Hannah Summers

Hannah is, thus, inadvertently drawing women and the public down two PSC Crisis Rabbit Holes at once: the Parental Alienation [PA] and Court Appointee Rabbit Holes. The PA Rabbit Hole article explains how the concept of PA is not the problem and banning it is not the solution. The upcoming Court Appointee Rabbit Hole article will explain how court appointees are also not the problem and regulating them is not the solution.

Judges do not “believe” evaluators’ reports. They are not being misled by them. They are not stupid. They can see the evidence that supports the mother is not alienating and the father is abusive.

No, judges credit evaluators—or not, depending on what their report says. If it comports with the Family Court agenda, it’s used; if not, it’s not.

The mother’s case in Hannah’s article is a perfect example. A typical appointee did what she was supposed to do: blame the mother so the judge would have something to hang her/his hat on when switching custody to the father.

But, damn, the press got involved, so the judge chose not to credit it. The public would easily see through the journalist’s reporting that the evaluator was wrongly accusing a good mother of alienating while minimizing the father’s abuse.

Using “unregulated” appointees simply makes it easier for judges to find ones who will lie about mothers, as it is a bit harder to hold them accountable. But, even in countries where appointees must be regulated/qualified, it makes no difference. And, anyway, most jurisdictions have solved this problem by giving court appointees immunity. So they can say whatever they want, regardless of veracity.

Going down various rabbit holes diverts reporters from inculpating the real culprit: judges working within a system rigged to entitle fathers. No wonder the Old Boy Network [OBN] is allowing MSM to publish these stories. As long as they do not pinpoint what is really going on…