A National Scandal: American Mothers March to Defend Motherhood and Children’s Human Rights

Mothers of Lost Children march from the U.S. Capitol to the White House in Washington DC to protest children being taken from safe mothers and given to battering or sexually abusive fathers through family courts.  This governmental cover up is similar to Penn State and the Catholic Church cover-ups. Mothers will protest at the Department of Justice and Demand Equal Rights for Women and Protection in Courts across America for whistle blowers who have the right to Defend Childhood.  Mothers are bringing attention to child trafficking in the Courts, and  States Judges who fail to Protect.  Help us send a mother from each state to represent the rights of mothers and abused children.

 Mothers March on Washington DC to end Child trafficking through the courts

October 1 – 2, 2014  Mothers of Lost Children demonstration and Lobby Day in Washington D.C.

California – Napa, Historical “Broken” Courthouse 12 pm

OCTOBER IS VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY AWARENESS MONTH, Mothers of Lost Children (Mothers who have lost custody after reporting abuse)- bring attention to children of Domestic Violence.  October 1st is recognized as the National Safe Child Day.  Throughout the month communities across America will be participating in a campaign to bring attention to this National Scandal – Child Trafficking. We invite Mothers and Supporters from across the nation to join us in making the Safety of Our Children a National Priority.

To commemorate the National Safe Child Day- Mothers across the Nation will Protest  at Courthouses, State Capitals and the White house.  Delivering the message A Nurtured Childhood is Endangered, Declaring that we must make Safety the first Priority in US child custody Policies.

Vote like a mother-Mothers of Lost ChildrenHeal Mothers FlyerBring back our Girls and Boys

Vote like a mother-Mothers of Lost Children




Preventing domestic violence must begin with the children

While it is common to hear calls for an “end to the cycle of violence,” it cannot logically end without a substantial focus on the children

We had to flee

please save America’s Children sign the petitions, Stop Family Courts from sending children to live with abusers

And Support -



Preventing domestic violence must begin with the children

By Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Brian Martin - 11/03/11 11:36 

The City Council of Topeka, Kan., voted to repeal its domestic violence law in order to avoid the cost of prosecution due to a budget crisis. We have seen moves like this before. In 2009, the state of California eliminated all funding for domestic violence programs and services because of budget cuts. Only after a great and lengthy debate in the state legislature was partial funding restored.

There are recent examples of positive steps to address the intractable problem of domestic violence. On Oct. 12, the Makers of Memories Foundation participated in a special congressional briefing on Capitol Hill to educate policymakers, leaders and the public about the children affected by domestic violence, which UNICEF has called “one of the most damaging unaddressed human rights violations in the world today.”

Children who are raised in homes with domestic violence are 50 times more likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs and six times more likely to commit suicide. Shockingly, 90 percent of prison inmates report that they experienced domestic violence as children. This epidemic costs the United States more than $600 billion annually in direct and indirect costs, including hospital ER visits, workplace absenteeism, criminal justice expenses, substance abuse treatment, shelter support, mental health services and child-protection costs. But the truly staggering price is the loss of human potential. More than 40 million adults in this country were such children and are still struggling with the self-destructive falsehoods that they learned and internalized from their experience.

While it is common to hear calls for an “end to the cycle of violence,” it cannot logically end without a substantial focus on the children

Domestic violence programs throughout the country are focused primarily on adults who are involved in violent relationships. A range of services are offered, including temporary housing, crisis counseling, legal assistance, health services, vocational aid, substance abuse programs and anger management and other behavioral modification initiatives for perpetrators. The focus on children comes as a distant second concern. And yet children who are raised in violent homes are at great risk, because more than 75 percent of them will go on to repeat what they learned in adulthood.

Take the story of a man we’ll call Rod, a successful personal and corporate training entrepreneur. Rod witnessed his father abuse his mother regularly during his childhood. As a teen he resolved to become a Navy SEAL to learn to kill his father. Fortunately for Rod, his father died one week before he executed his plan.

His story is not unique — the Department of Justice has reported that 63 percent of convicted murderers between the ages of 11 and 20 who commit homicide killed the man abusing their mothers.

Why does experiencing domestic violence put children at such risk? Using data that have only become available in the last decade, leading researchers have discovered that these children’s nervous systems and brain chemistry are often altered, changing who they are. Scientists have shown that the brains of children who are exposed to violence and trauma are flooded with the stress hormones adrenaline and cortisol, triggering a series of physical and emotional reactions by the body that impairs the brain’s logical response to stimulus. These patterns become hard-wired in the brain, leading children who experience chronic violence to have heightened and unhealthy levels of fear and anger. Their brains change in ways that can fundamentally alter their self-concept and behaviors, with lifelong consequences.

Click here to read Congressman Conyers complete opinion, “Preventing domestic violence must begin with the children.”


incest stop punishings kids

Mothers of Lost Children Stop Punishing Children for reporting abuse

Judges Fail to Protect Children of Domestic Violence in Us Courts

No Way Out But One
feature image


The Courts Called Her Crazy.

The FBI Called Her a Kidnapper.

Her Kids Called Her a Hero.

Boston, MA –No Way Out But One, an independent documentary by Garland Waller, tells the incredible story of Holly Collins, a kidnapper to some and a hero to many. The film also examines the larger issue of the tragic failure of the family court system to achieve its most important mandate, to protect children.

In 1994, Holly Collins was a desperate mother determined to protect her children from abuse at the hands of their father. Believing that she had no other choice, Holly kidnapped her own kids, left everything behind, and went on the run. She became an international fugitive, wanted by the FBI. She became the first American to ever be granted asylum by the Dutch government as a result of domestic violence.

