Pauline Hanson calls for a Royal Commission into Family Law

PAULINE HANSON CALLS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION INTO FAMILY LAWYesterday I spoke with Chris Smith on 2GB about my involvement this week with the public hearings into the Federal Circuit and Family Courts of Australia Bill 2018.Before Parliament wrapped up last week, I put forward my strong belief that we must have a Royal Commission into Family Law. I've even gone as far as asking the Prime Minister personally if he will support me.I know there are many people who would get behind my push, so please throw your weight behind the idea and contact the PM's office and ask him to get on board.His office number is (02) 9523 0339. I'm sure he would dearly love to hear from you all for some encouragement.#Auspol #OneNation #PaulineHanson #ChrisSmith #AlanJonesA

Posted by Pauline Hanson's Please Explain on Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Family Law Pushing Parents to Suicide

Pauline Hanson spoke with Chris Smith on 2GB about her involvement this week with the public hearings into the Federal Circuit and Family Courts of Australia Bill 2018.

Before Parliament wrapped up last week, One Nation put forward our strong belief that we must have a Royal Commission into Family Law.

We’ve even gone as far as asking the Prime Minister personally if he will support us.

we know there are many people who would get behind our push, so please throw your weight behind the idea and contact the PM’s office and ask him to get on board.

His office number is (02) 9523 0339. we’re sure he would dearly love to hear from you all for some encouragement.

Interview Transcript

Chris:                                         If there’s one issue guaranteed to generate emotion and anger, it’s the family law system. Mention it on air and you’re inundated on both sides. And, because of the emotion, and because children are often involved, it is very difficult to separate fact from fiction. Earlier this year, in a bid to help ease the situation, the Federal Government announced a proposal to combine the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court. Now, the plan was announced by Attorney General Christian Porter, who said at the time, “This significant structural change is designed to dramatically increase the number of family law matters finalised each and every year, and reduce the backlog of unresolved cases on hand at any one time.” He said, “The purpose of the reform is to ensure Australian families experience shorter waiting times, and a reduction in the potential conflict caused by prolonged and acrimonious family disputes.”

Chris:                                         Now, at the moment, committee hearings on the proposed merger are taking place. So far this week they’ve been in Perth, but the focus now is on the east coast. And attending those hearings is One Nation leader Pauline Hanson. Now, Senator Hanson says while this plan, which had been due to take effect from the 1st of January, by the way, but is now more likely to start in March or April, will help with delays, it’s really just the tip of the iceberg.

Chris:                                         Pauline Hanson wants a Royal Commission into the family law system. She’s called on the government to acknowledge the discriminatory aspects of the family law system contribute to the increase in male suicide rates over Christmas. The terms of reference of her proposed inquiry would include: the conduct of lawyers and the cost of legal advice; the adequacy of legal aid and its budget; the cost of transcripts of court proceedings; the costs, adequacy, and effectiveness of supervised visitation; the conduct and cost of those providing expert advice, including psychologists; the cost and cause of delays; the use of courts at night; the effectiveness and efficiency of the child support system; suicides related to the children’s support and family court systems; and the experience of children.

Chris:                                         Senator Pauline Hanson is on the line right now. Pauline, thank you very much for your time this morning.

Pauline Hanson:                  My pleasure. Thank you, Chris, for having me on.

Chris:                                         How long has this issue been a concern for you, and why?

Pauline Hanson:                  Since 1996, when I first went into Parliament then, it was the biggest issue that came across my desk. And it does with any politician. You said once you bring it up on radio the phone calls come in. No different for politicians. Everyone knows that it’s a huge problem, but they just push it to one side because what can you do about it? It’s too big an issue to deal with.

Chris:                                         It becomes almost too hard for them. Now, I don’t want to intrude on your personal life, but it is relevant. You’re a divorcee. You’ve been through the system yourself. How would you describe your experience?

Pauline Hanson:                  I didn’t have that much of a problem with it, myself personally, but I’ve been through it with two of my sons. And I’m going through it with one of my sons now at the moment, for the past three years. I’ve been very concerned about my sons’ wellbeing, and trying to deal with it through the court system, representing himself. So it’s been extremely difficult for him. I’ve given him the assistance, support, and financial assistance through the trial. It’s extremely hard. I’ve got people pulling me up when I’m doing my shopping. I’m talking to men who are actually at the end of their tether. I’m very concerned about them. It’s absolutely disgusting. Not only that, it’s the children that are lied to by the parents. They’re denied the right to see their parents, either one, the father or the mother. I think that the solicitors and lawyers out there, what they charge their clients, I think it’s disgusting. And it just goes on and on and on.

