WalesHome sulle avvocate femministe: “Abusi sull’infanzia sovvenzionati con fondi pubblici”

Un politico inglese denuncia come associazioni di femministe usano fondi pubblici per abusare di bambini.  La vicenda qui descritta ha devastato un bambino e corrisponde ai punti 1, 2 e 3 della tecnica pedo-criminale delle calunnie pedo-femministe:

  1. False accuse di violenza domestica e altro per impedire i liberi contatti fra i papà ed i figli;
  2. Plagio sui bambini per coinvolgerli nelle false accuse ed alienarli;
  3. Cadute le false accuse, aiutare le donne a violare le sentenze reiterando le calunnie;
  4. Negare che l’alienazione genitoriale è un abuso sull’infanzia e diffamare le vere associazioni a tutela dell’infanzia.

Il coraggioso politico inglese è finito nel mirino delle femministe, che non capiscono che è bene anche per loro stesse chiudere la associazioni che compiono abusi sull’infanzia, prima che le gente si faccia giustizia da sola.


‘Abbiamo sovvenzionato con fondi pubblici abusi sull’infanzia’

Siedo in una stanza pulita con una tazza di tè. Sui muri le foto di un bambino: i primi giorni dopo la nascita, gli anni da infante, il primo giorno di scuola.  Nell’ultima foto il bambino ha 8 anni. Il papà è triste, precocemente invecchiato “Ho perso mio figlio, devo accettarlo”.  Guarda nel vuoto, ma c’è solo un muro bianco.  Lentamente continua, mi guarda negli occhi “Ho provato di tutto.  Le sentenze vengono ignorate.  Ho finito i soldi, i miei risparmi sono a zero.  Vado in tribunale ed è così stressante.  Tutte le false accuse nuovamente ripetute.  Non ce la faccio più.  Tutto è a favore della donna.    L’unica consolazione è che mio figlio è di nuovo a scuola.  Vedrò da lontano come va, accettando che non lo vedrò fino alla maggiore età.  Saprà la verità e deciderà da solo.   Devo pensare ai piccoli qui ed alla mia seconda moglie.”

Ha preso la decisione coraggiosa di proteggere, amare ed accudire i figli del suo secondo matrimonio, e di difendere una relazione messa in difficoltà dal sistema misandrico.  Amerà sempre il suo primo figlio, ma da lontano, mentre la madre abusante riceve aiuto da associazioni  e soldi dallo stato.    L’industria della separazione è malata, persa nel culto della vittima.  Il benessere dei figli è secondario.

Non faremo nomi, ma tutti i dettagli sono veri.

8 anni fa è stato lasciato dalla moglie: annoiata dalla routine della vita familiare e dalla maternità, se ne è andata lasciando il marito ed il figlio, per darsi a bar, alcool e divertimenti.  Vedeva il figlio sporadicamente, lasciandolo al padre.  Il piccolo è cresciuto, ha iniziato ad andare a scuola, con ottimi risultati.  Nel frattempo la vita della madre era caotica, con alcool, droghe, promiscuità ed una lunga serie di relazioni sporadiche.   Nel frattempo il papà si innamorava di una donna conosciuta all’asilo e formavano una nuova famiglia.

All’improvviso, una telefonata dei servizi sociali.  Gli dissero che la madre aveva fatto contro di lui varie accuse di abusi, raccontando di aver subito violenza domestica anni prima, che aveva fatto del male al figlio.   Il papà ebbe difficoltà a capire, specialmente quando gli dissero che suo figlio non sarebbe tornato.  Era felice che i servizi investigassero.  Non aveva niente da nascondere.

Giorni dopo, però, la donna, supportata da una associazione femminista, aveva ottenuto la domiciliazione temporanea del figlio, mentre lui veniva condannato a vederlo solo in incontri protetti.

Vennero fatte nuove e nuove accuse. La onlus femminista scrisse ai servizi relazioni in cui il papà veniva descritto come mostro violento che aveva picchiato la madre, la aveva controllata e aveva fatto il bullo con il figlio.   La sorpresa orribile per il papà fu quando il figlio iniziò a ripetere queste accuse.  Fu accusato di aver minacciato di uccidere la donna ed il figlio.   La polizia lo arrestò ed interrogò.  Le accuse provenivano da entrambi, ma dopo aver sentito il piccolo la polizia riconobbe l’innocenza del padre.  Il figlio aveva cambiato la storia.  La donna non venne arrestata.

