28):
And all of the examples thatyou gave, what other stories are
in the book, dr C?
Speaker 3 (31:33):
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.
(31:56):
Her children were disclosingsexual abuse.
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
.
My attorney filed an appeal but, as expected, the appeals court
(32:19):
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
custody and decision making ofmy children.
(32:39):
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
that they were being sexuallyabused and in this, her case
(33:02):
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.
The evidence was always there,but the family court was more
intent on supporting an abusivefather than protecting my
(33:25):
children.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah, that is an outrageous, outrageous case.
Children yeah, that is anoutrageous, outrageous case, and
I mean, I really have no wordsfor it.
Speaker 3 (33:38):
But I should say this because I think this is so
important what we know fromresearch is that when a mother
says her children are beingsexually abused, she's
disbelieved at a rate of 85%.
Now, if I'm a predator predatorand my original background
started with domestic abuse andsexual abuse of children if I'm
a predator, then what better wayto gain access to children than
(34:00):
to maybe marry someone and havechildren?
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, for people, butnot all course of controllers
are pedophiles, but, frankly,all pedophiles are using the
same strategies, the groomingprocess of coercion and control,
to gain access not only to theadult victim but to her children
.
And so it's not surprising tome.
(34:22):
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
children.
It's the pipeline.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
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
(35:05):
leaders.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
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.
(35:27):
So they started in thebeginning to prosecute
non-support cases and then grewto handle child neglect,
guardianship, paternity, familyoffenses and then were
eventually granted jurisdictionover abandonment, custody,
adoption, post-divorce issues.
The thing is they became morecivil in nature, and this
(35:49):
started 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.
(36:10):
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
(36:33):
liquidated and borrowed to savechildren, basically.
So you know.
The other important thing isthat most of these family court
cases are presided over by ajudge without a jury.
So you know it happens behindclosed doors.
These are very secretive.
This is a big topic right now.
(36:55):
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
(37:15):
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
(37:36):
actually prove abandonment,adultery and all of these things
.
So that was one good step, butoverall, as we've discussed,
Maria, this is a patriarchalsystem.
You know, lawyers are allowedto contribute to a judge's
political campaign.
Judges may go work for a lawfirm after they leave the bench.
There are really cozyrelationships.
(37:57):
At the end of the day, this wasa system created by men to help
men, and that's what we'redealing with.
And, as Dr C said, you know itgoes by the violent incident
model for domestic abuse.
So that's another roadblockthat women have.
I mean we see cases all thetime I see them where women
(38:17):
cannot get a restraining order,still to this day.
Speaker 1 (38:21):
For things that were not related to physical violence
.
Right, is what you're talkingabout.
Speaker 4 (38:26):
And physical violence .
I still see cases?
Speaker 3 (38:29):
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.
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
(38:52):
model when we're looking atabuse.
The question is is a judgegoing to 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 other problem Womenare most at risk the day that
they actually get a restrainingorder.
And you know, you know this, soyou know we have so much
(39:13):
research out there that womenare actually at greater risk.
Yet we tell them to get theserestraining 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.
(39:35):
But we basically said is aslong as they're acting within
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 ratherdisconcerting to think about.
(39:57):
And then, when we think aboutthe Violence Against Women's Act
that was created in 1994, Imean that wasn't that long ago
and that's the first time thatwe began researching what
happens to women in theseintimate relationships, and we
actually were preventing by 1994.
So prior to 1994, if a womanactually was egregiously harmed
(40:20):
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 unfortunatewe're slow.
As a matter of fact, dr EvanStark, who I worked under his
tutelage for my doctoral work,in course of control, I mean, he
(40:40):
talks about this idea that hewas part of that battered
women's movement back in the 70sand 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 and the way that youdescribe some of these cases
and the people who are involvedin handling the cases.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
The judge, court appointees.
Court appointed.
Speaker 3 (41:22):
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 (41:36):
So the way that all of this is described, it sounds
like there's more than oneabusive person in this courtroom
.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
Oh, it's a circus.
Speaker 1 (41:44):
Yeah, it's like a network of different levels of
abuse.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
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 Kasanoff
and exposing.
You know what we there's justtoo many people connected in a
(42:08):
variety of ways to thinkotherwise.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
Yeah, and you know the opening line of the
introduction of participants,including evaluators,
consultants, experts, judges andattorneys, and it goes on from
there.