Chris:                                         This proposal to merge the two courts, I got the impression when I heard this from the minister, that he’s simplifying what is a very complex issue. And when you go through the list of items that you want addressed in a Royal Commission, and I’ve just gone through that in the introduction of the interview, you start to understand how complex it is. There are so many issues that need to be tackled. It’s not just about putting two courts together, is it?

Pauline Hanson:                  No, it’s not. It’s a start. And you’ll find that a lot of the judges are actually agreeing with it to streamline. And the barrister association are actually saying it does need streamlining. We need a one stop pathway for it to actually submit their paperwork to it. But it’s just not that. What they’re trying to do is get rid of the family law court. So there won’t be any more family judges after the last one finishes up at the age of 17, about 2038, ’39. So, therefore, they’re going to bring all of those family law court judges out of the Federal Circuit Court. The Federal Circuit Court judges don’t only handle family law. They handle all other aspects. A lot of the cases have to do with migration, plus other cases. So they’re not expertise in that area. I’m not taking away from judges. There are some that are. But their workloads. You’ll have some judges that will hear at least 10 cases an hour, just going through it.

Pauline Hanson:                  So, judges need to be alleviated, relieved of some of the mentions and some of the minor details that can be taken up by registrars. So they need to put more registrars on, open up the night court. See, we’ve got a backlog in the family law court of 3,000 cases, and under the Federal Circuit Court, 16,800 backlog cases.

Chris:                                         Wow.

Pauline Hanson:                  You’ve got 12 to 18 months before a case can come before the court system [crosstalk 00:06:15].

Chris:                                         And the longer those things go, Pauline, the more it damages the existing relationship between couples. And then the paradigm of children being caught in the middle of it all. And it just compounds the problem, doesn’t it?

Pauline Hanson:                  It does. And the big problem here also is child support. The child support agency has failed, and it’s not doing its job. And that’s the biggest problem that I hear from people as well. So that needs to be sorted out.

Chris:                                         You also say there are judges in the system with no experience of family law. How can that be?

Pauline Hanson:                  Look, they’ve got a touch of it but they’re not totally experienced. And that’s why they were saying in the evidence that’s been given, ’cause I’m now going around Australia. We’ve been to Perth, Adelaide, Sydney today, Brisbane tomorrow, Townsville on Friday, to hear submissions from people with regards to the family law court, and if this bill is going to work. The thing is that they’re worried about if we’re going to lose that experience. And they’re saying if you’re actually going to get rid of the family law courts, you’re going to lose those experiences. ‘Cause a lot of the barristers and solicitors will not go on to become judges in this area, because their work load is too heavy, too stressful. So we need to look at that. We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But we need to get it right if we’re going to make these changes. Now, they’re saying that streamlining is going to help. But, I’m concerned now, are we doing the right thing? So I’m going to proceed with it.

Pauline Hanson:                  I’ve also presented to the Prime Minister, and I said to him personally, “You’ve got to go for a Royal Commission into the family law.”

Chris:                                         What was his reaction?

Pauline Hanson:                  He said, “Let me think about it.” Now, I’ve taken other ideas to the government which they’ve taken up. My pension scheme, putting a pipeline for Townsville, defence contracts. I hope they listen to me with this one, because it’s a big issue, effects too many people. And as you said in your opening statement about my comments, at this time of the year, and on Father’s Day we have a lot of suicides with regards to men who are not seeing their children, to do with family law court matters. Please, and I beg people out there, if you know a father out there who doesn’t see his children, who’s depressed over this time of the year, please invite them to spend Christmas Day with you, because I’m very concerned. I don’t want to see another man, or a female, or a mother, who doesn’t see their children at this special time of the year.

Chris:                                         Do you think that the family law decisions more often than not are still weighted against the man?

Pauline Hanson:                  Yes.

Chris:                                         And this is what you’re getting from and gleaning from those who come to you to talk to you about family law?

Pauline Hanson:                  Yes. What is happening is that a lot of women are using these domestic violence orders against the men to help their cases. The fathers don’t get to see the children. The fathers have been fighting these DVO’s. There are actually a lot of them now, bringing false allegations of sexual abuse, which is untrue. The fathers are up against a lot.

Pauline Hanson:                  And of course the courts have to protect the women. And I understand that, because of the 72 women who have been murdered in this last year. But there’s also a lot more male suicides because of it. So it’s a huge, big problem.