No Way Out But One follows on the groundbreaking work of producer Garland Waller’s previous award winning documentary Small Justice: Little Justice in America’s Family Courts. This earlier film examined the failure of the family court system to protect children from sexual abuse. That documentary was the first one of its kind to explore a national scandal – that men who beat their wives and sexually abused their children could get custody in family courts.

No Way Out But One exposes the other grave failure of the courts—that men who batter wives and beat children can and do get custody. This failure, the secret shame of the American court system, is virtually ignored by the mainstream media.

In 1994 Holly Collins became an international fugitive when she grabbed her three children and went on the run. It all happened because a family court had ignored Holly’s charges, the children’s pleas, Holly’s broken nose, Zackary’s fractured skull, and other medical evidence of domestic violence. The family court in Minnesota gave full custody of Zackary and Jennifer to Holly’s ex-husband. It was at that point that Holly came to believe she and the children had No Way Out But One.

In what has become an incredible saga, Holly eventually fled the United States. For awhile, she lived beneath the radar, hiding on Indian Reservations, in Mexico and Guatemala. With three children and no passports,incredibly, she made it to Amsterdam where she blurted out a plea for asylum. The fact that she was fleeing domestic violence and would not be protected if she were returned to the US seemed ridiculous at first. But Holly had come armed with documents – legal and medical. At first, she and her children were treated as refugees, living in a refugee center with other poor souls fleeing violence torn hell-holes from around the world. Living shoulder to shoulder with people learning to use indoor plumbing for the first time in their lives, Holly and her kids made the best of it. At least they were safe.

Holly became the first U. S. citizen to be granted asylum by the government of Netherlands. She lived a quiet, low profile life for the next 14 years, until the FBI agents came calling. Hoping to return Holly to the United States to face kidnapping charges, they interviewed her now grown children. Jennifer and Zackary told the agents that far from being their kidnapper, their mother was their savior and their hero.

Eventually, all charges against Holly were dropped, save one: contempt of court. Holly readily acknowledged that after all she and the children had been through, she did indeed harbor “contempt of court”.

It is reported by the US Department of Justice that only 10% of children who report abuse are every protected from further assaults. The failures of family courts Judges to protect young children falls in part on the shoulders of Judges who disregard the needs of young children and the adulteration of the Best Interest Standard.  When women report abuse in family courts the false beliefs that women and children lie about abuse has put a significant amount of children in danger.

There is also systemic failures in the understanding of Domestic Violence, placing blame on women and taking the children from the fit mother trying to provide safety.

The funding to courts to address fathers participation  may in fact be fueling the war on women and children.  The compounded failures of Domestic Violence Services to provide for ‘the Domestic Violence Divorce’ must be addressed at a federal level.

With 1 in 3 women experiencing violence in their lifetime, we must address the insufficient funding to the Office of Violence Against Women as a serious oversight issue, and the Gender Bias of programs through Health and Human Services that fund Fatherhood Initiatives, and fail to equally fund motherhood programs.

Contested custody cases aka Domestic Violence Divorces – which make up 15% of all divorce cases in the U.S. – are often mishandled, with the worst cases resulting in harmful outcomes for children of divorce.

Today, many court professionals have been mistrained to be highly skeptical of reports of domestic violence and child abuse in divorce cases. As a result, children are being taken from safe parents and forced by courts to live in the homes where they report being beaten and raped.

The standard and required domestic violence training received by evaluators, judges and lawyers does not adequately prepare them to handle abuse cases. Inadequately trained professionals tend to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations. 2012 U.S. Department of Justice Dr. Daniel Saunders Report

Research shows that when batterers request custody, 7 times out of 10 they receive it*. Even more alarming, research shows that when children report sexual abuse in custody cases, more than 9 out of 10 of them are placed in the partial or full custody of their identified perpetrators**.

Billions of our taxpayer dollars are wasted needlessly every year through this broken system. The outcome is always great suffering for the children, but as we all know, in the most dire cases, it can also lead to their deaths. In fact, a research project tracking custody-related child deaths between 2009 and 2010 identified that a total of 175 news reports were published about children being killed by their abusers during that brief two year period.

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence estimates that 58,000 children each year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States.



Stalking Women Through the Courts


Posted by Coral Anika Theill
Author, Advocate, Speaker & Reporter
Memoir: BONSHEA Making Light of the Dark
Website: www.coralanikatheill.com

The price for my own safety and freedom in 1996 was an imposed, unnatural and unwanted separation from my eight children. The injustice committed against me is not just the physical separation from my children, but the willful desecration of the mother-child relationship and bond, a sacred spiritual and emotional entity.

For Women leaving abusive relationships, they are lulled into a false sense of security believing that the constitution works equally for both men and women.  The Family Courts today have become the last vestige of the Patriarchal System that holds hostage the children and punishes women for reporting abuse.  Little has changed for women of Domestic Violence trying to divorce their abusers today.  As a result of the strength of the Fatherhood Movement, and federal funding,  the nature of childhood has changed dramatically following separation and divorce in America.   Sadly, children are losing custody of their primary attached parent, their mother.   Mothers are on trial for defending their right to parent and protect their children.   Many attempts have been made to address the unique issues that face women in court proceedings including this lost provision to VAWA –   “For purposes of determining child custody, it is not in the best interest of children to (a) force parents to share custody over the objection of one or both parents when there is a history of domestic violence; (b) punish abused or protective parents who protect themselves or their children; (c) presume allegations of domestic violence or child sexual assault are likely to be made falsely or for tactical advantage during custody and divorce proceedings; and (d) make ‘friendly parent’ provisions a factor when there is abuse by one parent against the other or a child…” (Congressional findings, VAWA proposed 1999 amendments, H.R. 357, Title II, s. 241).