I risultati scolastici del bambino peggiorarono, la donna ignorò le sentenze che impedivano di cambiare scuola, ma non venne punita.

Il figlio ritrattò le accuse di abusi contro il papà, ma quando arrivò il momento di riprendere i contatti con il papà e di tornare a casa sua, la donna sparì con il figlio.  Si trasferì a 16 km di distanza, dove nuovi servizi presero in mano il caso.  La donna impedì al papà di vedere il figlio.  Dovette tornare in tribunale e affrontare nuove accuse.  Ogni volta la donna era supportata tramite gratuito patrocinio, finanziata con fondi pubblici, da un’altra avvocata femminista, esperta giocatrice del sistema.  [n.d.t., testo originale non chiaro riportato in calce].

I risultati scolastici del bambino crollarono, fu notato che arrivava a scuola sproco di pipì.  Ci furono episodi in cui sbatteva la testa contro un muro, dicendo che voleva morire, impiccarsi.  Tutto questo fu ufficialmente relazionato.

All’udienza per la domiciliazione, il papà sperava che il suo bambino sarebbe ritornato.  Il giudice aggiornò l’udienza ed andò in vacanza, emettendo la sentenza da lontano. La madre manteneva la residenza, ed il padre poteva vedere il figlio.  Il giudice era stato influenzato dalla onlus femminista.

Il papà non ha più visto suo figlio.  La sentenza venne violata e non c’è stata punizione per la donna.  […]  La donna ha poi accusato una insegnate di aver picchiato il figlio, accusa già caduta.  Io venni coinvolto quando la madre levò il figlio dalla scuola. […] Alla fine il ragazzo è tornato a scuola.

*   *   *

L’assemblea nazionale del Galles deve rapidamente intervenire su questo scandaloso abuso di denaro pubblico e sulla discriminazione di genere contro gli uomini. Dobbiamo urgentemente riparare alla discriminazione contro tutti i genitori che non risiedono con i loro figli.

È il momento che la gente abbia il coraggio di affrontare il fatto che abbiamo finanziato con soldi pubblici l’abuso sull’infanzia nel Galles e nel Regno Unito.

Sono consapevole di fare affermazioni forti.  È doloroso ed emotivamente dannoso impedire ad un bambino i contatti con un genitore che lo ama.  Molte onlus aiutano le madri a fare ciò.  In alcuni casi anche i padri compiono questi abusi disgustosi.   Invece di facilitare i contatti, le associazioni aiutano le madri a bloccare i contatti ed i bambini soffrono.   Aiutano anche a violare le sentenze.   Questo è uno scandalo e deve essere risolto.    I padri impiegano lungo tempo a riportare a casa i figli.  I bambini impiegano lungo tempo a superare il trauma.

In un altro caso, parlai con l’addetta di un altra associazione femminista.  Stava attivamente aiutando una madre a violare una sentenza — e ne era fiera.  Rifiutò di dirmi le sue qualifiche.  La sentenza aveva stabilito che riavere il papà era il miglior interesse del figlio.   […] L’associazione non rispetta la Carta dei Diritti dei Bambini delle Nazioni Unite.

La legge deve cambiare.   Finché avrò respiro in corpo, mi batterò per questo.

Neil McEvoy

Estratto e tradotto da http://waleshome.org/2010/07/we-have-publicly-funded-child-abuse-in-wales.  Testo originale completo:


