Western Society’s Family Court’s Illegal Psychological War and Familial Genocide On Religious And Ethical Parents Opposing Incestuous Child Sexualisation and exploitation.
The exploration of genocide: Philippe Sands, a professor of international law at University College London and author of the book, ‘Lawless World’, describes the basic difference between crimes against humanity and genocide as follows: “Crimes against humanity focuses on the killing of large numbers of individuals. The systematic, mass killing of a very large number of individuals will constitute a crime against humanity. Genocide has a different focus. Genocide focuses not on the killing of individuals, but on the destruction of groups”.
The environment surrounding sex: There is a great move to normalise sexual preferences and “diversity”, and to punish those who are discriminatory against someone’s sexual preference. Between consenting adults, this is their own choice and affairs.
But there is also a continuous push (I list one or two examples of many) to normalise incestuous sexual behaviour and peadophilia, for example:
“Dozens of peadophiles, rapists and violent sex offenders will be allowed to work with children after winning appeals”
An Australian judge has incurred the wrath of child protection and gay rights advocates after stating that incest and pedophilia may no longer be considered taboo – just as gay relationships are now more accepted than they were in the 1950s and 60s.
District Court Judge Garry Neilson was recorded as saying that sexual contact between adults and children or siblings may no longer be regarded by society as “unnatural” or “taboo.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/28/patricia-hewitt-age-of-consent The March 1976 NCCL press release said: “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over ten can be proved.”
The release relates to an NCCL report on sexual law reforms. In it, Hewitt also said: “The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished. It says, ‘In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent’.”
The German Authorities even published a booklet on how a parent should touch their children sexually, under the banner “education” of a child. For example: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/koerper-liebe-doktorspiele-von-der-leyen-stoppt-umstrittene-aufklaerungsbroschuere-a-497527.htmlA lecturer from the Institute for Sexual Education is shaken by the stop: “That may not be true,” she says. Finally, proponents of the pamphlet argue, one had an important goal when the book first appeared in 2001: The sexual development of infants and toddlers should no longer be tabooed. https://www.bzga.de/infomaterialien/sexualaufklaerung/?idx=2830 )
In the UK Children as young as SIX are to be given compulsory self-touching lessons that critics say are sexualising youngsters https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7490415/Children-young-SIX-given-compulsory-self-touching-lessons.html?fbclid=IwAR3yZOJsaoH4pPTE5GJdeIztBU7FOU0d6e8pw3bNWulvvrLUmM7QnFbSbosChildren as young as six are being taught about touching or ‘stimulating’ their own genitals as part of classes that will become compulsory in hundreds of primary schools.
Some parents believe the lessons – part of a controversial new sex and relationships teaching programme called All About Me – are ‘sexualising’ their young children.
Pedophilia Being Taught As “Sexual Orientation” in California Schools | Dr. Duke Pesta & Alex Newman [3:10]
Or a continuous push to condone pedophilia as a religious and personal “right”, for example:
http://smopo.ch/europaeischer-gerichtshof-spricht-geschlechtsverkehr-mit-kleinen-kindern-heilig/?fbclid=IwAR2ufOLHc5xo2g9xC-jHuR5LaPliluxPWWXRsLL20V9bTmYGxrrZvy87BP8 to a judgment of the European Court of Justice, a “saint” who had approached and had sex with a 9-year-old should not be called a “peadophile”.
With continued petitions to lower the age of consent and attempts to allow for peadophile political parties, for example:
A Dutch court rejected an attempt by anti-paedophile campaigners to ban the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD), which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and to legalize child pornography. “The freedom of expression, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association should be seen as the foundations of the democratic rule of law and the PNVD is also entitled to these freedoms,” the court in The Hague said in a statement. ;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_Freedom,_and_Diversity
Inquiry finds German Greens campaigned to legalise sex with children in the 1980s
An inquiry has found that the German Green party – currently third in the polls ahead of elections next month – favoured the legalisation of sexual relations between adults and children in their founding manifesto. The first report of the inquiry, published today, concluded that the Greens “set barely any boundaries on sexual relations between teachers, carers and their charges – or between adults and children”.
Here is an insight into the mindset of those who want “freedom” for incestuous child exploitation:
Virginia congressional candidate wants to make incest legal (2:33) Transcription:
Nathan Larson, an accountant and northern Virginia candidate running (did run) for congress. Nathan Larson claims he wants to restore liberty and make incest legal.
Interviewer: What about sexual relations with your own children?
Nathan Larson: I would favour, like, legalising incest.
Interviewer: Why is that?
Nathan Larson: Just because … uh… personal freedom.
Interviewer: What about the children’s rights?
Nathan Larson: Uh
Interviewer: Wouldn’t that be rape to have sex with a child?
Nathan Larson: Uh, well like, like with girls, I mean I just believe that it should be for fathers to make this decision.
Huffington Post reported:
As “Lysander” on suiped.org,- a forum for “suicidal pedophiles-,” Nathan Larson wrote numerous posts endorsing child rape and other forms of sexual abuse, saying:
“Why doesn’t every pedo just focus on making money so they can get a pedo-wife and then either impregnate her with some fucktoys or adopt some fucktoys?” he wrote on the platform in October. “That would accommodate both those who are and aren’t into incest. And of course, the adoption process lets you pick a boy or a girl.”
investigation by The Sun Online.
On Amazon’s American site, the news outlet found two infant onesies for sale with disgusting slogans. The black onesie read “Daddy’s little fuck toy” while the white one read “I just look illegal.” Both retailed for about $20 and were sized for babies up to 24 months old.
Similar tops were discovered on Amazon’s Canadian site, as well, sold by retailer VanBer who also sells offensive adult T-shirts, The Daily Mail reports. One of those was even emblazoned with “Daddy’s little slut.”
The items have since been removed.
Here is a clear example of the desired and absolute silence on criminal activity demanded in Family Courts, including all child abuse, or else torture is automatically ordained on the person who reports. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2164822/italys-proposed-new-divorce-law-would-turn-back-clock-50-years
19 September 2018, Italy’s government is pushing draft legislation that would revolutionise the country’s divorce laws, abolishing child support and taking custody away from parents who bad-mouth their exes or try to otherwise harm their relationships with their children. The idea behind the bill, which is supported by Italy’s governing coalition and has a good chance of becoming law, is to enforce what it describes as “perfect co-parenting.”