Chris:                                         Don’t we need a process by which you can get two sides together in a room? A conciliation, negotiator process, which does happen from time to time, but not happen enough. Because legal practitioners tell me when I raise this subject on air, on my afternoon programme, they tell me time and time again that these are far more effective at getting down to the nub of the issues between the two sides both in terms of property and custody, and it makes a great deal of sense, and then you steer people away from having to fork out exorbitant legal fees.

Pauline Hanson:                  Correct. I’ve actually been working with different organisations that for the last couple of years has been in Parliament. I presented a plan to the Attorney General last week, and it’s basically this, where you actually work together on a [inaudible] mediation that you come to a decision. Now it can be on property and then it can actually do it in the parenting. So the parents actually have to come to an agreement. So the first one who puts the case forward, say they want to go through this process, the other has 30 days to respond to it before it then goes to the court. [crosstalk]

Chris:                                         And then you relieve the pressure on all those judges and courts, Pauline.

Pauline Hanson:                  That’s the answer. That’s the answer to it. And that’s what I’ve presented to the Attorney General. He’s having a look at it at the moment. So I’m trying to come up with ideas and ways that we can actually get it out of the court system. The actual cost of a trial in the family law is about $110,000. In the Federal Circuit Court it’s about $30,000. These are figures just today. You know that 25,000 cases that comes before the courts. The Western Australia has a totally different system, whereas the state government, the state has a say in the family law court, but the magistrate has unlimited powers. They don’t have that around the rest of the country. Everyone looks at the WA way of doing things as the ideal way of dealing with [crosstalk 00:11:20].

Chris:                                         So we could learn from that system, could we?

Pauline Hanson:                  Yes we can. And that’s why even other solicitors and judges around the country hold up the WA systems. And the judges come down with a decision, they have to, within three months. You’ll find that around the country, a lot of decisions are not handed down sometimes for a year, and at some cases even up to even four years.

Chris:                                         That’s frustrating.

Pauline Hanson:                  Exactly right. That’s why people are fed up with it. So I’m trying. These women out there. Please, being a divorced mum myself. The kids only have one mum, one dad. You may have your differences. You were once together. You’ve made the beautiful child. Please, in the interest of the child and each other, get together. Work out your differences. Allow the parents to see the children.

Chris:                                         Don’t use them to hurt your partner.

Pauline Hanson:                  As pawns, exactly right.

Chris:                                         Good luck. You’re on the right case, because as I said at the very beginning, the phones go hot on this subject. There is too much disfunction in the family law court system, and it’s got to change. Pauline, thank you very much for your time.

Pauline Hanson:                  [inaudible] People need power. People power. Get on the phone to the Prime Minister and tell him you want a Royal Commission.

Chris:                                         You want a Royal Commission, support her campaigning on that score. Good on you, Pauline. Thank you.

Pauline Hanson:                  Thanks, Chris. Bye.

Chris:                                         One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

6 replies
  1. Sonia M Frezza
    Sonia M Frezza says:

    I despise the mainstream political parties they are both as bad as each other &not one word that comes out of their lying mouths can be trusted I’m just going to cop the fine coz I’m not voting for either of them

    Reply
    • Marilyn
      Marilyn says:

      Pauline here is just 1 story from a dad and many more like….
      Ok, get this one, The ex gets to keep kids after me being the main carer for at least 7 years (opposite roles) I’m 70 she’s 40!
      She does studies while I care for children,gets a good job, comes home once or twice a week over 6 months, “resets house” from her new job, gets a new man (after about four in one week on dating sites), lands one with money, takes kids, cries abuse then goes for everything without having to prove anything and gets it, including MY 60 years of work etc etc , and that’s ok with the court? offered me 5 grand for my 60 years of work and asks for over $600,00 because she wants it!? That’s the family court system and how it works! They know I will fight and by the time lawyers judges and every other tom dick and harry gets their cut, there will be nothing left not even for her!
      I’m an old age pensioner now and with nothing to pay for legals and legal aid are f**** useless unless you have tits and a fanny and I have been turned down for legal aid so many times it’s not funny anymore and the ONE time I did get it, the lawyer was so bad that even he got kicked out by the judge.
      4 sons and a daughter I haven’t seen for months and that’s ok with the court system as well! (supposed to be in the children’s best interest) Even though she contravened orders, like taking kids and not returning them and not abiding by at least 10 other orders made by the Federal Circuit Court. (the judge who made the orders described them as “paltry” issues and dismissed the contravention (I thought orders were orders). To top it off the stupid orders for me were for me to access my children once a fortnight from 100 kilometres away with no transport and no means (old age pension) to get there and bring them back to my place (homeless) and also pay for food etc. Ex says I contravened orders and says I don’t care about children! System is broken and no one that’s in a position to change it cares a shit!
      Now I am just gonna walk away and move to some place I can afford to live like China or the Philippines At least I can take my pension there. There I might find someone who will love me as I am and not for what they can get out of me. (which is nothing now anyway)! Good luck guys!