Forcibly taking a mother’s children, and then controlling her emotionally by withholding contact must be publicly recognized as one of the greatest forms of ‘mis-use’ of the American justice system and one of the greatest hidden vehicles for wide-spread socially approved physical and emotional abuse and control”. Coral Theill


Lessons from The “Father’s Right’s” Movement: How to Legally Stalk, Harass, and Intimidate Victims of Domestic Violence after a Restraining Order has been Issued by Janet Normalvanbreucher

“It was with surprise and appreciation that I recently discovered and read Stalking Through the Courts. Although it has been many years since my divorce from Eric Bleicken, the pain of the intense lies that were told (that I wasn’t feeding my children, that I was suicidal, that I was a negligent mother, etc.), and the 200 plus harassment motions that Eric Bleicken filed over a five year period were still under the surface. I found it amazing that Janet Normalvanbreucher, someone I’ve never met, cared enough to research and reveal the truth about our case and the Fathers Rights political agenda. With sincerity and humility, I give her my thanks.”
– Lorraine Bleicken G.

STALKING THROUGH THE COURTS by Janet Normalvanbreucher © 1999


The Quest for Dominance and Control

“Abusive men typically have deeply entrenched notions about “traditional” male roles, with concomitant support for male dominance.”
– Lee H. Bowker, Beating the Wife Beating, p. 7-9 (1983)

“Victims [of domestic violence] are more likely… to have less traditional attitudes regarding women’s roles in the family.”
– Lenore Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, p. 8, (1984)

The batterer’s quest for control of the woman lies at the heart of an abusive relationship. “The men want to direct and determine how their partner behaves, and the way to do this is through violence… the men use violence to dominate, control, and force the woman to do what they want.” (Jan E. Stets, Domestic Violence and Control, p. 110, (1988). Battering is about domination. Violence is a way of “doing power” in a relationship, an effort by the batterer to control the woman who is the recipient of the violence. “At the moment of separation or attempted separation — for many women the first encounter with the authority of law — the batterer’s quest for control often becomes most acutely violent and potentially lethal.” (Desmond Ellis, Post-Separation Woman Abuse: The Contribution of Lawyers as “Barracudas,” “Advocates,” and “Counselors,” 10 Intl. J.L. & Psychiatry 403, 408 (1987). Lenore Walker, a leading forensic psychologist in the field of battered women, has emphasized the batterer’s control of the woman. “A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concern for her rights.” (Lenore Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome (1984)). Walker found that as her clients in psychotherapy became more assertive, they encountered more physical and psychological abuse.

The misperception that men cannot control their anger still permeates society. Abusive men will often use the threat of violence, whether actual or implied, to control his victim. “Men are violent and abusive towards women because this behavior allows them to establish and to maintain control within the relationship … and because no one has ever required them to stop.” (Lisa G. Lerman, The Decontextualization of Domestic Violence, 83 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 217, 236 (1992)). Abusive behavior can range from implied threats (“any other man would have beaten you to a pulp”) to overt acts against property (breaking apart the furniture, punching a hole in the wall) to direct physical assault (shoving, grabbing, battery). The abuser constantly finds fault with the victim, forcing the victim to remain constantly on the defensive, walking on eggshells lest she “cause” her abuser to lose control and incur another incident of violent behavior.

Studies indicate that, contrary to the assertions of the abuser that he just “lost it,” batterers are quite aware of what they are doing. “Loss of control is substantially contradicted by the batterers’ own testimony. While the men claim that their violence is beyond rational control, they simultaneously acknowledge that the violence is deliberate and warranted.” (James Ptacek, Why do Men Batter Their Wives, p. 153 (1985). Strongly indicative of this pattern of premeditation are the facts that abusers often limit their beatings to places that will not show (like the stomach), violent episodes occur almost exclusively in the home where they can get away with it, and despite the abusers justifications of “I just lost control,” most batterers have limits beyond which they will not go (most stop short of killing their partners). (Lenore E. Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, (1984)). Abusers are extremely manipulative and are often described as having a Jekyll and Hyde Personality. Ellen Pence and Michael Paymar’s training manual for batterer’s, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter, treat violence as a form of control and explicitly reject theories that focus on some flaw in the abuser, the victim, or the relationship. (Ellen Pence & Michael Paymar, Power and Control: Tactics of Men Who Batter, p. 64, (1986). Abusers view their right to dominate and control every aspect of their partner’s and children’s lives, their right to resort to physical violence, as a constitutionally protected right sanctioned by the founding fathers and the bible, not aberrant behavior.

When the intimate partner of a domineering male demands an end to controlling or abusive behavior or attempts to sever the relationship, his abnormal behavior will often escalate into violence. Separation assault is the attack on the woman’s body and volition in which her partner seeks to prevent her from leaving, retaliate for the separation, or force her to return. It aims at overbearing her will as to where and with whom she will live, and coercing her in order to enforce connection in a relationship. It is an attempt to gain, retain, or regain power in a relationship, or to punish the woman for ending the relationship. It often takes place over time. (Martha R. Mahoney, Legal Images of Battered Women: Redifining the Issue of Separation, 90 Mich. L. Rev. 1, p. 65-66, (1991)).