Analyses of how sex crimes are legally processed:
An adult sex crime is processed only criminally. But a parent-child incestuous crime is also “processed” in Western Society’s Family Courts. Most such cases accompany divorce proceedings – historic or instigated. Doing a comparison between reported adult rapes and reported incestuous child sexualisation; between adult criminal accusations and parent-child incest accusations, we uncover many irregularities. For example:
1. The General Advocate/Public prosecutor’s siting of “no evidence” in a sex crime:
1.1. Adult sex crime processed in a criminal accusation:
The normal situation surrounding a sex crime is, it is one person’s word against another. In most cases, “no evidence,” is sited at prosecution/general advocate level. Involving adults, an astonishingly small amount of reported rape complaints are prosecuted and charged, for example: (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/no-legal-system-isn-t-biased-against-men-it-allows-them-rape-near-impunity ) “In 2013, an overview of sexual offending conducted by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the ONS, and using Crime Survey data, concluded that although there were an estimated 60,000-95,000 victims of rape in a year, there were only 1,070 convictions. Based on the above figures, a person who is raped has between a 1.1 and 1.8 percent prospect of seeing their rapist convicted. Only between one in 56 and 91 rapists are convicted.” They dismiss most cases with “no evidence”.
1.2. Parent-child incest accusation processed criminally and in a Family court:
A report in Ireland on the handling of child sex abuse cases depicts the exact same pattern and statistics. https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_justice_and_equality/reports/2019/2019-10-24_report-on-reform-of-the-family-law-system_en.pdf?fbclid=IwAR08eSeC5ONPaHwvzCWMs1d4Lo02jxPUMOyHDloyXV_6MnPF04IgY2MNE3Y Page 74: “According to the Garda Inspectorate, for these cases there is a 4% prosecution rate, with less than 2% resulting in a criminal conviction. Less than 2%. Therefore, our criminal justice failure rate in reported child sexual violence is between 90% and 96%.” page 75: “The Inspectorate Report (December 2017) found that, in 44% of child sexual violence cases, the alleged perpetrator was a family member. When we look at different age cohorts within childhood which the RCNI did in our National Rape Crisis Statistics 2015, I can tell you that in 62% of all under 13s’ cases of child sexual violence, they were reported as perpetrated by family members. 62% involved incest.””The fact is our family courts are handling highly criminal matters of the most sensitive and urgent child protection nature in unknown numbers, without criminal authority, without the appropriate tools and in the absence of appropriate specialisation.68 RCNI would advocate strongly for a special family law court which addresses these concerns. Such a court was recommended in 1996 by the Law Reform Commission, and since then by the Child Rapporteur, the Child Care Law Reporting Project amongst others.” People, victims of this Family Court, and others have been complaining of the dangerous environment for children in Family Courts for decades. It is openly ignored.
The small, dependent, vulnerable, and manipulated sexually exploited child has a much lesser voice than an adult and even worse against a sexual exploiting parent. Not just in a criminal setting but also in a secret Family Court. Knowing the low conviction rate of sexual exploitation statistics, Western Societies sets no mandatory child protection investigative procedures while advertising: “Children’s welfare is important to us”. No investigative sex crime procedures are rationally increased for a vulnerable child’s protection or safety. Such as those mentioned here: http://www.isthislovebook.com/child-welfare-procedures-proposal-to-the-eu/ Because of this most child sex exploitation cases are, the same as adult cases, quickly and easily dismissed at prosecution level, similar to that of adults, with “no evidence”. In fact, Western Society’s Family Courts blatantly and regularly ignore/refuse/block rational investigations.
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA states: (26) Investigating offences and bringing charges in criminal proceedings should be facilitated, … To ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of the offences referred to in the Directive, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative.
When in fact all the child victim has for “initiating” an “investigation” in most cases is their “report or accusations”.
2. The legal interpretation of “no evidence”:
2.1. Adult rape in a criminal accusation:
In criminal law a “no evidence” rejection results in the case being dropped/closed, gauging prosecution/trial success. The “drop” interpreted as an automatic not guilty “verdict” without a court ruling.
2.2. Parent-child incest accusation in a Family court:
Western Society’s Family Court systems process a criminal/general advocate division’s “no evidence” rejection, automatically and with no rational or legal process, no rationally effective child protection investigations presented, into a “not guilty” verdict. As if a sufficient legal entity had “judged” over the parent-child incest exploitation case, – but no criminal court has rendered a verdict.
But regardless Western Society’s Family Courts proceed by taking the criminally reported incestuous case reported by a religious and ethical parent, opposing the incestuous exploitation of a child, and instantly changes it into a slander accusation against this opposing parent. This metamorphosis takes place without due process, but just on assumptions and gossip. Next, and just as quickly without a rational-legal process, this “accusation” transforms into “the opposing parent committed an ‘offence reporting sexual exploitation against another parent’”. Next Western Society’s Family court deems this “offence” worthy of the destruction of the parent who is opposing child sexualisation. Then the Family court renders a sentence on the opposing parent who the court deems needs coercion, punishment, and psychological torture. Summed up: The opposing parent had committed a “crime” when reporting what they heard their child disclose, according to Family Court – for believing their child, for believing that incestuous exploitation had taking place and for reporting it to the Authorities. The Family Court’s evidence level requirement for/in this entire process is zero. The Family Court has a host of workers and appointed experts standing by to minimise, negate, or ignore any evidence showing that such incestuous exploitation took place. If a child presents sexualised behaviour they dismiss it as normal. If a child testifies to incestuous abuse, they accuse an opposing parent of “coaching” the child. If only the parent officially reports having heard the child’s disclosures, but the child does not disclose at authorities then they label the opposing parent as “mentally ill”. The Family Court system, working on a balance of probability, has every possible dismissive excuse ready to vindictively justify the punishment of the outspoken parent and to cover-up all indications of incestuous child exploitation.
3. Life and living conditions resulting from reporting sex exploitations:
3.1. Adult rape in a criminal accusation:
The parties involved with an adult rape case have no further constraints judicially forced on them.
Except in the instance of a pregnancy resulting from rape. Where the Family Court’s once again stands up for the accused parent with the “sex intent” and will force a rape victim to co-parent with their convicted rapist who is frequently ordained co-parenting rights for “human rights” reasons of the rapist – not the child or the rape victim’s mental welfare/freedom/safety reasons. [For example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4009996/Rape-victim-impregnated-attack-14-forced-face-man-court-seven-years-later-wants-visitation-rights-child.html “A rape victim who was impregnated in the attack which took place when she was 14 is fighting to keep her attacker away from her daughter as he keeps the right to apply for visitation seven years later”; http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/rape-parental-rights/index.html “A rape survivor’s custody battle for her child, ‘I have to text my rapist’: says victim forced to parent with attacker”.]
But in no “no evidence” criminal adult rape case is the suspected sexually exploited victim court-ordered and forcibly made to live under the full control and dependency of their accused sexual exploiter. In no such case is the suspected victim being forced to abandon a parent or family members. Neither are the suspected sex victim’s family members court-ordered, coerced, tortured and forced to neglect, ignore, and abandon the suspected sex victim.