      Reply
  2. Marilyn
    Marilyn says:

    New post on Dr. Craig Childress: Attachment Based “Parental Alienation” (AB-PA) The door of empathy… by Dr Craig Childress

    I’m going to share something very important from clinical psychology for all the targeted parents, but I’m going to do it off the record.

     

    The reason I want this off the record is because I do NOT want to imply in any way, shape, manner, or form that the targeted parent is doing anything to create the child’s attachment pathology.  Nope, nope, nope.

     

    Nor do I want to give targeted parents advice on how to get the child to love them, which would only expose the child more fully to their psychological brutalization from their narcissistic/(borderline) parent – we must first protect the child before we can ask the child to reveal authenticity.  The child is doing what the child must do to survive. 

    There is a reason for psychological defenses. We do not take away a defense until there is no need for the defense.  Right now, coping with the pathology of a narcissistic/(borderline) parent requires the child to say and do things.  This is deeply disturbing aspect of the pathology.  Deeply disturbing, and it rises to the level of a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of Child Psychological Abuse.

    This is a trauma pathogen.  Complex trauma is born in an absence of parental empathy, and it is solved through it’s antidote, the opposite, the application of abundant empathy for the child.

     

    When we ask others to understand our pain… that’s not empathy.  When we put our pain aside and seek to understand the child’s world… that’s empathy.

    But we’re afraid.

     

    Trauma pathology is also a world of fear.  Anxiety rules in trauma, and anxiety pulls us into our self-absorption of our own experience.  Anxiety captivates us and constricts our ability to flow outward into others, into empathy.  Anxiety motivates a self-focus, how do I keep myself safe?  Anxiety stops empathy. 

     

    Empathy is available when we are in a relaxed and calm state.  For a trauma mental health team that goes in after a major mass shooting or bombing, the trauma therapists have to be calm and composed.  We’re the ones bringing the empathy to the psychological treatment of trauma.  We need to be relaxed and composed, otherwise we lose the capacity for the very empathy that heals.

     

    It doesn’t help any of the victims of trauma if the mental health trauma team is running around flustered and overwhelmed.  In trauma, someone needs to remain grounded.

     

    In complex family conflict surrounding divorce (“parental alienation; AB-PA), we’re dealing with a trauma pathogen, the ripple of trauma through the generations.  Complex trauma (relationship-based trauma) is born in the absence of parental empathy for the child.

     

    The treatment of complex trauma is abundant authentic empathy for the child.

     

    Not empathy for the pathology.  The pathology is a delusion; a false trauma reenactment narrative being imposed on the child by the unresolved childhood attachment trauma of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  A false reality.

     

    Instead, treatment is a resonant empathy for the authentic child alive beneath the pathology.  An empathy that draws forth this authentic child, because we, through our empathy, we see the authentic child – and the child sees their own self-authenticity reflected in our empathy.

     

    What I want to share with targeted parents an important – extremely important – communication skill.  It’s the empathy skill.  It’s simple, oh so simple.  And it will be one of the hardest things you will ever do.

     

    Because you have buttons that can be pushed that will trigger your anxieties, and you will act from your (unconscious) anxieties and fears, and our anxieties and fears stops our empathy.

     

    “But, but, but…”  Wait, these are your anxieties.  See how early they come.  The mere mention of your buttons and anxieties and up they pop, “but, but, but…”  Wait, calm… listen.

     

    If you develop this empathy communication, magic opens up. I’m a clinical psychologist, it’s a healing magic.  It is one of the most magnificent communication skills you can possibly use.  I use it whenever I have the opportunity as a clinical psychologist, always with wonderful results.

     

    Are you ready? Okay, here it is.

     

    Don’t become defensive.

     

    Simple. Isn’t that simple? When something is said, don’t defend.

     

    “Well, what if…”

     

    I know.  I told you it would be one of the hardest things you will ever do.  Didn’t I tell you that?  And right out of the gate you start hitting me with “what if… and what if… and am I just supposed to accept it?…” anxiety.

     

    So I’ll wait.  When your anxiety is exhausted, we’ll move on.  No worries.  Anxiety starts us spinning, we don’t push past it, that just creates more anxiety and spinning.

     

    The antidote is the opposite. Anxiety is up-arousal, the opposite is down arousal.  Relax.  Allow.  Notice the anxiety, and just let it float on by.