But she calls it out right fromthe very beginning.
So you know it just begs thequestion is this really about
money?
Speaker 4 (42:51):
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
(43:12):
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.
(43:34):
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
(43:56):
places I've pitched thesestories that have not run them.
I'm incredibly grateful to theones that have, and especially
Ms Magazine, which has allowedme to shine a light on this.
So I think that's what it'sgoing to take.
Speaker 3 (44:17):
I just think that and it's interesting because even
people that I love dearly, thatare close friends and family
members, you know, we show themthe book and I think Amy would
agree is that you know peopleare like, oh well, yeah, but
that doesn't really that's, thatdoesn't impact me.
And and what we really wantpeople to know is that this
impacts everyone.
And if I could go back to mychild welfare days where there
(44:39):
were I mean, I, of course, workwith protective mothers.
Now were experiences over andover again where the most
important thing, no matter whatthe abuse was, was to ensure
that we created visitationbetween an abusive parent and a
(44:59):
protective parent.
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
know that again, we all knowsomeone and this is like this is
(45:21):
such an 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 trainedand we need trained people who
understand the tactics ofabusers.
And then we need to pivot toperpetrators.
pivot to the perpetrator andbegin to call out their
(45:44):
behaviors and hold themaccountable, and children do not
need two parent family homes.
Speaker 1 (45:49):
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 3 (46:10):
So we do that in our call to action.
So the action steps foradvocates is 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.
(46:31):
They've criminalized course ofcontrol in the UK.
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.
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
(46:52):
them and then maybe organizeaccountability advocates.
Like we can have a lot ofadvocates but if we're not all
on the same page, I think theproblem 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
(47:15):
legislation someplace andthey're like, really, that that
happened.
They don't.
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
(47:39):
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, like, when I, you know,I have a victim who comes
forward to me, tells me herstory, and then she'll say to me
, you know, but do you believeme?
And I'm like, of course, youknow, like just the idea that
we're validating people'sexperiences, that we're not
(48:01):
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 thatand to lift the veil of shame
honestly in all of this.
So we specifically go throughhow to actually actively engage
if that's something that someonewants to do.
Speaker 1 (48:19):
Excellent, and I'm glad you mentioned DARVO,
because that's actually asubject we're going to cover in
the coming weeks.
I've already recorded theepisode.
I can't wait to bring it toeveryone.
But that element is somethingis a new term for a lot of
people, but I think it's it's areally important one to know,
amy.
Speaker 4 (48:38):
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 we want this book to gointo the mainstream and we are
very grateful that it became abestseller on Amazon within a
few days in the divorce andfamily law category.
(48:59):
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 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
(49:20):
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 choiceon the partner they want to
marry.
It's a business contract, soour target market isn't just,
you know, our age group.
It is, you know, women in their20s and up to you know, the
(49:44):
sky's the limit and, as I said,also men.
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.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
And some of these are attorneys who worked in other
fields and can't believe what'shappening in family law.
Speaker 4 (50:04):
So I think it's going to take all of us together
talking about this and we hopethat people will share the book.
Speaker 1 (50:11):
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 3 (50:18):
Actually available right now.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
It is a pre-order.
Speaker 3 (50:20):
Okay, yes it's on Amazon, barnes, noble,
bookshelforg.
I mean.
It's in a variety of places andwe're super excited to give
people options on where to buyit 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
(50:41):
If you have a young daughter orson and you want them to know
what the experiences are ofwomen and you're trying to
create equality discussions inyour home.
I mean, they're heartbreakingstories.
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
(51:02):
in relationships.
Speaker 4 (51:03):
Right and anyone can go to our website.
It's narcfreepresscom.
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,
(51:25):
but that is a great community.
You can find us on Facebookgroups, so we hope to see you
there.
Speaker 1 (51:31):
Perfect, thank you both.
So much for talking with metoday.
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
(51:53):
across the United States thatcan help.
You are not alone.
Thanks so much for listening.
Until next time, stay safe.
The 2025 Conference on CrimesAgainst Women will take place in
Dallas, texas, may 19th throughthe 22nd at the Sheraton Dallas
.
Learn more and register atconferencecaworg and follow us
(52:15):
on social media at National CCAW.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.