3.2. Parent-child incest accusation in a Family court:
Comparing this to Western Society’s Family Court system, they force the suspected child incest victim to live in the full custody of the accused parent. If that is what the accused parent asks from the court, which most do. The suspect victim is forced to abandon a parent and family members. Parents and family are coerced and forced to abandon the suspected victim. According to Western Society’s Family Court the religious and ethical opposing parent has automatically identified as a danger to the accused sexual abuser’s “relationship” with the suspected child incest victim for telling the child that sexual attention is wrong. This cannot be allowed. “Because a parent-child relationship needs to be protected,” is the feint justification these Family courts give for their protective behaviour of an accused sex offender. But in contradiction to their feint claim, behaviour and to point out the actual intent: At no time does these same authorities show care for the parent-child relationship of the religious and ethical parent who had identified themselves as opposing incestuous sexualisation of their child. On the contrary, the Family Court aims to destroy that parent and their parent-child relationship.
My motivation for approaching the International Criminal Court under the crime of genocide:
The religious and ethical parent had, regardless of the status of the child incest exploitation case, identified themselves to the Western Society’s Family court system as a parent who opposes the sexualisation of their child. The more publicly outspoken the opposing parent is, or the more opposition the opposing parent presents, then the greater the war declared on the opposing parent and the more psychological torture inflicted on them by the secret Family court system. The opposing parent will not be open to a brochure from Authorities in which parents are advised on how to sexualise their children, homosexually or heterosexually, for the child’s “sexual education”. The parent will not follow the “taboo” comment of a lecturer at a sex institute or a judge. The ethical and religious parent will instil morals, integrity, and chastity in their child.
Public/civilians who show opposition for the sexualisation of a child, the lowering of the age of consent and rejection of people who promote the sexualisation of children, are still maintaining civilisations norms. We do not classify their rejection and opposition as a crime worthy of their destruction. But note that judicial punishments for child sex crimes are gradually being lowered and less severe, with more and more criminal judges “judging” with a mindset that “no harm came to the sexually exploited child victim”.
But in the Western Society’s very secret Family Courts, the religious and ethical parent, who crosses the Family Court’s path, is treated horrifically. Ordained to be relentlessly and repeatedly attacked and punished (physically and psychologically) in every which way deemed satisfactory for their destruction and elimination. And their religious and ethical – “narrow-minded” -, influence over their children restricted and/or eliminated.
Psychological war and torture to destroy and cause mental harm to the opposing parent:
For achieving the elimination of the religious or ethical opposing parent, these authorities’ evidence void assumptions, subjective gossip, discrimination, personal conclusions, and justifications are many. I’ll quote general phrases used in secret Family Courts and would like you to pay attention to the double standards and the degradation and discrimination against the opposing parent:
To support the accused sex offender they say in Family Court that: “There is no evidence of child sexual exploitation and we cannot discriminate against a parent solely for something someone said. We cannot forcefully and unjustly inhumanely restrict their relationship with their children or remove them from their children’s lives! That is against their human rights!”
These same Family Courts begin a psychological war on the parent who had identified themselves as opposing sexualisation of children, with:
“We conclude (basically it is assumed) the child who spoke about being sexually exploited by a parent was coached by this (opposing) parent to say they were sexually exploited. It is vindictiveness and vexatiousness(slander/libel), motivated by a custody battle”. And/or: “We question (slander by insinuation) this child sex abuse reporting parent’s mental stability.” And/or: “We conclude (gossip/libel) that the child sex abuse reporting parent has lost touch with reality.” And/or: “We conclude that the child sex abuse reporting parent, believing and supporting that child sex abuse had taken place, cannot foster the ‘relationship’ between the accused and his/her children,” etc.
Analysis of the above retorts find no rational evidence, but solely something someone said. “What someone said” suddenly becomes enough to start a psychological and occasionally physical war against a religious and ethical parent. Utterly destroying their human rights, character, and their lives. Where this same Family Court system showed “sympathy” for convicted rapists and accused incestuous abusers’ human rights, they suddenly “justify” the torture and genocide of the parent opposing child sexualisation and the forceful captivity, called “full custody” of their child/ren.
Double standards in Western society
In public, these same countries’ authorities have departments which advertise that everyone has a responsibility to report child abuse. They use police officers to catch child sex exploiters, and if a parent who had known about the incestuous exploitation, but did not criminally report it, is discovered, these they throw these in jail for child endangerment, etc. But in secret, these same authorities’ Family Courts are attacking and destroying parents who oppose incestuous exploitation of children, parents who believed their children and reported a crime. Ruining their lives, torturing them and killing their relationships with their children. Many seeing their children under supervision for years on end or systematically worked out of their children’s lives. While these secret Family courts hand vulnerable children into the full control and captivity of suspected and even registered child sex offenders with allotted freedoms attached, repeating, “that parent’s human rights”. For example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8713203/Judges-weaken-rules-on-paedophiles.html?fbclid=IwAR1AGnv7HNFlVs2aS3KwhKRzYysny39TAgSbGmIZR6aLgNScnp30cA7gl-M
“Judges weaken rules on pedophiles. Pedophiles have won unsupervised access to their own children because it would breach their human rights to keep them apart, judges have ruled.”
What is not said in this above article is that if an opposing parent does not co-operate, stay publicly silent and allow their children to be perversely endangered/exposed to being incestuously sexualised. Then they will, without posing any direct danger to their children, be threatened, coerced, psychologically tortured and/or virtually killed off. The tool used to gain co-operation and submissiveness is time with the children. “If you do not co-operate, we will give full custody of the child to the peadophile,” is the Family Court’s general coercion tactic.
Historical cases proof that the stronger the opposing parent’s ethical or religious conviction on child sexualisation being wrong, the more outspoken in a public setting the opposing parent is, the more protective of the suspected child victim the apposing parent is, then the more severe the psychological warring and genocide the Family Court ordain for the ethical or religious parent. The opposing parent’s humanity is literally erased, and they are treated by the secret Family Court, without due legal process, as nothing more than an animal used for breeding. To be restrained in a virtual cage and killed out of their lives.
Training and education of Western Authorities’ Family Court workers regarding incestuous and perverse child sexualisation:
A Family Court revered psychologist Richard. A. Gardner’ s work regarding divorce and child custody has shaped these Western Societies’ Family Court’s psychological warring system on opposing, religious and ethical parents. Gardner referred to religious and ethical opposing parents as “narrow-minded”.