     

    Ready?

     

    Why don’t we defend?  It’s important for you to understand the why.  That’s really important, because it will help you.  Knowing why, you’ll catch yourself defending and go, “dang,” and then you’ll relax and self-correct (that’s a Dorcy term; my psychology term is “self-regulate” – I like hers better; no worries, just self-correct and move on).

     

    When we defend we make the child absorb us, the child must understand us.  The empathy is flowing the wrong direction.  I don’t care what the content is, I’m talking the flow of empathy; which direction?  In severe family pathology like this, we shouldn’t put the burden of solution on the child.  That’s not what the child needs. The child needs empathy FROM us.  The child needs us to understand them.  But when we defend, we’re asking them to understand US.

     

    See?   Does that make sense about the direction for the flow of empathy, from the parent to the child?  

    So to help the child, to rescue the child from the quicksand, we stand on the bank and we extend a branch of understanding – of our empathy – and say, “Here, take this empathy and hold on, I’ll pull you out.”

     

    We don’t need the parent jumping into the quicksand with the lost and confused child, that’s not going to help.  Nor do we need the parent asking the child to understand the parent’s world, that’s like throwing the child a boulder and saying, “Here, grab hold of this rock” as they sink under its weight.

     

    Yeah, okay, you threw them something, but not something they can use to get out of the quicksand that they’re stuck in.

     

    We need a parent.  That other parent isn’t such a good parent.  With that parent, the child gets all twisted up and confused.  The child needs a parent to help the child get un-twisted and un-confused.  That’s you.

     

    How do you do that?  Off the record… Don’t respond defensively.

     

    The child says, “You’re a bad parent” and you say, “No I’m not” – ahhhh, see.  You’re defensive.  You just got defensive.

     

    “But what am I’m supposed to do? Am I supposed to agree with the child?”

    I know. That’s your anxiety again.  I told you, it’s really simple… and oh so hard.  We’ll wait while your anxiety clears.  It’ll spin you for a while, just relax, don’t fight against anxiety – that’s just adding more tense.  Anxiety goes away when we relax and accept, notice the experience, and let it go by.

     

    Dorcy calls it spinning.  I like that term too.  I call it anxiety or self-regulation in my psychology-speak.  I think she has better terms for this stuff; self-correct, spinning. They’re good ways of describing the process.

     

    So, have you calmed down from your anxiety and regained self-regulation?  Yuch, ugly word… Has the spinning stopped?  Okay.

     

    So you don’t want to defend.  The child is full of the other parent’s nonsense (Dorcy calls it garbage; again, a better term).  The child does NOT need you adding your stuff by asking the child to understand you and your world.  So do we have that clearly understood?  No defending.

     

    Anxiety all gone, ready to listen?

     

    So then how do we respond with empathy and without defending?

     

    Yay!  Woo hoo.  You’ve done it.  You’ve broken through to an amazing opportunity for solution… simply by asking the right question.

     

    There’s probably half a dozen ways to respond with empathy and without defending, but you will NEVER find them or use them unless you first ask the question… unless you want to know.

     

    Whew.  So we’re through the first important step – don’t defend, and have made it through your first round of anxiety (“but, but, but…”).  So if there’s six to eight things we can do, let me share a couple…

     

    First, the one I use most often is, “Tell me more about that.”

     

    Did I agree with what the child said?  No.  Did I defend?  No.  What did I do?  I cared about the child’s experience. I asked to learn more about the child.

     

    As I learn about the child, I am bringing something valuable to the child… it’s called the “eyes-of-the-other” – the eyes-of-the-other is like the lantern that old man in the tarot cards holds, or on that Led Zeppelin album, you know that guy?  The eyes-of-the-other is like bringing that lantern into the darkness of the child’s self-experience.

     

    Hmmm, I wonder what’s over here?  What’s this?  I’m learning about the child, and so is the child.  I’m not pushing, or going, or teaching, or doing anything at all.  I’m just following, curious.  I wonder, because I care.  What’s it like to be you?  I want to understand.

     

    That’s empathy.

     

    The child’s experience is all twisted up in some way.  What’s up with that?  I want to find out more.  That’s called caring and empathy for the child’s world.

     

    From the degree of the child’s emotionality, that must be a very painful place to live in, the child.  What is the pain, and what can we do about it?  Let’s find out.

     

    Oh, but then you know what’s going to happen if I ask the child to tell me more?  The child is going to say all this untrue and foul stuff.  I know.  That’s all the garbage from the other parent, isn’t it.  Boy oh boy, that must feel awful in the child to be holding onto all that garbage.