Despite the obvious physical and psychological harm caused by battering, the abuser is able to continue battering his partner because he does not fear legal or social consequences. A batterer often believes he has the right to control his partner through the use of force. Reinforcement of learned behavior may encourage this obsessive, dependent personality. Impulsive and easily frustrated, a batterer resorts to physical violence. The batterer will deny his violence to himself and others. A batterer is not violent in other relationships. In fact, with people outside the family, he can be seen as the pillar of the community. (Lisa N. Birmingham, Closing the Loophole: Vermont’s Legislative Response to Stalking, 18 Vt. L. Rev. 477, 484-485 (1994)). This hinders the victim’s attempts to seek help or emotional support from friends and even her own family because batterers tend to wear a false persona to the outside world. The victim’s claims that her partner is out of control tend to be met with disbelief and outright hostility from the outside world.


Most child psychologists agree that divorced families are less desirable than intact families from a child-rearing standpoint when the family is not dysfunctional. However, reducing children to chattels owned by the parent who is least dissatisfied with the status quo, shuffling them between two households, or returning to the days when women were the legal property of their husbands, is even more repugnant. Father’s Rights advocates “real agenda is to make sure that men maintain control over custodial parents and have access to their children regardless of the father’s behavior and regardless of whether it’s in the best interest of the children themselves” (Patricia A. Levesh, Greater Boston Legal Services Battered Women’s Legal Assistance Project, Letter to the Editor, the Boston Globe, January 6, 1999).

Although most people would agree that courts are not well equipped to handle the emotional battlefield of a divorce, effectively returning to an era when women, children, and property were all chattels owned by the husband is not the answer. Judges (who are often male) are generally quite sensitive to the needs of non-custodial fathers and will bend over backwards to award liberal visitation agreements affording ample opportunity to remain an active part of children’s lives (sometimes to the detriment of children who have witnessed spousal abuse). It is only when a non-custodial parent has demonstrated an extreme pattern of using the child to control the custodial parent or there are serious questions about the child’s well being that visitation will be restricted or supervised.

“For purposes of determining child custody, it is not in the best interest of children to (a) force parents to share custody over the objection of one or both parents when there is a history of domestic violence; (b) punish abused or protective parents who protect themselves or their children; (c) presume allegations of domestic violence or child sexual assault are likely to be made falsely or for tactical advantage during custody and divorce proceedings; and (d) make ‘friendly parent’ provisions a factor when there is abuse by one parent against the other or a child…” (Congressional findings, VAWA proposed 1999 amendments, H.R. 357, Title II, s. 241).

Read entire Research paper at:




Shared Parenting

Janie McQueen, Author and Divorce Gamesmanship Expert


Janie McQueen is a career journalist and author of four books, most recently Hanging On By My Fingernails: Surviving the New Divorce Gamesmanship, and How a Scratch Can Land You in Jail. She writes for www.hopeafterdivorce.org, www.LAFamily.com, and www.FamilyShare.com. She is also considered an expert on juvenile literature, as the author of The Magic Bookshelf.

“Shared Parenting”: The Slippery Slope To Losing Your Kids

by JMcQueen

Lately, friends and I have noticed how “shared parenting” seems to be touted more than ever as the perfect solution to a thorny divorce and custody case. It seems so reasonable. It would seem that fighting the notion of shared parenting would make you seem controlling; spiteful; mean; not cool. As the shared parenting concept gains steam, many women seem to totally buy into it, because it sounds so good.

You know what they say about things sounding to good to be true.

Even as I set about writing my book, mostly in the dark and in full reporter mode, I grasped that “shared parenting” is not what it seems. I even entitled a section “Shared Parenting Means Lowered Child Support.” It surprises me that I gleaned it back then, before I met hundreds of women who were fatally bitten by the rhetoric. But it was that obvious. I’m not even calling it “shared parenting” without italics, because it’s not real.

In a divorce, for most people, even the nicest people, the goodwill towards the spouse often goes out the door. At least for a time. It’s a shock to realize that. When you see your previously loving spouse acting like a robot who is controlled by other forces (often, they are–it’s called lawyers and buddies who’d love to help them spite you, especially if they’re an organized mob like Fathers’ Rights), it’s near to impossible to believe. Who are you?? you want to scream. And we do. I know I did, as I stood in shock staring into my husband’s vacant eyes when he called the cops, unnecessarily, again. Who are you??

Well, they might be lots of people, but at the very least, they’re no longer a family ally. Do you want to” share parenting” with someone who wants to grind you into the dirt, live on the street, take away what you love most?

I’m going to write a separate post on the specifics of why “shared parenting” is not what it seems. For now, I want to get off my chest what I and many protective mothers are observing: the flocking of women to the shared parenting concept. Why are they doing this? Whose side are they on?

There are several possibilities. They could have had such a divorce agreement, and it worked for them. Especially this might be true for women who were the primary breadwinners, or held on to their careers as their children were growing up. Maybe they had an amicable split. That is great. That is rare. But if they’re touting “shared parenting” for everyone–in the face of all the suffering they see protective moms shouldering–well, you have to wonder. Whose side are they on?

Maybe they want to hang out with the “cool kids” and look good to the Fathers’ Rights gang. Seriously. People like to be on the side of power. It’s no fun to stand on the sidelines with the other family court losers. I know of three examples of women who are flirting dangerously with Fathers’ Rights, off the top of my head. A couple know it and one doesn’t. But they all talk out of both sides of their mouths. They seem to be about supporting women, but you’ll notice their rhetoric usually includes #forthechildren #fortheparents #sharedparenting. Not #forthemothers.