All of Gardner’s theories, from Gardner’s “Parental Alienation Syndrome” theory (which is the process, and the result, of psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards a parent and/or other family members – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation) , to practising “Treat therapy” (a concept of employing threats of terror/torture to coerce someone into doing or behaving as wanted), are embraced by Western Society’s Family Court system. For family court judges, children are tools and a parent’s time with their children is the psychological torture weapon of choice on opposing parents.
But in Family Courts Gardner’s theories are not practised on accused child sexual exploitative parents, convicted sexual offenders, a “pedowife”, abusers or murderers. These “theories” are practised on religious and ethical parents who oppose incestuous child sexual exploitation, have believed their children and attempt to support and protect their children’s integrity and childhoods.
Richard Gardner, with his sadistic threat theories, who in a masochistic manner stabbed himself to death, wrote many books including: (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. More on Richard Gardner’s morally deprived beliefs can be viewed here,http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html including his views that court workers and everyone involved (he was involved) are “turned on” and get their “jollies” on hearing details of a child being sexually used and exploited: In this book Gardner attempts to normalise pedophilia and calls incest an “ancient tradition” saying people’s “overreaction is what is causing harm to the children”. That pedophilia “is a natural form of human sexual behaviour”.
Secret Western Society’s Family Court judges eagerly embrace this “gentle” approach to lower civilisation’s values, corrupt morals, laws, and standards in favour of sexualisation and sexual exploitation at the cost of child victims, for example: https://nj1015.com/nj-courts-asked-to-remove-judge-who-said-girl-12-didnt-suffer-in-rape/?trackback=fbshare_mobile&fbclid=IwAR14lv3v5m0aFjbWth55LX4h4yQPZciWtBAKDzNC9o47xaC5AZ23K_BZlsA NEW BRUNSWICK — Five state senators have called for the investigation and removal of two Family Court judges, Marcia Silva and James Troiano who were criticised for downplaying the actions by accused teen rapists.
Hostages or prisoners of war
The prisoners of this psychological war, and at whom the perverse sexualisation and/or indoctrination are aimed at, are the children. Western society’s secret Family Courts legalise and camouflage the fact that child prisoners were forcefully taken by simply labelling it “full custody”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war – “Belligerents hold prisoners of war in their custody, for reasons such as isolating them from enemy combatants, demonstrating military victory, punishing them, exploiting them, or indoctrinating them into new political or religious beliefs.” These apply. Added to this, children (humans) are kept and treated as leverage or coercive bait by Western Society’s Family Courts.
Psychological Impact of Victims of War and Conflict as listed by the UN reporter Amrita Rathi:
– Causing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and leaves individuals emotionally traumatised, fearful and distressed.
– Disrupts lives, severs relationships and families
The countries which I could identify involved in this persecution and genocide of religious and ethical parents opposing sexualisation of children are (I list only the parents who I know something about and are outspoken, there are many more) I pray you will appreciate that the crime of genocide, the pattern of the crime and the magnitude of the crime can only be identified when the cases are combined :
Samantha’s two boys (at the ages of 3 and 7 years old) disclosed, also to authorities, of being drugged, sodomised and sex trafficked by a parent. Samantha would not allow visitations with the accused parent. Two years later the Family Court ordered the children be taken out of Samantha’s care after fabricating evidence or falsely accusing Samantha of “drugging her boys”. Samantha hid with her children to protect them. 100 police officers subsequently hunted them, while authorities reported in main media that she is a danger to her children and she should return her children to their normal environment. Samantha was arrested, and they placed the children into state care – not their normal environment. The children were later placed into the full custody of the accused incestuous parent, and they only allowed Samantha supervised visitation with her children. Until someone burned down the accused’s girlfriend’s house and a school. Samantha was again falsely and without evidence blamed in Family Court (someone else was found guilty in a criminal court) and sentenced to alienation from her children for life. She has not seen her children since December 2017.
In 2009 Anna’s daughter E disclosed sexual abuse by her parent at 5 years old. E and her brother R (not related to the accused) were placed into state care for approx. 10 months. Subsequently, Family Court gave the accused parent (and acquaintance) full custody of both children. Anna only got supervised visitations. Anna has been arrested, electronically tagged, and jailed many times for trying to have a normal, loving relationship with her children. Her son made a statement against her in a court hearing to have her jailed for dropping off presents at their residence. Her children are currently completely indoctrinated and alienated from her. Because of the psychological torture and her family relationships violently and unjustly severed, Anna is suffering depression, PTSD and is suicidal.
Victoria’s daughter R disclosed sexualisation by her father, David Tune at 3 1/2 years and continually up to 6 years old. The authorities made no effort to protect the child. Victoria, a successful professional racehorse trainer, was very outspoken in the public. Family Court accused her of unjust shaming behaviour of a father, coaching her daughter into disclosing sex abuse and banned from contact with her daughter. Family Court placed the child into the full custody of the accused. Victoria’s character was destroyed in the press and her career damaged. She felt she could not handle the unwarranted, unjust, vindictive slow psychological torture and alienation of supervised visitation with her child. After a chance meeting with her daughter at a petrol station, they sentenced her to jail for 3 years. The sentence was reduced somewhat on appeal. Petrified for her and her newborn daughter from the UK Family Courts and the child social services she has moved irrespectively to Ireland and also to France. In 2015 the accused incestuous abuser David Tune, a youth sports coach, was banned for life by the UK Athletics (UKA) after he on social media sexually harassed a young athlete he coached. Authorities suppressed this telling and exposing evidence and he was not criminally charged. Family Court and child social services approved of leaving Victoria’s daughter, then about age 13 years old, in the incestuous parent’s full custody. Victoria discovered the information a year ago. It has been 10 years and Victoria’s daughter has been completely indoctrinated and alienated from her, her stepsister and the rest of her family. For a reason unknown to Victoria, her daughter is irrationally petrified of her.
Kathrine B: In the city of Stavanger, in Norway, Kathrine’s daughter disclosed horrific (being drugged and raped) incestuous abuse from the ages of 2- 14 years old. Kathrine was falsely, and without substantiating evidence, accused of coaching and teaching her daughter. Kathrine demanded more child welfare investigations in the interest of her daughter’s safety, but authorities refused. Authorities also knew that the accused parent was domestically violent and aggressive and his daughter feared him, because of his behaviour. The Family Court, again without rational substance, blamed Kathrine, a victim herself, for her daughter’s fear of the abuser. Family Court gave the accused incestuous abuser full custody. At 9 1/2 years old, the daughter attempted to run to her mother for protection from the abuse. Kathrine took her to the hospital where the child disclosed horrific abuse. After this, the Family Court enlisted social services with 5 police officers to come and take her 9 1/2-year-old daughter and her younger daughter, then 16 months old, by force. The father of the 16-month-old daughter has been to prison and psychiatric hospitals for violence and drugs. In Family Court, the social service promoted him, over Kathrine with no such criminal and psychiatric record, as a better parent to raise a child than Kathrine. Family Court also gave him full custody. He eventually secretly gave the child back to the social services who is holding her captive. Kathrine has not seen her youngest daughter in 2 1/2 years and has visitation with her oldest.