     

    I bet the child needs to get that garbage out of them.  But where can it go?… to you.

     

    Yep.  We need a parent.  The child is all full of this emotional garbage, and is all hurt and confused.  Yep, the child needs a parent to help sort this out.  And it’s not going to be the other parent, they’re the one that’s twisting up the child in the first place. It’s going to have to be you.

     

    So then, how do we respond to this next round of assault from the child, all that garbage that’s being spewed at you and into your home?  Well, we know one thing… non-defensive.  So how do we respond non-defensively and empathically to nonsense garbage?

     

    Well, sometimes no response is needed (another Dorcy construct that is wonderful; to disengage), and we allow the child to recognize the nonsense and self-correct.  No need to escalate the nonsense by us getting all wrapped up in it.

     

    Sometimes, allowing the self-correct is all that’s needed.  The garbage is out, you allow the child to self-correct, “You done?” “Yeah.”  Then you move on – you take the garbage out of the kid and you dispose of it.  Don’t you hold on to it too.  No, no, no.  That’s garbage from the other parent, take it outside and get rid of it.

     

    It was in the child.  The child gives it to you.  You take it from the child (through your empathy and caring) and now it’s out of the child.  Don’t escalate, don’t hold onto it yourself.  Allow the child to self-correct and then return to normal.

    But there’s more you can do that just no-response-necessary.  But the good stuff is changing your buttons.  Once we change your buttons, well… good stuff starts to happen.  Dorcy refers to this is as changing how you show up.  Nice words for the constructs… changing how you show up, you show up differently.  Interesting. 

     

    But this is where it’s going to get hard.  It’s not really, but it’s going to seem that way until you stop making it hard.  You thought non-defensive was hard… this buttons place is where all the trauma anxiety marbles are.

     

    So here it is… You need to not spin (not become dysregulated) in response to the trauma-triggers that the child is going to throw at you.  You’ve got buttons.  They’re not bad.  In any other situation, no worries whatsoever.  We all have our buttons.

     

    They come from our childhood experiences.  I call them micro-traumas; totally normal.  They form us psychologically.  They form our unconscious beliefs and expectations about ourselves and others.  They’re unconscious, so we don’t know about them.  But other people can see them.  And we project them all the time.  No worries, totally normal.  The problem is…

     

    Your ex- knows your buttons. 

    The narcissistic and borderline personality seeks vulnerability.  Your buttons make you vulnerable. See what Bruce Lee says.  He’s right.  You know he’s right.  He’s talking about your buttons.

     

    The other parent is implanting button-pushing pathology into your child, and sure enough, guess what happens – the child pushes your buttons and off you go, responding defensively instead of empathically.  Whenever you’re asking the child to understand you, you’re responding from the trauma-triggers, which keeps the garbage in the child.

     

    If you’re a clinical psychologist following along, notice the structure of the pathogen in the role-reversal relationship; a child being used to meet the needs of a parent.  On the one side is the child being used by the narcissistic/(borderline) parent (the pathogen), and this then sets up the other parent to SEEK the child’s nurture (the child’s love and affection); the child meeting the parent’s needs.  On both sides, the child is being asked to meet the emotional needs of the parent.  That’s the pathogen.

    Once you see that this is a trauma pathogen and it’s structure, every detail becomes crystal clear and the pathology is clearly evident.

     

    The solution is empathy for the child.

     

    We have to get the garbage out of the child and straighten out the twisty.  We need a parent to respond non-defensively and guide the child in the child’s self-awareness back into the child’s self-authenticity – NOT into understanding what the pathology is (the child already knows that), that just puts the child smack dab in the middle of the loyalty conflict and the child’s emotional suffering.  Don’t make the child “understand.”

     

    Help the child find self-awareness, and through self-awareness to find self-authenticity.  We need a parent.  We need a guide.  A calm and confident guide for the child’s emotional twisty.

     

    The other parent is not a good parent.  We need you to be a parent to the child.  I know the child is mean to you, and says untrue and hurtful things.  That’s all the garbage from the other parent, trapped in the child.

     

    In my therapy with normal everyday sorts of family conflicts, the child will sometimes tell the parent, “You’re not listening to me” and the parent says, “Yes I am.”

     

    I stop it right there and say, “No you’re not.”  If you had said, “Tell me more about that” you would be listening to the child and what the child just said would then actually be wrong.  You do listen to the child because you just demonstrated it.  Instead, what you said discounted what the child said as being untrue.

