I’m sure you’ve heard this phrase before. It’s a romantic way of describing the strength of the maternal instinct as illustrated in nature by lionesses, mother bears, wolves etc fending off aggressive mates or other threats to her offspring.
It’s an oft-quoted cliche used by people defending alienating behaviour as it:
- casts the allegedly protective mother in a heroic light
- automatically casts the father as the aggressor, not interested in nurturing but in procreation, perpetuation of his line at all costs
Now, just a little time spent on The Discovery Channel will undermine the myth underpinning these stereotypes in the natural world. But more importantly, a little time spent on social media understanding the true nature of parent alienation will quickly reinforce the fact that:
both fathers and mothers are equally capable of being excellent parents
both are capable of harming their own children if they fail to respect and honour the role both parents have to play in raising their children
The plague that is social alienation, however, is contrary to nature in so many ways, not least because it places children on the front line of conflict, the opposite of what a decent, protective parent would and should do.
It uses the children themselves as weapons to compensate for the weaknesses or shortcomings of the alienating parent, a person with a malign agenda to cut the other parent from their lives but who knows they can’t destroy them on their own.
Here’s an example that illustrates this point graphically:
A parent was forced to drive 300 miles on a non-stop round trip to collect his children from a pub car park, an arrangement forced upon him by the mother upon the advice of her lawyers.
The children were baby and toddler age, so any “safeguarding” claims fell on deaf ears because, had the claims any validity at all, the children would have been the first priority for social services and the court.
So this was basically a normal loving Dad collecting his kids under circumstances made increasingly difficult for him and the kids.
This arrangement continued for three long years, every other weekend. And every single pickup/dropoff included acrimony and abuse directed at the father, tired from the long drive through rush hour, after work, upset but elated at seeing the children.
So he plodded through the abuse, week after week.
When he didn’t give up, the abusing parent changed tack and started to unilaterally change the court-ordered arrangements. She chose to complicate the pickups by instructing him to “bring them back earlier” or to drive to alternative drop-off points.
She knew this would cause everyone but her stress, so she also started filming him as she turned up, usually late, with her latest “surprise”. There was no forewarning of the changes and she always sprang them on him in front of the children.
The children naturally wanted to attend both the events she was now promising on his time AND to be with their father. He was presented with impossible dilemma after dilemma and she was trying to provoke a reaction.
He tried issuing legal letters etc to get her to stop. But she always had an excuse or just ignored them and she wouldn’t correspond via email.
So eventually he decided to confront her.
The next time she presented him with an impossible ultimatum, he smiled to the children and said “don’t worry, we will sort this out”.
He then turned to his ex wife and quite calmly stated:
“This is the time we have spent a lot of money and time agreeing that the children will be with me. We have plans. I understand this is hard for you but I am not prepared to change the plans and you will have to give me more notice in future.”
He was assertive and logical but not aggressive.
What did she do?
The last thing a real parent would do.
She picked up the eldest child and held her in front of her father. Both children started crying as she screeched:
“Then you can explain to your daughter why her father won’t let her go to that party and you can do it now or you can’t take them.”
This incident was replayed to Cafcass when he eventually had to take their case back to court. They dismissed it proof of “high conflict and a desperate mother”. Yet it was clearly bullying as it was deliberately cultivated, so one sided and the children were literally placed in the middle by a particular party.
Now there will still be people who read this and make excuses for the behaviour like
“She must have been intimidated by him to have to resort to that”.
But it just doesn’t stack up. He was the one trekking for hundreds of miles. He was the one compromising and sacrificing. He was the one who had bothered to sort out the arrangements in black and white to minimise conflict and ensure planning. He was even the one turning the other cheek and changing his plans and suffering the indignity of collecting his beloved children from a car park. He was being filmed as well. If anyone was being intimidated, it was him.
There’s no doubt she felt “uncomfortable and distressed”. But not because she was scared of him. It’s because she couldn’t get her own way and he wouldn’t simply go away and let her do as she please with what she saw as “Her” children”. THAT is the crux of this.
But third parties only see what they want to see.
They bring prejudice and are exploited for it by the unscrupulous.
Alienators are not lions or lionesses protecting their cubs.
They are badly flawed individuals deliberately hurting them because they believe they own them, that they have a right to use them as they will.
That’s why this disease is child abuse.
That’s why it has to exposed and brought to an end.
If we don’t then we’re celebrating parents claiming to be protecting their children when in reality they’re deliberately harming them.
Think about that!