Dr Bandy X Lee on the crimes against humanity in the “family courts”
This post is reproduced with kind permission from Dr Bandy X Lee. These truths, originally told in Dr Lee’s Substack “Family Court Violence”, must be told as they are of vital importance for humanity. Dr Lee is a medical doctor, a psychiatrist with two decades experience in the US criminal justice system, and is also a theologist.
Dr Lee has so far written the story of the genocide in the “family courts” in two parts. More will follow and we will repost them once they become available.
Part 1
An Industrial Genocide against Protective Parents and Their Children Begins with Physical and Mental Elements
It will at first seem excessive to claim that the killing fields of Family Courts warrant a designation of genocide, but the mere assumption that “It can’t happen here!” should not deter an accurate description. This is an elaboration of an earlier article, and I will argue later that what is occurring through the Family Courts is not just genocide but the specific type of industrial genocide.
There are many barriers to seeing the stark reality of the Family Courts, and the first is the name: “Family Court” is self-exonerating. It defies public imagination that an entity called a “Court” would be breaking the law, much less be a criminal enterprise acting in fact as an “alternative court” for “reversing victim and offender,” by essentially eliminating the innocent party and therefore the evidence. Most would find it inconceivable that an institution bestowed with public trust to protect families would abuse that trust to carry out the most hideous crimes against those it is charged with protecting.
Yet, the inconceivable levels of brutality in the Family Courts actually protect their ability to commit even more brutal acts — since, if anyone were to blow the whistle on what is actually happening, few would believe it. And, like most genocides, entire structures exist simply to hide the systematic human rights violations.
However, to define genocide, one need only examine the criteria in greater detail. Here, I will review the physical element and the mental element, as required for the designation, according to the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Then, in Part 2, I will explain how Family Court genocide is a special instance of industrial genocide.
Physical Element
For guilt to be established, there must first be a physical element, which needs to fulfill only one of the following: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing members of the group serious bodily or mental harm; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life “calculated to bring about its … destruction”; (d) preventing births within the group; and (e) forcibly transferring children from one group to another.
In relation to Family Courts:
a) Killing members of the group. This action applies, since deaths are certain under given conditions, such as in the removal of a permanent restraining order intended to protect against a violent ex-spouse, or in sending children to their known abusers, while totally negating abuse as a matter that needs investigation. Almost three American women die per day by the hands of their intimate partners, most frequently following separation, and at least one child is killed every six days in relation to Family Court. By refusing to protect women and children from abuse, often stripping their own means of resistance through court orders that send back runaways and incarcerate adults who try to protect, Family Courts are powerful participants in the killings.
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. This criterion applies, as above, with an estimate of 58,000 to 361,000 children being sent to their abusers per year in the U.S. In effect, they are being sent to their torture. And for every child murder, there is an even greater number of suicides and hundreds of serious injuries, a large portion of which will be lifelong. The same principle holds for protective mothers, whose often serious, if not lethal, Family Court-caused health harms are increasingly being documented.
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. This action applies, since, in addition to seizing children from innocent mothers (and occasionally innocent fathers), physical assets are expropriated, child support extorted, alimony withheld, and legal fees demanded, while “debtors’ prisons” are reinstituted, exceptions to bankruptcy protections made, and professional careers ruined. Protective parents are devastated financially, physically, and emotionally, so that they cannot fight back against unjust rulings, which also ruins their reputation and societal standing. Reports of children thriving with protective parents but deteriorating with abusive ones are aggressively suppressed, as Family Court-sanctioned abuse irreparably harms children, whose lives are beset by psychological and physical debilitation and a life expectancy that is reduced by decades.
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. This result may be an unintended consequence. Preventing births entirely is not within the interest of Family Courts, which rely on having children to send to their destruction for their profit. However, new births may fall dramatically, as the trauma of Family Court-exacerbated abuse may render victims incapable of forming families again, or considering having more children.
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This action is the foremost goal of this well-organized genocide. From “alienation” accusations to “reunification” camps, and from judge to “expert” custody evaluator, are all in alignment for the forcible transfer of children from protective parents to abusive ones, or from nurturance to exploitation, for a very lucrative (death) industry, estimated at 50 to 175 billion dollars a year in the U.S. alone.
In this manner, not just one but all criteria of the physical element of genocide are fulfilled.