     

    This is important… we dispute the child NOT with our words, but through our actions, through what we do.  The child is wrong not because of what we say, but because of what we do.

     

    “I do, I do, I do, I say this, I say that…”  The anxiety again.  That’s the only thing that makes it difficult.  But it does and there’s no way around that.  Trauma solutions are always going to bring anxiety.  That’s just the way of it.  Once you learn anxiety release skills though, it becomes a whole lot easier to just allow and relax and stop spinning.

     

    Better?

     

    See, communication is not the words we say.  In the series: You don’t listen – Yes I do – that’s not listening… that’s disagreeing.  Listening is, “Tell me more about that.”  That’s listening.

     

    You’re a bad parent — No I’m not — Yes you are, you do x and y and z that’s bad — I don’t do those things, you’re exaggerating and making things up. — No, that’s what happened, and your a bad parent. — That’s not what happened, I’m not a bad parent, I love you. — You’re a liar, that’s so fake. — That’s not fake, I do love you…

     

    Do you hear any listening?  I don’t.

     

    So, for communication, we need some listening.  Who shall we ask to do that first? Somebody is going to have to start listening, who’s it going to be?  Shall we ask the child to listen to the parent, or the parent to listen to the child?

     

    Shall we ask that the child listen to the parent?  Is that where we should start?

     

    No.  We never start with the child.  Parents are bigger, stronger, and more mature, we need an adult, we need a parent, we start with having the parent understand the child.  I don’t care what the content is, we start with the parent giving empathy to the child.

     

    Is the child’s reality true?  No.  Do we agree with a false reality?  No.  So how do we disagree without becoming defensive?  Yay, wonderful question.  See how, as you relax your anxieties, you find really productive questions.

     

    We solve this with empathy.  What appears to be locked by the trauma pathology, is unlocked by empathy.  We don’t have to convince the child of anything.  We lead with a lamp into their own authenticity.  Awareness brought from our honest and sincere desire to understand the child’s world from the child’s experience.

     

    Do we agree with delusions?  No.  Do we know where they come from?  Yes.  Does the child need to know?  No.  The child simply needs to become re-anchored in reality.  So we need you in reality, not spinning in the trauma pathology of your ex- like the child is.  You’re ex- is trapped, the child is trapped.  Don’t you be trapped too.  We need someone who is grounded.

     

    First though, we have to ask the right questions that will lead us through the right door; the door of empathy for the child.  Then we have to get over the anxiety of our own stuff.  Anxiety is the remnant stuff of trauma world, the ripple of trauma.

     

    Next… and here’s where we arrive, we have to identify our own buttons so we can remove them, move them to a different location, disconnect their wires, whatever we have to do so that your ex- can’t find and push your buttons anymore (through the child; your ex is pushing your buttons by manipulating the child to do it).

     

    Yes, I entirely agree, your ex- is manipulating the child in awful ways.  Bad parent.  Stop it.  And… your the one with the buttons.  It’d be helpful if you hid those or got rid of them somehow so your ex- can’t find them all the time using the kid.  That we have buttons is normal, that your ex- is manipulating the child to push those buttons… it would be helpful if we altered those buttons so your ex- can’t do that anymore.  That will free you from the trauma pathogen, and then you can free the child.

    It doesn’t help the child in quicksand if you jump in too.  Then we just have two people in the quicksand.  Stand on solid ground and hold out your empathy for the child to grab on to.  Use the light from your empathy (your “eyes-of-the-other”) to help bring self-awareness into the discovery of self-authenticity.

    Remember, the child is doing what the child must do to survive with the narcissistic/(borderline) parent.  The child didn’t choose this parent.  You chose this parent for the child.  It’s not the child’s fault the child has to cope with this parent.  The child is in a difficult position having to cope with the pathology of their parent surrounding divorce.  Empathy for the child.  We must be able to protect the child before we can ask the child to reveal their self-authenticity.

     

    The kid’s not the kid, you know that.  That’s your ex- pushing your buttons.  Bad ex-, bad parent.  Stop it.  And… they’re your buttons.  If you can remove them, move them, or disconnect them then you can short-circuit the pathology.  Once you’re out of the loop of crazy; Yay, one’s free.  And you can then guide the child out of crazy.

    Let me be clear, none of this attachment pathology surrounding divorce is being caused by the targeted parent.  The targeted parent is a target of domestic violence – emotional spousal abuse using the child as a weapon.

     

    Furthermore, in weaponizing the child the allied parent is creating such severe psychopathology in the child that it rises to the level of a confirmed DSM-5 diagnosis of child psychological abuse (V995.5; p. 719).