Cagla Cömert: She, Turkish, married an Austrian when studying at the art academy in Vienna. He hit her into hospital when she was five months pregnant. Domestic violence continued. When her daughter was 2 years old, she fled the violence to Turkey. After 18 months, she was legally advised to return to Austria (with no other option back to her abuser), or face jail in Turkey. When her daughter was 5 years old, she went to a women’s shelter for protection. The next day Jugendamt (child social services) took her daughter into state care and threatened to have the child adopted if she does not agree to the child living with her domestic abuser. Cagla was homeless and slept near the premise her child was being held. Family Court subsequently placed the child in the domestic abuser’s full custody and Cagla allowed only supervised visitation. During supervised visitation, her daughter disclosed sexual abuse by her father, and the supervising person reported this. Family Court dismissed the report by the supervising person and Cagla’s signature was conned/faked on a document which denied the child’s sex exploitation disclosure. Family Court welcomed the fake document. Cagla’s visitation with her daughter was repeatedly canceled. She was asked to prove income or leave Austria. Cagla’s mother, fearing for her daughter’s welfare in Austria, went to fetch her to take her to Turkey. Where Cagla also dealt with domestic violence. Cagla was court-ordered telephonic contact with her daughter, which is simply ignored. Cagla has not had contact with her daughter in 18 months. Her physical and psychological torture is approved and her alienated daughter is in the full custody of the violent and accused incestuous parent. All condoned by the Family court in Austria. Cagla has been diagnosed with PTSD, she testifies that her life is ruined by the Austrian Family Court.
Several case examples can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EdlFLd-Nn3gunPgUke0pcgMR3XfmI7Ro/view?fbclid=IwAR3hikPHGouo6Y2ldu0o2lfrJbRLUmMCFCkY-G-AtBsC7G7Bno6Dz5oQtGA
Cassie W: For years Cassie’s twin daughters made frequent disclosures (also graphic) of sexual abuse by their father to thirteen different people namely :
a. Their mother b. Their maternal grandmother c. Family friend Patricia P d. Family friend Desiree T e. Psychologist Caroline S f. GP Dr.Rebecca M
g. Occupational therapist Lucy D h. Family friend Christine Y and the following independent supervisors ;
i. Lynette B j. Rhonda L k. Rae G l. Virginia H m. Hollie M
Department of Child Safety refused an assessment of the children by a specialist child psychiatrist. Family Court gave the accused incestuous parent 95% custody of the suspected child victims.The opposing mother was given supervised visitation. The children kept disclosing sexualisation in their living environment. Cassie was falsely accused of “coaching her daughters” and that her “obsession with child sex abuse have caused her children’s sexualised behaviour”. April 2014 Cassie took her children from school and ran away with them. They were found 4 years later. Cassie was arrested for kidnapping and jailed. Her parents in their 80’s, a Dr. Russel Pridgeon and Arthur Doubleday were arrested on charges of “operating a child-stealing ring”. This is a testimony by Dr. Pridgeon: “…Nearly 40 years of medicine have not provided me with greater grief and horror. My endeavours to protect abused children have resulted in the near-complete destruction of my life. These were not my children, yet I could not as a moral man, or as a doctor turn my back on them, and leave them to be abused. I protected them when the law utterly failed to protect them because I could do nothing else: I would have been ashamed to do less. I knew I was breaking the law, I also knew that if I did not help them they would be returned for ongoing rape.” Family Court did return the suspected victims to their accused incestuous parent.
Scotta Macdonald C: Scotta’s 8-year-old daughter disclosed incestuous exploitation. Scotta employed a play therapist for the child. The therapist’s evaluation was ignored by Family Court and they gave the accused incestuous parent full custody. They only allowed Scotta supervised visitations with her child.
Lori J: Lori’s 2 and a half-year-old girl disclosed sexual abuse to her. Implicating her father and his mother. “No evidence” was sited and further requests for investigations were refused. Child social services pursued Lori sending her for a psychiatric evaluation, which reported no psychiatric illness. They requested a second evaluation, which showed no psychiatric illness. They requested a third evaluation, which indicated delusional psychosis. Family Court, using the third evaluation, accused Lori of posing a danger of future emotional harm to her children, and full custody was given to the accused incestuous parent. At the age of 5, Lori’s daughter was molested by one of the accused parent’s female family members who was charged but never prosecuted. The accused incestuous parent indicated that he has no problem leaving the child in that family member’s care. Lori discovered a voice message in-which a friend of the accused is asking him, “somewhere I can go with a 13-year-old girl?” If the accused incestuous parent “had any requests or whatever?” A private investigator confirmed this friend did not have a 13-year-old girl as declared in the Family Court. They threw Lori in jail and forced her to sign a document, for dropping off winter boots for her children at their house. Which is where she overheard the recording a few months before having been given that freedom of movement on her supervised visitations? But since she has exposed the recording, her supervised visitation has stopped, and she has not seen her children since.
Sandra McDonald ( Married name Giebrecht):
Sandra’s 11-year-old daughter reported sexual abuse by her father to her school. He was arrested and charged, but not prosecuted. A spousal assault was also reported which he was not prosecuted for.
Family Court disregarded all the mother’s and daughter’s reports of abuse, falsely accused Sandra without evidence of parental alienation and being a danger to her daughter and 9-year-old son. Sandra ran with her children to protect them. She was arrested and jailed. The state took and held the children with re-unification therapy attempted. (I’m not sure what this therapy comprises. It is repeated to the child that they need to accept their abuse and the accused abuser. Or the abuse the child believed they experienced is repeatedly denied to the child.) Subsequently, Family Court gave full custody of both children to the incestuous parent. The daughter threatened suicide and was left in State care.
The Family Court sentencing for Sandra, who does not agree with incestuous child sexualisation and took drastic steps to protect her children, involved terminating Sandra’s parental rights completely and for life. Sandra has been psychologically tortured, jailed and financially depleted.
Molly Baker (Married name Green):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxRdvw0imWc – [2:06:34] Unlawful Seizure: Where Do You Turn When Everyone is in on it? Email: email@example.com
In January 2016, Molly’s 2- and 4-year-old girls revealed sexual abuse by their father. She believed her children and called on child protection authorities for help. They declared it in Family Court that Molly is to no longer be allowed to take care of her children. The children were placed in full custody of the accused incestuous parent. Molly is oppressed and ordered to only see her children 2 hours per week under paid supervision in a room with a sheriff present. Because of the financial burdens placed on her, she was forced to relocate to family in Iowa. She drives 7 hours every week to visit her children and to watch her children grow up in a room. She testifies that they make her life hell, hard and painful, a living nightmare.