WE HAVE PUBLICY-FUNDED CHILD ABUSE IN WALES

I AM SAT in a neat front room, holding a cup of tea. I glance around and see photos of a boy on the mantle piece and on two walls. The photos trace the early days after birth, toddling years, nursery and early school. In the last picture, the boy looks about eight-years-old. School certificates are placed prominently in neat frames, taking pride of place. The room is a shrine to this child. I turn and look into the man’s eyes and see a forlorn look, sad, with lines around the eyes and forehead; the signs of early ageing, caused by the anguish of a broken heart.
“I have lost him Neil, I have to accept that.”
He looks away into the distance, but there is no distance, just a blank wall. The man slowly continues, his eyes drop to the floor and then we again make eye contact.
“I’ve tried everything. My court orders are ignored. I have no money. My life savings have gone.”
In total, this man on a modest income has spent £16,000 trying to be a father to his son.
“I go to court and it’s so stressful. All the false allegations all over again. I’m drained, I can’t cope anymore. Everything is for the woman. My only comfort is that my son is back in school. I will just monitor his progress and accept that I won’t see him until he is 16. He will know the truth then and make up his own mind. I have to think of my kids here and my wife. If this carries on, my relationship will go down the pan as well. It’s so unfair.”
His voice peters out and he again looks into the distance.
“ Twelve months, I haven’t seen him for 12 months.” The sleepless nights are etched on his face.
His eyes close, his mouth closes, the skin around his lips tightens. His teeth bite together inside his mouth. He takes a deep breath and his eyes glaze over. In this moment, this man gives me his fight for his son. He is in the unenviable position of knowing he will lose everything if he does not step off the running machine of an emotional life zooming out of control. He takes the brave decision to protect, love and nurture the children from his second marriage and repair a relationship pushed to the edge by a vicious, misandrist system. He will always love his son, but from a distance, while the child-abusing mother receives help from third sector agencies and benefits from the state. The field of family conflict over children is a sick industry, driven by the cult of the victim. The child comes bottom of the list.
We will call the man John and use other made-up names, but all details are true. John split up from his first wife eight years ago. Bored by a routine family life and dissatisfied with the routine of motherhood, Sandra walked out, leaving John and their child. The bright lights of bars, booze and fun beckoned. Sandra saw her baby sporadically, leaving John as the primary carer. Baby Paul grew up and went to school. He was well turned out, with an excellent attendance rate. He was the apple of his dad’s eye. Mum’s life was chaotic, coloured with booze, drugs, promiscuity and a broken string of short-term relationships. The divorce came through and John worked hard to let his son know how loved he was.
When Paul was five, John met Katy at the school gates. They fell in love and he remarried. Sandra’s contact with her child was still unreliable and bitterness at John’s new-found happiness boiled to the surface, causing problems on occasions. As time went by Sandra wanted to see more of her son and John was happy to facilitate contact. It was eventually extended to overnight stays at weekends. He was glad that his son’s mother was taking an interest in her child. He also appreciated the down time alone with his wife.
With Dad, Paul read books and had a regular bedtime. He was a good lad in school. At mother’s, however, Paul enjoyed watching films, late television programmes, burgers and his Gameboy. He had no bedtime. The difference in parenting approaches became a cause of conflict. Mum was cool, Dad was boring. John was worried by what he was hearing from his son. He suspected his ex-wife was criticising him, portraying him in a bad light. He wasn’t sure what to do about this. Paul turned eight in the summer of 2008.
One Sunday afternoon, John received a call from social services. He was told that a number of allegations of abuse had been made against him by the mother. She claimed to have been a former victim of domestic abuse and alleged that John had harmed Paul. John had difficulty in absorbing the phone call, particularly when told that his son would not be returned. He can still recall him thumping heart in his chest and sick feeling in his stomach. When he put the phone down the a room spinning. He could hardly speak.
Paul was happy for social services to investigate. He had nothing to hide. He felt sure he would be cleared and reunited with his son. Within days, however, the mother, supported by a third sector women’s support group, had filed an ex parte application in court and she was granted temporary residence. John was not allowed to see Paul. John filed papers in court and was told that he could see his son in a contact centre.
More and more allegations were made. Reports were written by the third sector group and submitted to social services. The reports described John as a violent monster who had beaten his ex-wife, controlled her and had bullied his son. To John’s horror, he discovered that his son had made allegations of bullying and violence. Matters got worse when John was accused of threatening to kill his son and ex-wife. The police arrested him and questioned him. His son and ex-wife had both made the allegations.
After interviewing the boy, the police decided not to proceed and exonerated John. His son had changed his story. The mother was not arrested for wasting police time.
More and more fabrications were thrown at John. Mother moved to the other side of the city, but the judge ruled that Paul must remain in the same school. His attendance dropped and he moved anyway, in spite what the judge said. It was noted in reports that Paul was often tired in school. Mother blamed noisy neighbours who made their lives hell. There was no punishment for ignoring the judge.