Because, whether they realize it or not, they’re anything but #forthemothers. They’re #forthefathers. Because if no one has noticed, there are serious gender wars going on in family court, and believe me, no one is on both sides.

You see, the shared parenting concept is skewed toward one side: the father’s. This is a truth. This is for whom it was designed. Don’t believe me? Read my book, readPhyllis Chesler’s book Mothers on Trial, read all the great books out there that describe why mothers lose in court. This doesn’t mean you can’t be collaborative, or come up with creative custody agreements that work for all parties. This doesn’t mean you aren’t nice, and it doesn’t mean you don’t care if your children have a relationship with their father. You’ll be accused of this, merely by sticking to your own guns. When you demand fairness, they’re going to try to convince you you’re being selfish and unmotherly. A father hater. A conniving bitch who wants to deprive this poor, well-meaning man of his flesh and blood.

“Shared parenting” is not good business for anyone but for whom it was designed. And it isn’t for us.

Anyone going through custody issues needs to understand what they’re giving away if they consent to a “parenting agreement” that looks perfect, yet reeks of bait and switch. If the books aren’t proof enough of what befalls many who consent to this, let me introduce you to about 300 mothers I know who have personal experience with this.

My custody arrangement actually ended up creatively, and my sons saw their dad a ton, but my attorney maintained primary physical custody was a necessity for me. There was a reason for this. I’d been a stay at home mom, stalled very willingly on my career, and I was in a position of absolutely no financial solidity whatsoever. Meanwhile, my ex made a tidy income, and could leave the marital situation financially unscathed. I felt my children were better off staying in our family home in the same school district, down the street from their friends instead of moving to an apartment across town. Even a really nice one.

I did this because I felt it was best for my children, ages 5 and 7 at the time. Specifically, they were better off with me, because I was the 95% caregiver and I knew their needs and their teachers and everything about their lives. You know what I say when attorneys leer about the mothers keeping the children from their father, not allowing them to raise their own children? Well, they weren’t raising them before, were they? Suddenly they’re super-dad? Really?)

I immediately set about finding a full time job after my divorce was final. I found one–I parlayed a part time job into a full time one because though my charges were dropped, I still had them on my record for a year–trying job shopping with that on your back) but my earning potential was below sub-par. I needed child support, not a “shared parenting” agreement that would have run me ragged going to and fro, and having to add that second–or third–job to make that work. We were on a seriously uneven playing field. Shared parenting doesn’t account for that. (It’s not meant to.)

I would have been destitute. Yes, I gave up my career to be with my children. I gave it up for another job, which was to raise our children at home, a decision my ex and I had arrived at before we even had children. Why is everybody throwing stones at people who make this decision? Oh, we had it so good, now it’s time to pay? Really?

Many other mothers have made the decision to stay home, come up with creative means to keep working, and so on. Fathers, too. The stay-home parent is in a very, very tricky situation when it comes to custody.

You want shared parenting? You will give up, for the most part, at least, child support–child support you have earned. Please don’t allow someone to tell you you’ve brought nothing to the table in the divorce. Please don’t allow someone to tell you you were “lucky” to have stayed home all these years. You weren’t sunning yourself on the roof every day, and if you were, your kids were on the roof with you. You had the freedom to structure the days as you deemed necessary. That, and operate the household and care for your children.

Do you think the mothers who are pining for their children, having lost them to the courts in the slippery slope that is child custody, wanted to keep their children for a paltry amount of money? Really?

Please don’t tell me “shared parenting” is fair. Shared Parenting means lowered child support. It is designed to keep more money in the pockets of the person who would reasonably pay child support. Think about it. What is child support? It’s money a person needs to raise a child.

Without child support?

Guess who’s going to raise the child.

The parent with the money.

Because this really isn’t about money: it’s about power. Believe you me, if you enter into “shared parenting,” the balance is quickly going to slip to the side with the money. If it’s not you, you lose. In the most excruciating, soul-searing way.

If that isn’t you–and it wasn’t me–you’ve got to stand up for your right to parent your own children. With the help you need. This is not a gold-digger approach, so please don’t call it that. This is the money that is needed to make sure the child is comfortable and well cared for under your roof.

Shared parenting=no or lowered child support. The equation works every time.


Liberate Elsa Newman and Innocent Maryland Mother

Elsa Newman has been wrongfully incarcerated since January 10, 2002.

​And still today she is fighting for justice for her children and herself.

“Elsa Newman’s case is the most incredible miscarriage of justice I have personally witnessed during my 24 years in the Legislature, and beyond.”  

- Former Maryland Delegate Joan Pitkin

CLICK HERE to Sign Petition

​and help free an innocent mom

Visit the web site -Liberate Elsa Newman – Justice 4 Elsa Newman

I am a mother, I will never give up

Mothers of Lost Children and going through the nightmarish drama of court and separation.  A devastating and emotional turmoil you are in, your heart broken, your dreams and your concerns for your child’s lost childhood. You will give anything to be with them again and you do.  You face fear, grief, betrayal, bankruptcy, homelessness, helplessness, jail.  You face the fact that they are not with you, and  your child cannot understand your pain and devotion, sadly they are told many things about you and fear you left them and do not love them, this too hurts. As you suffer your losses, Keep moving forward you are not alone, as mothers we are doing this for our children and all mothers and children to end this abuse of power.  Not only will we not give up, working together to find solutions and heal our children but we will not get over it until we do!