“I lost custody of my sweet daughters 7 years ago. I have evidence of child abuse and neglect including doctors, teachers, the children’s lawyer and 3rd parties who had spoken to my children. My ex-husband even admitted to using death threats on us, assault and being inappropriate with a child. But the judge still sided with my ex-husband and ordered my children to live with my ex-husband. My daughters have fractures, bruises, a 2nd-degree burn as well as disclosures of abuse of all kinds – including sexual. His death threats on our lives still continue. I am court-ordered not to go to the media. Not to go to the police, Child and Family Services, teachers, schools, etc. I wrote a letter to the judge asking for his recusal and I even copied the letter to the Queen, Prime Minister Trudeau, other government officials, the media and other judges. The judge recused himself on December 18, 2017. But then he wrote a new court order against me on January 10, 2018! My ex even instructed his lawyer to write a letter to the Child and Family Services demanding that they shut down the abuse investigation. They complied. I was even told by Child and Family Services that I am emotionally destroying my children by reporting their abuse? My youngest daughter, 12-years-old, disclosed her father’s sexual abuse. She has had 42 urinary and bladder infections. My other daughter, who has special needs, is told she is ugly, fat and will never amount to anything because of it. My case is now at the Supreme Court of Canada and the United Nations. I will never give up getting my daughters back. I am working at becoming a children’s advocate.”
In 2010 Wendi’s daughter disclosed sexual abuse by her pastor father. Her son confirmed having witness some events. Child social services and Family Court fabricated evidence and accused Wendi of coaching her children to disclose sex abuse. In an effort to protect her children Wendi ran away with them for 3 weeks. On return her children were placed in full custody of the accused incestuous parent. Wendi was jailed and afterwards could only see her children under supervision. She was extremely outspoken in public. Wendi Miller was murdered in April 2019.
Tina Milo: Testimony of Tina Kufner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2UPDtplDc
Court documents of Tina Kufner
Geerte Frenken: In April 2014, Geerte’s daughter Jasmijn was 10 years old, she was brutally and unlawfully deported from The Netherlands to her father Dave H in Marin County, California despite expert evidence of abuse, molestation and neglect, ( despite expert evidence of child abuse, child molestation and severe neglect at the hands of the father Dave H, during their visitations, submitted to the Hague Court by State Youth Mental Health Clinic GGNet Jeugd ) despite the fact that Dave H admitted to the court that he had a severe drug addiction to heroin and cocaine and despite the fact that he had been diagnosed with narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders. Geerte also ran away with her daughter trying to protect her from the abuse, completely ignored/condoned by the Family Courts. On their return, a SWAT team stormed their vehicle and Jasmijn was violently removed and deported.
The Dutch District Attorney (Openbaar Ministerie) violated Geerte’s Constitutional Rights when detaining her without grounds to prevent her from stopping the deportation process through Summary Proceedings.
Jasmijn’s drug addict father, who unbeknownst had a frontal lobe tumour which caused severe psychiatric illnesses, with whom she had not lived since she was 1-year-old, held Jasmijn hostage at an undisclosed location in the USA, demanding money. Geerte frantically searched for help via the public. Geerte was given supervised Skype contact with her daughter, which was terminate on May 9th, 2015, breaking all court orders.
Geerte has been bankrupted trying to fight this in Marin County Superior Court, Judge Wood threatened her that if she were to pursue a custody trial, she would make sure Geerte would lose it and that she would never see Jasmijn again. Geerte has never seen Jasmijn again. Although the accused died, Geerte’s daughter has been completely alienated in 3 years. Geerte is told her daughter never wants to see her again.
The United States of America is outside your jurisdiction, but for the sake of further information on the pattern of the psychological war and genocide on parents opposing incestuous sexualisation of children , I’ll list these cases as well:
Jor-el Shophar: Jor-el had two children with his second wife, then a rehabilitated drug addict and prostitute, whom he met at his church. After divorce, his children started talking in a sexualised manner disclosing sexual abuse perpetrated on them while in their mother’s care. In-depth child welfare investigations were refused. Family Court gave the mother full custody and Jor-el was only allowed supervised visitation. About a year and two drug-related incidents later the children were eventually removed from the prostitute drug addict mother’s care and placed into state care. But Jor-el has not been allowed contact with his children in about 2 years. http://isthislovebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Father-reported….mp4
Lisa Knight: Case reference FD-07-4227. 2013 Oklahoma County, Oklahoma; Knight vs. Elizondo. The mother Lisa fought for sole custody after Elizondo was released from 6 years of prison for sexually abusing his 6-year-old daughter from another mother. He, a registered sex offender, would sleep, in his underwear, which he claimed was swimming attire, in the same bed with Lisa’s 6-year-old daughter. He also allowed her 19-year-old stepbrother to touch her inappropriately during unsupervised visits. The Family Court attacked Lisa for fearing the welfare of her child and not wanting to dangerously expose the daughter to her registered sex offender father. They fabricated evidence saying she coached her child. They discredited Lisa on frivolous points, also for allowing her daughter to sleep in her bed. They awarded Elizondo full custody and Lisa is seeing her daughter 3 times a year on holiday visitations. Later a long-term friend of Elizondo witnessed him sexually abusing his daughter and subsequently reported it to the police. They ignored it. Elizondo has been arrested 3 times for driving drunk under the influence, his daughter removed into state care and then returned a week or two after. Lisa is frantic with fear for her daughter’s life and development. Her anxiety causes her struggles to function and to sleep. The psychological torture is only remotely bearable when she is capable of telephonic communication with her child. Lisa has looked for help everywhere and can find no one prepared to help in protecting her child.
Her daughter was 2 weeks short of her 3rd birthday when she disclosed her father is sexually abusing her. The police asked Рутти if she had a video of the predator “doing it” to the child or his confession. They replied, “Oh you don’t, sorry can’t do anything, the CPS (Child Protection Services) will investigate”. Not a single person spoke to her daughter from the CPS or any other agency, but in their report, it is stated that she coached her child. Family Court gave the accused incestuous parent unsupervised visitation despite medical evidence of child sexual exploitation. The accused is also charged in Russia for sexually assaulting a minor. Рутти’s mother had a heart attack hearing her granddaughter is not being protected. Рутти, in the interest and welfare of her daughter, went to Russia to seek therapy and treatment for her child from a sexually transmitted disease and psychological trauma. Whilst thinking that the Family Court will eventually “discover their mistake” and protect her child, they did not. She had to leave her son from another father and at the time 11 years old, with his father in the USA. She had to leave everything behind, her house, car, pets, family pictures, etc. She had to build her life from scratch. To protect her daughter from an accused incestuous parent and Family Court, she suffers the loss of time with her son, whom the horribly unjust situation has also negatively impacted.