The social services investigation took six months of emotional turmoil for Paul, and six months of hell for John and Katy.
Men who enter the field of family law are faced with a sometimes most awful thing: the status quo. After six months, the status quo was that Paul lived with mother. She was granted a residence order.
The city’s children’s services noted that Paul had no memories of the violent abuse of his mother, but she “helped him remember.” Paul had also withdrawn the allegations of abuse against his father. The conclusion was that the boy was making it up. Perversely, Dad’s opinion that Mother was poisoning his son’s mind was ignored. A female social worker concluded that Paul was making up these stories because he wanted to stay with his mother.
Soon after the residence and contact order was made, Sandra and Paul disappeared. Through diligent enquiries and chance, John discovered that they were in a neighbouring town, 10 miles from the city. The city’s social services department closed their files on Paul and it was up to a new children’s services department to look out for him.
Sandra would not let John see his son. He went back to court and faced more allegations. Each time he went to court, the mother, on legal aid, was accompanied by a support worker, funded by the public purse. Another third sector women’s support group buying a story from a skilled player of the system.
Paul’s attendance at school went through the floor. It was noted by staff that he arrived at school smelling of urine. There were disturbing incidents of Paul banging his head against a wall, saying that he deserved to die. He also spoke of hanging himself. All this was noted and he was placed on the child protection register. With Dad, Paul had always received glowing school reports.
On finally reaching another hearing on residence, John was confident that he would get his boy back. Perversely, the judge adjourned and went on holiday. He gave a ruling from away. Mother was to retain residency and Dad was to be given contact. The judge was swayed by the intervention of the third sector women’s support group.
John never got to see his son again. The order was again broken and there has been no punishment for the mother. She is still being supported and is said to be on medication. She was also warned by police for harassing neighbours. Another allegation, this time of a teacher hitting Paul was made and formally investigated. The allegation was found to have no substance.
I became involved in the case when the mother unilaterally withdrew Paul from school. With no qualifications, it is perfectly legal for a parent to do such a thing if they notify the local education authority in writing. There is no supervision of the kind of education that the child will receive. Education officials admit informally that the system is mad. Paul is still on the child protection register. Children’s services only acted in this case and began to include Dad after several strong written and verbal interventions from me. The particular authority, which I will not name, is an absolute disgrace. After the fuss we made, Paul was returned to school and Dad is monitoring progress without ever seeing his boy.
The National Assembly for Wales needs to quickly get a grip on this outrageous abuse of public money and basic gender discrimination against men. Discrimination against all parents who do not reside with their children also urgently needs to be addressed.
It is time that people had the courage to face the fact that we have publicly-funded child abuse in Wales and in the UK . I am aware that this is a strong statement to make. I made the same point in a Cardiff Council meeting on June 17 this year. Essentially, it is emotionally distressing and damaging for any child to be denied contact and a relationship with a loving parent. Many third sector groups all over Wales make it much easier for mothers to do this. In some cases men behave in this disgusting way, too. Instead of facilitating contact, the groups will support the mother in withdrawing contact and the child suffers. They also support those breaking court orders. This is a scandal and it must be challenged. It takes fathers a long time to get back into their children’s lives. It takes the children a lot longer to overcome the trauma.
The group that wrote that report on John and others verify nothing. There is no due diligence. There is no investigation or checking of what they are told. In my anecdotal experience of casework, fantasy is represented as fact and children are denied their right to a relationship with two loving parents.
In dealing with another case, I spoke to a support worker from a different third sector women’s support group. She was actively supporting a mother who was breaking her court order – indeed, she was brazenly proud of doing so. She refused to tell me what qualifications she had. The support worker could also not answer my question as to why she knew better than a CAFCASS officer and a court of law, which had ruled that it was in the child’s best interest to see his father. The organisation has no policy on breaking court orders. Nobody takes responsibility for publicly funded contempt of court. The organisation is not respecting the United Nations Children’s Rights Charter.
In Cardiff , the council is looking at this matter, questioning whether or not it is appropriate for the authority to fund organisations who behave in such a way. Other local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government needs to do the same, as should governments in England , Scotland and the north of Ireland .
The law must change. As long as I have a breath in my body, this is what I will campaign for.

 

 

 

Letto :3096
Questa voce è stata pubblicata in Dalla stampa. Contrassegna il permalink.