I am a mother

A mothers love (2)

Mothers of Lost Children

I am a mother. I fight for my children and cry when they are hurt.

Custody for Cash

I am a mother. By their father I was treated, no better than dirt.

elsa newman

Free an Innocent Maryland Mother http://www.justice4elsanewman.com/ Mothers of Lost Children

I am a mother. For them, I will spend every cent to keep up the fight.


I am a mother. Even with all the evidence against him, he still has rights.

jennifer and her girls

I am a mother. I try to shield them from the pain.

I am a mother. Through their pain, he hurts me, so for him a gain.

I am a mother. In their hands the court has the proof.

I am a mother. Yet they choose to ignore the truth.

Donnette Marching











I am a mother. They say supervised visitation is what he will get.

I am a mother. Then simply say, don’t do it again. I feel the hit.

I am a mother. The more I fight, the harder it becomes.

I am a mother. The anger and frustration, I’m coming undone.

melissa protective momI am a mother. For my children I get up and fight some more.



I am a mother. Because for them, the abuse I must endure.

child with chalk drawn momI am a mother. I will not back down. I will not give up.

I am a mother. Fight on, fight hard. The court system sucks!! - by protective mom Mia


I will never get over it

I will NEVER ever ‘GET OVER IT” Ever! Because “it” is my precious, irreplaceable child.

Nothing justifies the minimization or removal of a fit and loving parent from a child’s life. NOTHING.

Many mothers who seek safety from abuse are routinely prohibited from having even the most basic contact with their own children, not because they were unfit parents, but because they were outspent, out represented, and out-maneuvered in a court atmosphere not prepared to understand the needs of families dealing with domestic violence.

To unnecessarily and violently separate a woman and her young children can represent the gravest form of abuse, with major social ramifications in generations to come.

When a court orders the removal of a child from a parent it can have the same emotional wounding effect on the deprived mother (or father) as if that child has been kidnapped or murdered. When the deprived parent has been the protective parent, and the court gives custody and decision-making power to the abusive parent under the guise of “Best Interests of the Child” statutes, the loss to the severed parent is deeply damaging.

In addition to trying to recover from the abuse of a spouse and the profound grief at being separated from your children, there is an overwhelming guilt at not having fought successfully to protect your children. The fact is that sometimes the courts get it wrong. Prolonged custody fights require a tremendous amount of stamina and money for lawyers. A domineering and abusive spouse with access to funds can easily manipulate the court system to his (or her) advantage and drag the fight out for years. One day you wake up to discover that the children you love and cherish and have been aching for have grown up, been told for years that you abandoned them and taught to hate you.

For recovery to begin, abuse victims must create a safe environment. Without freedom, there is no safety or recovery. Safety for many survivors is often at a great cost. A non-custodial mother remarks: “to lose one’s children in such a way would unmake any woman.” And it is true.

Taking a woman’s children is the last great punishment an abuser can scar them with. To be publicly and permanently branded ‘unfit’ is a new scarlet letter. It can and will scar an entire family for life.

Forcibly taking a mother’s children, and then controlling her emotionally by withholding contact must be publicly recognized as one of the greatest forms of ‘mis-use’ of the American justice system and one of the greatest hidden vehicles for wide-spread socially approved physical and emotional abuse and control.

Posted by Coral Anika Theill
Author, Advocate, Speaker & Reporter
Memoir: BONSHEA Making Light of the Dark
Website: www.coralanikatheill.com

My Son and I Will Reach Safety

martin-luther-king-jr-If you cant fly then run




If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.

The following is a story shared by a protective mother and published with Daily Kos-

Reaching Safety

“It has been the grace of God that has gotten my son and me through this ordeal.  It will be the grace of God getting us through the rest of this journey.  I cling to many quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  My most favorite is “If you can’t fly then run, if you can’t run then walk, if you can’t walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  I was 50-years-old when I gave birth to my little son, just 7 years after having a heart attack .  One day we’ll reach safety, whether that’s this year or eleven years from now when my son is 18, but my son and I will reach safety!  Every day I awake I make it a point to move us forward toward Reaching Safety.”

In the middle of the night five years ago my little 2-year-old son and I fled our abusive home attempting to reach safety.  We fled all the threats, beatings, explosiveness and severe neglect of John, or so I thought!  What you’re about to read is only a small fragment, a glimpse, of what my son and I have endured.

John’s twin brother Tom documents in court papers that John had taken guns and gasoline to kill a client named Mr. Lee and that John stalked his clients before John and I even met.  John was and is a Loan Shark, an unlicensed predatory lender, loaning out his millions at 22%-25% annual interest & point fees. That is when he’s not hiding $250,000 here and there in numerous family members’ names so the IRS can’t track his fortune.  For the last 25 years John has also loaned out his money using family members’ names as the bogus lender (e.g., d’arcy/heartmath), again so the IRS can’t track his money.  John is my ex and my son’s father.  Please don’t think my little son and I lived a life of luxury with a millionaire, we most certainly did not!

John threatened numerous times to cut my fingers off with his samurai swords. John would repeat “I’ll do worse to you than that cop Drew Peterson and they’ll never find your body!”  John held a loaded gun on me.  John stalked us.  As John lost more and more money his alcoholism intensified and he’d spit, hit, kick, throw things, slash our belongings and yell.  His outbursts escalated into severe physical violence and verbal abuse which our little son witnessed when I couldn’t secure him safely in another room. I was always the one to blame though I had nothing to do with his loan deals turning sour.  John would repeat “my brother will find you wherever you go” referring to his reserve deputy sheriff brother that John always bragged “had connections.” John threatened to torch a client’s home after the client defaulted on his loan, and mysteriously that client’s home caught fire.  John would sit up through the night plotting to get even with clients that lost him money.  And, at times he’d leave the house in his truck in the middle of the night.  He never said where he went and I was too afraid to ask.

There were only three times John watched our son.  The first two times I came home to find our son strapped into his feeding table attempting to wiggle loose; John was around the corner, down the long hallway, in his office with the door shut.  The 3rd time I came home to find our son hanging from his feeding table, screaming at the top of his little lungs, and John was passed out drunk 5 feet away from our son.  Needless to say I never left our son alone with John again.  When John slammed our son’s foot in the car door and I rushed our son to the emergency room; upon returning home I was blamed for being out with another man and John tore my rotator cuff as I tried phoning 911 while he battered my upper body.  The months before we fled John repeatedly said to us “both of you get the f— out and make sure you find someone right away so I don’t have to pay on either of you!”  The last time John hit me was on October 19, 2009.  John was arrested.  The police photographed the bruises on my body; John had no marks or bruising whatsoever.  The D.A. had the case thrown out.  At this point I attempted to get my little 2-year-old son and me to safety.  We ran a year earlier to no avail.  But this time reaching safety seemed possible, almost tangible.   But, little did I know the Real Nightmare was just about to begin!

We reached a Domestic Violence Shelter in southern California and I was granted a 3-Year Restraining Order against John due to the superb legal team at Latham & Watkins.  They were provided to me by the D.V. Shelter but they weren’t able to handle my custody case Pro Bono.  I graduated the D.V. program and my little son and I moved into a little apartment.  In less than a week of moving into our apartment, at 4:00a.m. five police officers from two Police Departments in two different counties were at our door. They informed me John filed a stolen car/stolen child report.  The officers surveyed the residence, seeing my son secure and sleeping in bed.  The officers read over court papers including the 3-year restraining order against John.  They apologized for waking me and the officers excused themselves from our home. Within a week John was filing a second stolen car/stolen child report with the same department, however that report went nowhere as the investigating officer noted John was more concerned about the thousands of dollars he had spent to manipulate the case.  To read more - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/18/1322659/-Reaching-Safety#

Courageous Kids Network

The Courageous Kids Network is a growing group of young people, whose childhoods were shattered by inhumane court rulings, which forced us to live with our abusive parent, while restricting or sometimes completely eliminating contact with our loving and protective parent.

We who survived got older and stronger. Now we are telling the world how much we were hurt, first by our abusers then by the court which refused to protect us. We are joining together to find strength, support and healing.

We welcome contact from any kids who may need to talk, and who need to know they are not the only ones experiencing these issues.



Most of When we were children we were physically, emotionally and (some of us) sexually abused by one of our parents. Sometimes we got up the courage to tell our loving parent what our abusive parent was doing to us. Sometimes there were witnesses or medical evidence and our protective parent tried her/his best to protect us.

For some reason there was movement of fear and frenzy in the courts. People didn’t want to believe that a parent could be so abusive to his/her own child. The courts insisted that children or one of their parents must be making up these stories of horrendous abuse. The courts decided to punish the parents who believed their children and who were only trying to protect their children. The courts failed to realize, or didn’t care, that they were punishing us more.

It’s difficult to believe that such horror exists in America today, but thousands of children have been, and still are, taken away from their protective parent and placed with their abusers, by court orders. And some kids who were placed with abusers years ago are still trapped because the courts refuse to admit to, and correct their mistakes. Some of those kids are our younger siblings, and we are grieving for them.

Some of us kids are not able to speak out yet, because we are still stuck with our abusers and we are too afraid of how they, and the courts, will retaliate against us and our protective parents if we speak out. But we are getting support online from others in the Courageous Kids Network who managed to escape. Knowing there are other kids like us out there, who we can talk to and who understand what we are going through, helps those of us who are still trapped not to feel so alone.

For those of us who can speak out, we know that if we put our voices together, we can make a difference and change the family court system that is wrecking so many kids’ lives. The Courageous Kids Network is an organization dedicated to stopping the continuing assault on children’s human right to live free from abuse.

A Kinder Gentler Courtroom with Trauma Informed Judges

Trauma-informed judges take gentler approach, administer problem-solving justice to stop cycle of ACEs

Judge Lynn Tepper hugs Taylor, 11, at his final adoption hearing. Before finding his permanent home, he'd been returned by three families since being removed from his biological mother when he was three years old.

Judge Lynn Tepper hugs Taylor, 11, at his final adoption hearing. Before finding his permanent home, he’d been returned by three families. [Photo: Edmund D. Fountain, Tampa Bay Times]

In this Article a Trauma informed approach is offering ‘Solution-oriented justice’ and a Kinder Gentler Courtroom-This is an exiting a story about judges who are being trained in ACEs to be trauma-informed. The University at Buffalo (SUNY) School of Social Work is leading the way. SAMHSA is also working in this area of Trauma Informed Systems.


Three years ago, Judge Lynn Tepper of Florida’s Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in Dade City, FL, learned about the CDC-Kaiser Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) StudyThe ground-breaking research links childhood abuse and neglect with adult onset of chronic disease, mental illness, violence and being a victim of violence.

It was like flipping a switch.

“I suddenly had this trauma-informed lens, as we call it. I see it everywhere,” she says, giving an example of someone in front of her on child abuse charges for whom she might recommend counseling and/or anger management. “I have discovered the reality is that when I start asking a few questions, that parent or partner has experienced ACEs,” she says.

The 10 types of childhood trauma measured in the ACE Study are: physical, verbal and sexual abuse, and physical and emotional neglect; a family member who abused alcohol or other drugs, who was depressed or mentally ill, or was in prison; witnessing a mother being abused, and loss of a parent through separation or divorce.

Tepper, a veteran of 37 years on the bench, realized that childhood trauma experienced by the people who ended up in her courtroom was much worse than their paperwork showed. “When you dig down deeper, you wonder how these people get up in the morning,” she says. “I remember thinking at one point, ‘Oh boy, did we blow it all these years on these delinquents.’ ”

Most judges in the United States are unfamiliar with the ACE Study and the research on the neurobiology of toxic stress that has emerged over the last 15 years. But that’s beginning to change in courtrooms across the U.S., due to a number of educational programs aimed at producing trauma-informed judges—and courts. As a result, trauma-informed judges have made three big changes:

  • They’ve modified their courts to be safer and less threatening to defendants with histories of childhood trauma and who are often already traumatized.
  • They recognize that trauma is passed from one generation to another, and take a two- or three-generational approach in child abuse and neglect cases.
  • Because, they say, the traditional approach in criminal justice continues the traumatization of children, youth and families, they’re taking a solution-oriented approach.

A kinder, gentler courtroom

In one of the first cases after Tepper had her revelation, a young man who had allegedly sexually assaulted a sibling appeared in her court. When she looked at his rap sheet, it listed about a dozen battery cases. “That’s consistent with a child who’s been a victim of sexual molestation that’s not been revealed,” she says. “I started digging around with him and found out he was a victim of sex abuse in the foster care system in California. And nobody [in the court system] knew about it. He had even gone to treatment for sex abuse. I thought, ‘Oh, my goodness, how could we have missed this?’ ”

Now, Tepper is always on the lookout for such histories in people with a violent past. “To me that is a clear indicator, I bet somebody’s been a victim of child sex abuse,” she says. “It’s almost like I have radar to spot the telltale signs.”

She cites the example of a young woman who had her first child at age 14 as a result of being raped, and yet the system was treating her as if she was irresponsible. “Somebody committed a crime against you,” she told the girl. “Our goal is to get you to somebody you are comfortable talking to, so you can get control over the past. I want you to be happy. You’re entitled to be happy.”

After the defendants hear such kinder, gentler words, Tepper says, “there’s a tremendous transformation in 20 minutes. Over and over again, it’s just vast changes. Moms who have lost seven kids in the past [to the child welfare system] can get it right. We’re at the tip of the iceberg, in terms of what we can do to transform the court system.”

Chautauqua Family Court is also very conscious about making sure that defendants feel safe rather than intimidated, which sometimes requires that judges check their hard-boiled attitudes at the courtroom door, Claire says. She recalls a case where a father had punished a child by placing the child inside a washing machine, and he nevertheless insisted that he had been a good father.

“I said to him, in a conversational tone of challenge, ‘Most people would not consider putting this child in this appliance a good example of child care,’ ” Claire says. “You could have heard a pin drop. He stopped protesting. But we certainly weren’t able to reach him in any constructive way. What I did was not trauma-informed. I didn’t insult him. I didn’t say, ‘You’re a lousy parent, or an awful person,’ but he didn’t feel safe.”  http://acestoohigh.com/2014/09/24/trauma-informed-judges-take-gentler-approach-administer-problem-solving-justice-to-stop-cycle-of-aces/

The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study — the largest, most important public health study you never heard of — began in an obesity clinic



Pray for Justice 4 Macey

Please Pray for Macey, and join the cause….

Petition for macey

Justice for Macey

Protest for Macey 4



Protest for Macey 7



AUG. 8, 2012

CoverLaney Wyble spent the first two years of her daughter’s life at her hospital bedside, watching, holding, nurturing her baby as doctors in New Orleans and Lafayette worked to stabilize a rare genetic disorder that nearly killed her “little angel.”

It’s been seven years since Macey Smith came into the world, and more than five months since her mother’s own world fell to pieces. Laney Wyble hasn’t seen or heard from her daughter since March. She does not know where her daughter is living, only that she’s somewhere out of state with a man Macey claims has been sexually abusing her since she was 4 years old.

Wyble’s case is a convoluted mass of documents, statements and subjective arguments, and her ex-husband adamantly denies any abuse has occurred. Her defiance of the legal process is evident — and damaging. But amid an emotionally charged battle over the “he said-she said” that largely defines custody disputes like Wyble’s, there is documentation that has yet to be addressed regarding sexual abuse of a child — and a mother’s sincere belief that something bad has happened to her daughter.

Macey Smith

Macey was born Oct. 24, 2004, just eight days before the state began requiring its lab to look for an increased number of rare and potentially lethal genetic disorders in newborns. A backlog of tests at the state lab pushed Macey’s blood work into the new batch of expanded tests. A week and a half after her birth, Macey became the first baby in the state whose life was saved due to enhanced testing.

“Before the testing, she would have gotten sleepier and sleepier and then died,” Wyble says.

Macey suffers from Citrullinemia, a genetic disease that causes ammonia and other toxins to build up in her bloodstream. Because her body can’t break down the nitrogen found in protein, Macey lives on a highly restricted diet and is administered medicines four times daily through a feeding tube in her stomach. She’s had a full-time nurse at her home for most of her life.

“She gets just enough protein to grow,” Wyble says.