Maralee’s Story [8:22] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZpKSAbOWHU
End 2016 Dana’s 11-year-old twin daughters, who were incestuously exploited by their father during visitation at 5-years-old, were taken, placed for months in Alabama foster care and then placed in the full custody of their incestuous sporadic parent in New York. For the past 2 years, Dana has been charged with custodial interference but not allowed a trial. The Family Court also made other false criminal charges against her. Her children were then placed with the incestuous parent in New York. Dana testifies that she is living a nightmare. Her children have for 2 years reported being beaten, verbally abused, treated like slave workers, forced to shower with the door open and taken to a nude beach where attempts were made to get them to take their clothes off while repeatedly being told it is “normal”. Only after 2 years of the children repeatedly disclosing their abuse are they again in Foster care. Child Protection Services attempted reunification therapy with their abuser on the twins but failed. Family Court has allowed Dana virtually no physical contact or communication with her daughters apart from a handful of meetings. Knowing the danger her children face in New York she was forced to leave her life and family in Alabama for an insecure life in New York hotel rooms. While desperately pleading, working and advocating to save her children from sexualisation and abuse. Dana is a strong woman of Faith.
After years of fighting the endless battle with Family Courts trying to protect her daughter from an incestuous parent, feeling ignored, helpless her children left unprotected and exposed to incestuous sexualisation over and over. She fled with her 7-year-old daughter and 10 year old son to Canada seeking asylum. USA Authorities issued an APB, and they arrested her for child kidnapping although she had full custody of the children. There was an investigation open on the incestuous parent’s last and most vile sex attack on her daughter, which included a positive rape kit. They threw Laney in jail, her children were taken away. The incestuous parent has been arrested many times, including 3 counts of aggravated assault & battery, with the intent of using a deadly weapon. March 2012 Family Court gave the incestuous parent full custody, and he left the State/jurisdiction immediately with the children. Searching desperately for her children, her daughter, who was trafficked by Family Court, has become her life. Authorities kept the kidnapping charge against Laney open and only dropped it 6 years later in 2018. She has tried several times to get an immediate status and visitations with her daughter, to learn, that every attempt was pulled from the Family Court records, refusing her rights to a fair hearing. Laney testifies that her God-given right being her daughter’s mother, to protect her daughter, was unjustly taken away, and she was virtually killed off by Family Court.
Nashwa Ali Holt:
Holt vs. Holt Maryland Montgomery County, USA, family court, Judge Joan Ryon August 2018
An extraordinary amount of evidence from photographs, video, medical records, and witnesses supports the allegations of physical and sexual abuse…From ages 3-5 One son also had a bruised genital and described digital and penile penetration of his anus by his father to several individuals, including investigators. Family Court awarded sole custody to the incestuous parent and ordered the boys’ mother, a Harvard-trained anaesthesiologist, to only supervised visitation once every two weeks. Saying she cannot live in a world where she cannot protect her children the mother, Dr. Nashwa Ali Holt, 45, committed suicide on May 13,2019. (Her advocate was Jophiel Philips)
Seven years ago, end March 2012, my eldest boy (5 years old) said, “Daddy makes food from his penis and puts it in my mouth”. My middle boy (3 years old) said, “Daddy puts the food in my buttocks”. I reported this to the police. The Luxembourg Family Court, in co-operation with the children’s father ( he started his gas-lighting during our marriage already), started a psychological “gas-light” war of nerves against me since then. Intending to ensure I am rendered helpless to stop the perverse sexualisation and indoctrination of my children, to silence me, to harm me mentally, destroy me personally and to as good as “kill” me for my children.
One month after reporting child sex abuse my children and I were forcefully thrown out of each other’s lives, with no rights to each other, by the Youth/Family Court. To justify their forceful removal of my children distraction and feint tactics were used in the Luxembourg Youth/Family court: A collection of subjective, trivial, slandering opinions and gossip, of scaremongering and exaggerations in reports were all aimed for the destruction and defamation of my character. Behaviour which can be described as an innocent, harmless personal choice, or which was legally allowed for other citizens of Luxembourg, was ascribed to me as “criminal” behaviour. I was secretly “charged” with: Physical neglect (apparently I and one of my children smell and a 3-year-old child’s nose ran in-front of a childless social service worker): Medical neglect of children (for having healed my children and me months prior with doctor prescribed legally allowed, Luxembourg state medical aid covered, freely available homeopathic medication with no-one complaining or intervening) : Educational neglect (keeping children, 5,3 and 2 years old, one day out of school): Child endangerment (for allowing my children to climb trees); Other “charges” such as: “The mother sets no boundaries for her children” (this is for “a child nibbled his toe during an interview without his mother present”, and me allowing my children to take their pet hamster as a comfort and distraction to this police station). “Where might she take the €1 goldfish?” the Luxembourgish social service worker vexatiously wanted to know, while minimising, negating and ridiculing my fear for my children being perversely incestuously sexually exploited and abused, which she called the mother’s “delirium” and having “lost touch with reality”. This social service worker, a Maryse Hansen who cares for a €1 goldfish, reported progress in the psychological war to court as: “While the mother has the impression of not being supported by the authorities in protecting her children she is becoming more and more stressed.” I have subsequently realised that “causing and increasing stress” to the point of panic, is a crucial tactic in this psychological war.
For these listed “crimes” I am accused of in Family Court you will find no criminal record and no due legal process or rational evidence.
7 May 2012 Luxembourg Court gave full control (full custody) of my children (boys ages 5, 3 and 2 years old) to their father. A South African corporate pilot on private aircraft away from home 60% of the time. Who I discovered has been word-of-mouth advertising for 2 decades that he is “called a pedophile, who prefers little boys” and who filed for divorce 2 weeks after I reported to the police.
(My ex brought me into Luxembourg after our South African marriage in 2006 where he presented a false personality so that I would “like” him. With false promises he coerced me into managing the renovation and extension of his house, I gave birth to 3 children in 3 years and refused more while he insisted I keep on producing children. In a gradual process he gas-lighted, emotionally abused and tried to indoctrinate me throughout our marriage.)
After he got full custody, I was “ordered” to live in an apartment he owned above the residence of my children, with no rights to my children, no normal contact allowed, on the same property and with no income and no-where else to live. I could hear my children’s voices, crying and screaming in the building. I could see them from the window if they were outside. From the very first moment, I could literally feel myself being driven beyond psychological breaking point by this inhumane treatment. The feint court rumours used against me read that I am “violent, dangerous and severely mentally unstable”, (apparently suffering postnatal depression, major depression, lost touch with reality and in dire need of psychiatric medication) but again there was no evidence for this. However, evidence could be provoked and procured through mental and emotional torture. Hence I plugged my ears to minimise my children’s sounds to counter the effects of this Family Court ordained torture. Imagine the impact on my children.
