Family Court Genocide Awareness
The Violent Practices of Family Courts Amount to an International Crisis of Genocide
Raphael Lemkin created the term genocide through a combination of the Ancient Greek génos, “sort, category,” and the Latin caedere, “to kill,” to “signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction [of groups], with the aim of annihilating the groups.” On January 3, 2023, I had written the newsletter below, likening the violence that is happening through Family Courts, all around the world, to a genocide targeting women and children survivors of domestic violence.
Reem Alsalem, the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, issued a human rights report entitled, “Custody, violence against women and violence against children,” and held a press conference on June 23, 2023, stating: “family court systems across the globe [are] placing women and children in situations of immense suffering and violence.” Previously, she had reported: “the failure to address intimate partner violence and violence against children … is a form of violence against women and their children and a violation of the human rights to life and security.”
The sheer number of deaths resulting from Family Court decisions amounts to a massacre: hundreds of children die by murder or suicide every year in the U.S. alone as a direct result, but the numbers are extreme underestimates because of the secrecy of Family Courts. And scores of women taking their own lives is not often conceptualized as “murder by the system.”
Yet, the increasingly organized, coordinated plans to eradicate not just a category of people but the very concept of “abuse”, warrant a designation no less than genocide. Just how this seamless objective is carried out through the concerted scheme of judges, guardians ad litem, court-appointed “experts”, and court-mandated “therapists” is illustrated in one specific case I have examined in detail, echoed in countless other, near-identical cases, and reflected in voluminous research data.
—
The United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as having both a mental and a physical element.
The mental element includes the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”
The physical element includes any of the following:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The mental element, the “intent to destroy,” is now difficult to disavow, as Family Courts across all 50 U.S. states and many countries of the world turn a blind eye to gruesome reports of murder and mayhem and refuse to reform. Whereas “women and children” are not specifically named, they are a distinct and definable “social group,” as much as nationality, ethnic identity, race, or religion. The social group may be defined as a subset of “women and children who contest abusive men in Family Court,” regardless of nationality, ethnic identity, race, or religion — and hence may qualify for refugee status outside of the country. The definition diverges further from material identity when considering that fathers who take on a caregiving role are also persecuted together with the children they try to protect. Hence, whereas children and women comprise the vast majority, “children and their protective parent in Family Courts” may be a more comprehensive definition. Eliminating the group, as is usually the case with genocide, is considered preferable (e.g., less complicated) than facing the actual social problem the group brings to light.
It is a group that is unable to avail itself of the protection of its country of habitual residence, since Family Courts preempt state and federal authorities through judicial immunity. Ironically, the nations with the strongest asylum laws are the least protective of this group, as the persecution occurs through corruption of the legal system itself.
The physical element requires satisfaction only of one of the five listed actions.
(a) “Killing members of the group” certainly applies, if we consider the children who die by murder or suicide because of Family Courts imprisoning them with their torturers, rapists, and murderers for financial gain. These children are stripped of their own healthy, natural resistance, since court orders will silence their voices, send back runaways, and incarcerate adults who try to protect them.
(b) “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” applies, as above, with tens of thousands of victims per year in the U.S. alone. For every child murder, there are many more suicides and hundreds more injuries, a large portion of which will be lifelong.
(c) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” applies, since physical assets are seized, alimony withheld, and child support extorted, not to mention legal and court fees, while “debtors’ prisons” are reinstituted and exceptions to bankruptcy protections made, so that the protective parent is incarcerated or otherwise faces ruin. Mental pain and suffering often irreparably harms children, who have lifelong debilitation and a life expectancy that is reduced by decades.
(d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” may be an unintended consequence but considerable nonetheless. Preventing births will not occur entirely, since the persecuting group needs women and children to procreate, but new births may be taken away. In addition, those who have been exposed to Family Court violence may be traumatized to the point of being incapable of forming families again, having a de facto effect of reduced births.
(e) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” is the foremost goal of this well-orchestrated genocide. Children are forcibly transferred from protective parents to abusive parents. In a vast majority of cases, this means from mothers to fathers, or from nurturance to exploitation. Often facilitating this forcible transfer is a predatory reeducation campaign (“reunification therapy”) that coerces children into accepting their abuse and submitting to their abusers.
This genocide is perpetrated not only by Family Courts but by the State that refuses to protect victims, by the judiciary that protects its own, by child protective services that has much to gain from complicity, and by the law enforcement that refuses to act independently. It happens alongside a massive reprogramming campaign that legalizes and “normalizes” kidnapping, torture, and thought reform through abuses of judicial authority. Much like other forms of child trafficking, it inculcates acceptance of systemic human rights violations and transforms children who “survive” into the next generation of perpetrators. Having started in the United States with the admission of spurious claims of “parental alienation” (coined by pedophile sympathizer Richard Gardner as a legal “buzz phrase” for domestic violence denial), every region of North America, and increasingly the rest of the world, is affected.
The global nature of this genocide and the increasing ways by which Family Courts are becoming an organized mechanism for extreme violence, as perpetrators weaponize them to hide from accountability and to eradicate a distinct social group, point to an evolving definition of the term “genocide” itself. Genocidal perpetrators infiltrate the legal system as litigants, “officers of the court,” judges, and ancillary court-appointed “experts”. Once they take their place in the apparatus, the brutal abduction, warehousing, trafficking, and murder of children coalesce into an extremely lucrative trade for the Family Courts.