Mental Element
To satisfy the mental element, there needs to be an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a [targeted] group, as such.” According to the United Nations (UN):
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a … group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
First, intent is difficult to establish through direct evidence in genocide, since few perpetrators would be willing to admit in explicit statements, either written or spoken, their intentions to destroy especially innocent women and children. Family Courts, especially, have the unique authority to generate their own narrative, to cover up their violence through extreme secrecy and control, and to hide behind “the law.” Within the courtroom, intent may be inferred from actions that belie the “official” narrative: severe shunning of high-quality evidence; aggressive fabrication of false “evidence”; strict control of investigations; engagement of “experts” only from their pool of known imposters; denial of due process; outright felony crimes; and extreme indifference to the suffering, mental and physical decline, and even death of the targeted groups.
Culpable acts are systematically directed against targeted individuals — singled out as “alienators” — who live through a personal holocaust that does not end with mere character assassination, cultural effacement, or simple dismissal; commonly, the means of all meaningful survival are removed through seizure of assets, financial penalties, imprisonment, and deliberate obliteration of social or professional standing. Isolated from others like them because of “court seals” and “gag orders,” their experience is one of the greatest calamities conceivable, involving the loss of one’s children to often slow, calculated, malevolent torture and “soul murder” — which rather make immediate murder seem merciful. These repetitive experiences stand in stark contrast to the experience of other litigants who are not so targeted.
The unique quality of genocide is the special intent, or dolus specialis, of total eradication. This intent develops in stages, as delineated in detail through close examination across many dozens of cases of cynical corruption. These unlawful acts condoned in the Family Courts nurture brutality in individual violent abusers by bestowing on them impunity — and a perpetrator’s pathology is such that it continues to escalate until one achieves total annihilation. Many bring a “scorched earth” approach to begin with, but being encouraged and enabled as never before elsewhere, especially by a “court of law,” tempts them to go to the maximum: the obliteration of the lives, or at the very least the personhood, of their victims. This does not only happen with violent perpetrators who have already entered Family Court. Family Court, by offering “alternative justice,” where violent perpetrators become “victims” and can turn victims into “perpetrators”, serve as a compelling recruitment device for the most violent individuals society produces, who discover that they need only to apply for custody to access an easy path to exoneration and perpetuation of their plan to destroy all those they have a vendetta against, which for abusive personalities are those who have come in closest contact with them. Motives are increased especially when there is not just avoidance of prosecution but financial, reputational, and cultural rewards for doing so. Three out of four of women who are murdered by violent partners are killed after they leave them. These are the very pool of men from which Family Courts “harness” their lethality.
The presence of a State or organizational plan or policy can be seen in the Family Court “playbook”. A consistent, repetitious pattern can establish intent, which other organizations have identified as: “Tactics Used to Switch Custody to Fathers and Conceal Abuse.” Among the noted patterns are: isolation of children from their mother, causing traumatic bonding with the father; “reunification” of children with fathers who have been convicted of violence; keeping protective mothers from their children for lengthy periods without contact or on costly supervised visits; the appointment of “therapists” to brainwash children into accepting the abuse; the facilitation of abusive fathers’ alienation or estrangement of children from their protective mothers; the use of gag orders and sealing of records to cover up paternal abuse and judicial bias; and threats against protective mothers with jail or loss of custody to extort silence and compliance, to mention just a few. For those who frequent the Family Courts, the extreme divergence in expectations from ordinary civil society; the immediate degradation, dehumanization, and persecution of the targeted group; and the remarkable consistency and efficiency across jurisdictions and even regions of the world make immediately clear that this is highly-organized crime, not coincidence.
In this manner, the detailed and general aspects of the mental element of genocide are fulfilled.
(In Part 2, we will discuss how Family Courts meet the criterion for industrial genocide.)
Read the original post here.
Part 2
Behind the Genocide against Protective Parents and Their Children is a Family Court Industrial Complex
A common experience upon entering the genocidal machine of Family Court as an innocent victim is one of disbelief that a judiciary could truly be aiming for one’s complete destruction; that authorities would knowingly cause needless calamity; and that there would be no way out. The kinds of death and destruction met in the Family Courts — the kinds one would have thought would call in the National Guards — are met with total indifference, if not sneers and mockery at the loving parent’s panic. These cognitive dissonances create a frantic attempt on the part of the parent to regain control: “What if I responded more ‘reasonably’ [to the annihilation of my children]?” “What if I produced more proof of the abuse?” and “What if I behaved with better compliance [to the impossible demands]?” As we know from other genocides, there is almost nothing one can “do”, once one is identified as a member of a group to be eliminated, and all other rescue systems are incapacitated. And the harder one tries to prove one’s innocence, the tighter the vice constricts. Indeed, Family Court protocol goes far beyond “kids for cash” to the operation of a slave trade, where children are sold to their rapists, batterers, and murderers — and those who would be witnesses or whistleblowers are discredited and destroyed. “Fixing” results to the advantage of the perpetrator, which coincides with the destruction of all evidence, including his victims, is the service Family Courts sell for a hefty price.