     

    The family pathology in complex family conflict surrounding divorce is a cross-generational coalition of the child with a narcissistic-borderline parent who is using the child as a weapon against the other spouse-and-parent.  It is the responsibility of professional psychology to fully assess, accurately diagnose, and effectively treat this pathology

     

    It is a trauma pathology.  The trans-generational transmission of trauma.  The ripple of trauma across the generations.

    Complex trauma is created by the absence of parental empathy for the child.  It is solved by parental empathy for the child – not for the delusion – empathy for the child.

     

    Craig Childress, Psy.D.

    Clinical Psychologist, PSY 18857

    Dr Craig Childress | January 29, 2019 at 9:12 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p4JU8D-Fts

    Comment    See all comments

    Reply
  3. Bruce longmore
    Bruce longmore says:

    2 YRS IN THE FAMILY LAW COURTS ,WHAT A WASTE OF RESORCE,CORRUPT BI`AS BULLSHIT ,DESIGNED TO DRAIN AS MUCH MONEY FROM THE DISTRESSED AS IS POSSIBLE .2YR`S OF SOLICITORS WRITING LETTERS BACK AND FORTH,COUNTLESS ADJORNMENT`S ,FINAL HEARING ALL THROWN OUT.99% NEGOTIATED OUT IN THE FOYER,JUDGE THEN MAKES THE ORDERS.$80`000.00 LATER TO GET EVERY 2ND WEEKEND AND SOME HOLIDAY TIME,THEN THE COURT MUCKED UP THE ORDERS THROUGH A PATHETIC INDEPENDANT CHILDREN`S LAWYER WHO WAS INFORMED BY THE BARRISTER I SACKED ,TOOK OFFENCE TO BEING REFFERED TO AS A WASTE OF OXYGEN AND A LAZY BASTARD,THE JUDGE GOT HIM TO DRAFT THE ORDERS, HE OMITTED ALL HOLIDAY TIME FOR 12 MONTH`S UNDER CLAUSE “F” NOW WE GO BACK AT GREAT EXPENSE TO GET TRANSCRIPTS TO CLARIFY WHAT THE JUDGE SAID.AT MY EXPENSE.HE ALSO ALTERED ORDERS TO EXACT REVENGE ,HE WAS A LAZY BASTARD WHO WAS COURT APPOINTED AND DONE NOTHING THE WHOLE TIME FOR MY DAUGHTERS WELL BEING,THIS WHOLE EXPEIRIANCE HAS BEEN A MASSIVE DRAIN OF RESORSE`S FEATHERING THE BEDS OF SO CALLED LAW FIRMS AND REALISTICALLY THE GOVT BY WAY OF TAX TO THE OVERPRICED LAW FIRMS.I DON`T HAVE SOUR GRAPES BUT I HAVE A CRACKER OF A STORY WHEN THIS ENDS,SO WHEN IT COMES TO FAMILY LAW EXPECT TO BE ROBBED,TREATED AS A CRIMINAL,AND DEMEANED WITH NO CONSIDERATION TO THE CHILD`S WELL BEING.THERE MAY BE LAW BUT THERE IS NO JUSTICE.THIS IS THE ONLY INSTITUTION WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON,IF WE AS CITIZENS CANT GET JUSTICE THEN WHATS THE POINT? POLLY`S WANT VOTES FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS .WHAT IS THE POINT IF OUR BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ONLY IN IT FOR MONEY,THEY SAY THE 2 YR WAIT IS BECAUSE OF A BACK LOG ,THAT`S JUST BULLSHIT ,GET MORE JUDGES.THE 2 YR WAIT IS TO GENERATE REVENUE.SO MY SUGGESTION IS TO SMASH LEADERS SALARY`S SO THAT IS NOT THE ATTRACTION GET SOME PEOPLE IN THAT CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE AND WANT TO MAKE THE COUNTRY RICH NOT THEMSELVES MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT BOTH PARENTS HAVE EQUAL SHARED TIME AND ABOLISH SINGLE PARENT PENSION IF ONE PARENT DOES`NT WANT EQUAL TIME THEN THEY SHOULD PAY,IF THERE IS ABUSE THEN THEY SHOULD REALLY PAY, IN JAIL.ANY FALSE CLAIMS OF ABUSE THEN THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL.I HAVE HAD MY RANT,ILL GO NOW,

    Reply
  4. Rachael
    Rachael says:

    I just custody of my son all because my dad commited suicide. I have 2 jobs, have a house and did nothing wrong. There are many days I have thought about ending the pain but then my little boy wouldn’t have his mother.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *