Protective Mothers and Institutional Abuse: A Systemic Crisis in Family Courts
Family courts are meant to protect the vulnerable, yet a troubling paradox persists: mothers who report abuse to safeguard their children often face institutional violence instead of support. These “protective mothers,” as they are often called, find themselves vilified as their efforts to shield their children are reframed and disregarded. Disturbingly, the very systems designed to ensure justice and safety frequently replicate or exacerbate the abuse they aim to combat.
—
An Endemic and Systemic Reality
In France alone, the statistics are staggering: nearly 160,000 children experience sexual violence annually, with 81% of these incidents occurring within their families, according to the Independent Commission on Incest and Sexual Violence Against Children (CIIVISE). Shockingly, 76% of related complaints are dismissed without further legal action. Protective mothers who attempt to report such crimes frequently encounter a judicial system that shuts them down.
Consider the case of Priscilla Majani, a mother convicted of “child abduction” while trying to shield her daughter from an allegedly abusive father. Her story exemplifies the no-win situation faced by many protective mothers: they must either comply with court orders they deem unsafe or risk legal repercussions for defying them.
—
A European Crisis: Systemic Failures Across Countries
This issue isn’t confined to France but spans much of Europe.
In Spain, similar patterns exist. Family courts continue to rely on the widely discredited “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) to cast doubt on allegations of abuse. This pseudo-scientific concept undermines mothers’ credibility, often forcing children to maintain contact with abusive fathers. Despite strong condemnation from the United Nations, PAS remains entrenched in the judicial system, perpetuating harm under the guise of co-parenting fairness.
In England, a 2021 investigation by Women’s Aid revealed that the concept of “contact at all costs” dominates child custody cases, even in situations involving proven domestic violence. Such decisions disregard the trauma experienced by children, prioritizing parental relationships over their safety. Similarly, Belgium has faced significant criticism for its use of PAS, which a study by the Ligue des Familles found to lack any scientific basis. The concept distracts from real abuse, often accusing protective mothers of manipulating their children against fathers.
The European Parliament has expressed serious concerns about these failures, emphasizing the need for courts to prioritize the safety of women and children. It has called for a ban on concepts like PAS, which obscure domestic violence and lead to harmful judicial outcomes.
—
Pseudo-Science and Judicial Misuse
The continued reliance on debunked theories like PAS exemplifies how family courts perpetuate injustice. Originating in the 1980s, PAS was introduced by Richard Gardner without any empirical support. It characterizes protective mothers’ actions as manipulative attempts to alienate their children from fathers, disregarding the context of abuse.
Another harmful concept, the “loyalty conflict” theory, similarly minimizes violence by focusing on the perceived dysfunctionality of the mother-child bond rather than the violence that necessitated protective behaviors. These pseudo-scientific notions pathologize protective mothers, portraying them as the source of familial discord. This results in unjust custody decisions, often leading to the separation of children from the very parent trying to protect them.
In France, these theories have even been incorporated into the national reference framework by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), granting them institutional legitimacy despite their lack of scientific validity. This systemic misuse not only undermines protective mothers but also exacerbates trauma for both them and their children.
—
Institutional Violence: A Mirror of Domestic Abuse
Institutional violence refers to the power wielded by systems through practices or policies that perpetuate harm. For protective mothers, this often manifests as institutional gaslighting—systematically questioning or trivializing their abuse claims. These dynamics echo the very power and control mechanisms found in domestic abuse, trapping victims within a cycle of oppression.
Judicial systems often give weight to unvalidated psychological theories, legitimizing harmful biases. Yet it is the government’s legal responsibility to ensure that only evidence-based theories influence decisions affecting fundamental rights. Victims of institutional violence should be encouraged to hold the state accountable for harm caused by the application of pseudo-scientific concepts in courtrooms.
—
A Form of Psychological Torture
The prolonged judicial battles faced by protective mothers align with the United Nations’ definition of torture under the Convention Against Torture. This includes acts intentionally inflicted to cause severe mental suffering. Mothers subjected to years of legal invalidation, gaslighting, and criminalization for trying to protect their children endure what amounts to psychological torture.
—
The Overwhelming Statistics and Continued Impunity
Although reports of sexual violence against minors have doubled between 2011 and 2021, conviction rates remain alarmingly low: just
Leave a Reply