Therefore, euphemistic explanations such as Family Courts protecting “parental rights” over children’s rights; children being “collateral damage” to well-intentioned Courts; Courts simply defining “best interests of children” differently; judges needing “more education” on domestic violence and child abuse; and Family Court judges being “overwhelmed with cases” belie the fact that any close observation reveals the fallacy of these assumptions. No doubt there are exceptions where the above excuses apply, but for the vast majority of Family Court cases where child transfers to their abusers are involved, the arrangements are deliberate, systematic, and coordinated with all other associated players. Indeed, the industrial efficiency of the torture, rape, and murder, as well as the manipulation of “judicial” procedures indicate the necessity of an opposite conclusion. What one sees far too commonly is the obliteration of children’s voices altogether; the abolition of rights of the good parent; the shunning of data and all learning; the search for loopholes and “open windows” in each case to effectuate illegal and unconstitutional rulings; the critogenic (Court-caused) crises, such that the Courts are the greatest source of calamity in all these lives; and the judicial overreach into areas of child protection, law enforcement, schools, and medical care, as well as the prolongation of cases to years if not decades, in order to control outcomes.
In Part 1, I described the target group to be “mothers and children who allege abuse in Family Court,” refined as: “loving family members who are emotionally bonded in ways that the abusive father is not.” However, further refinement can be made: “family members with independent thought who will not submit to the abuser’s delusional narrative.” When these members are marked for punishment or elimination, it is because reality must be eradicated for the psychopathic mind. When Richard Gardner misused his knowledge of child psychiatry to twist children’s normal reactions to abuse into “signs of coaching” and the loving parent’s normal protective impulses into “lies to gain an edge in the divorce” — and Family Courts fervently embraced him — a door was open for abuse. Because his personal theories contradicted all well-established scientific findings about human behavior, all manner of antiscientific, antidevelopmental, and antimedical theories crept into the Family Courts, which hired Gardner for four hundred cases, even as scientific organizations denounced his theories. Family Courts, where normal standards of evidence and due process do not apply because of almost unlimited “discretion” and self-imposed secrecy, thus became lucrative centers of human trafficking, pedophilic sex rings, and child pornography production — all under the protection of “judicial immunity.”
Financial and business interests are no strangers to genocides: for example, they have played major roles in the Jewish, Kurdish, and Darfurian progroms. Family Court genocide is heavily tied to financial incentives. Family Courts not only effectuate the “sale” of children to their abusers but also the transfer of funds along with them, through child support, seizure of assets, and a variety of back-channel, money-laundered, illegitimately-procured sources of funding. There is also the transfer of federal funds to state coffers via the manipulation of Social Security Act Title IV-D, which allows the Department of Revenue and Child Support to penalize a targeted parent for “withholding” financial support the Family Court’s designated sole custodian of a child. These actions can involve seizure of bank accounts, revocation of driver’s licenses, removal of business licenses, and incarceration, which Family Courts employ with the goal of total destruction of a life.
The industrial element, therefore, is a continuation of the mental element of Family Court genocide that deals with opportunity. According to the United Nations (UN):
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted — not randomly — because of their real or perceived membership of [a group]. This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable … and “substantial”.
That the victims of Family Court are deliberately, not randomly, targeted is the basis for my argument of genocide based on social group. Once they are identified not only as “mothers and children who allege abuse in Family Court,” but as “loving family members who are emotionally bonded in ways that the abusive father is not,” Family Courts exploit the abuser’s psychological yearning for “revenge”. Hence, the more the proof there is of the abuse, and the more the loving mother tries to protect her children, the more they will be retaliated against — or imputed to be an “alienator” — and acquire targets on their backs for pursuit until their virtual annihilation. The “loving” quality makes them hated objects for violent perpetrators, for they expose the qualities that they lack. It also identifies them as vulnerable, “easy” prey: their empathy not only keeps them from viciously attacking back, but also may prevent them from suspecting the other side’s predatory motives, thus giving the abuser a strategic advantage. Additionally, they are likely to have been traumatized, intimidated, and psychologically manipulated by their narcissistic and psychopathic partners into defending their abuser or faulting themselves for the problems.
(To be continued.)
Read the original post here.
Dr Lee is at the forefront of the battle against the “family courts” in the USA. Please support her by subscribing to her Substack “Family Court Violence”.