A few months later I approached the South African High Court of Bloemfontein, seeking my children ‘s welfare (asking them in August 2012 to have my primarily Afrikaans-speaking children tested for sexualisation by a professional in their language) and reporting the manner I and my children were being treated in Luxembourg. It was immediately claimed that I am “charged” with Hague International kidnapping by Luxembourg. The Hague application form and the court claims were manipulations from Luxembourg and my ex’s legal team. But the upside is the judge found me (in a non-Hague court case) “innocent” of this bogus charge in his court order. But Luxembourg scared away and blocked a procedure to investigate my children’s welfare. South Africa Court refused to test the children and sent my children back to Luxembourg. Saying they cannot see why I would want to have my Afrikaans speaking small children, who are in the care of someone who advertises he is called a pedophile and who I’ve been told makes food from his penis for children, evaluated by an Afrikaans speaking professional. Because this is vindictive and vexatious. Lies and manipulation were rampantly used in court and the children’s father took the children out of the court and police’s jurisdiction into Botswana. Openly informing these authorities in my appeal that he and the children are out of their jurisdiction.
One year after having reported child molestation to police, the Family Court ordained visitation with my children. It had to be in a humiliating and degrading and frustrating manner, which is supervised at a section of Luxembourg’s criminal institution with them messing around with the court order. A place where social service workers repeated to me I am mentally unstable. These workers also repeatedly claimed that they fear for the welfare of my children from me. When Luxembourg authorities do not care at all for my children, never did and in 10 years wouldn’t even remember their names. But to rationalise this “fear” of Luxembourg Family Court and social service workers, which they have the freedom of feeling: In this psychological war, impressions are forced on me that I am not allowed to fear for my children’ welfare who are literally my flesh and blood. In fact, I am called “mentally unstable” and diagnosed with “delusional psychosis” for fearing for the welfare of my own children from perverse, incestuous sexualisation.
About one year after having reported child molestation, the Family Court ordered a 2-hour evaluation by a Luxembourgish speaking psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Gleis. The Family/Youth court had already ignored two other psychiatric reports comprising 8 hours of interviewing and 6 hour psychometric written tests showing PTSD and anxiety but NO psychiatric deviations. Family Court deemed these reports “insufficient”. Dr. Gleis, a native Luxembourgish-speaker, asked me repeatedly to speak slower and diagnosed me with “delusional psychosis”.
After Family Court got their “sufficient” and “mentally ill” report on me to support their court orders, they also ignored a subsequent psychiatric report on me by a Dr. Muller in which is stated that their “sufficient” report should be re-evaluated because of the existence of documents. Which counters the diagnosis of “delusional psychosis”.
Family Court does not order a psychiatric evaluation report on the “prefer little boys” person. There can be only one reason, they do not see “prefer little boys” as an unnatural deviation or a danger to children.
For survival, I adjusted to the abnormal living arrangements and utilised the situation as an opportunity to make myself visible daily to my children from my apartment window. The children’s carers called the police for me greeting my children, for strawberries I left for my children on the porch. I was video recorded by the carers of the children at every opportunity for years. They made false accusations that I had attacked the children’s nannies, while they were recording me, but oddly could not produce any recorded attacks. My ex and the court ordained the torture but now did not like my “contact” with my children. Social services wanted to know: “Why is it you cannot ignore your children?” My ex brought several emergency eviction court cases against me. Attempts were made to bargain with me, boiling down to wanting me to act towards my own children as if I don’t know them when I saw them. I was offered a 20min supervised telephone call per week for such an act. Up to that point, the phone was placed down on me after I had phoned and asked to speak to my children. Family Court had no problems with this.
While the Luxembourg Director of Immigrations was meeting refugees at the border with a smile and aimed at keeping families together, I receive a letter (not an order) stating that I do not qualify for a family permit any longer and have 30 days to leave Luxembourg or I will be removed with coercion. I ignored the letter because abandoning your children is a crime, which police even brought to my door to make sure I am notified of its existence.
As for legal representation, one after the other, my attorneys claimed they are helpless in defending and getting justice for me or my children. Their legal advice, actions, and their representation of me are barely minimal. With a resignation attitude and many excuses, they one after the other refuse to reproach the Luxembourgish Authorities and refuse to even put on record that I want custody of my children. “You have no rights” and “they have destroyed you” are what I listen to from them. My previous advocate even operated in favour and benefit of my ex-husband. English is also not their first language, which creates many problems with communication. I also found them to be proud and not saying, “I don’t understand, please repeat what you said.”
The court-appointed children’s advocate, a Deirdre Du Bois, a native English speaker, claims she is helpless in legally defending children. Because there is, in this technological day and age, no rational standards or measurements set for investigating children’s integrity and welfare in Western society, she claims to not see the obvious disinterest and neglect in investigating sexualisation of children. In Family Court, she liked to advocate that the children’s mother should leave the country of Luxembourg. After seeing naked pictures of my children on their father’s bed, she still did not act or seek the protection of the children. She only asked the Family Court to be removed as the children’s advocate.
Around March 2016, I found naked pictures on a toy camera where my eldest two children are posing in homo-sexualised positions on their father’s bed. I reported this to my advocate who acted shocked but did nothing. End 2016, having to circumvent my advocate, I reported that I found the pictures in a document to Family Court. Family Court dismissed everything I submitted. I could not get myself to spread horrible naked pictures of my children, considering the support many Luxembourg Authorities showed for the perverse child sexualisation. Eventually, I got the idea to sensor the pictures and made a police report with those in May 2018. I also discovered a recording that showed that the children’s father was at home during the photo taking and repeating. “Two penis-buttocks” to boys I estimate between the ages of 5 and 8 years old.
One and a half years later the “case” is “still open” at the General Advocate/Prosecutor level. Yet in my possession is the original camera which no investigator has requested to see in any “investigation”. While they leave my children on the “prefer little boys”, “pedophile”, “penis-buttocks” father’s bed. (They prefer to judge and persecute me by weight, my smell, how shocked I am, where my €1 goldfish might go and any other piece of shallow, soapy gossip they hear, etc.) The “penis- buttocks” father is openly discussing with Luxembourg’s Family Court on leaving Luxembourg’s jurisdiction permanently with the child sex media case “still open”. Take into considering that I have searched for help in three jurisdictions other than Luxembourg to be told the offence did not occur in their jurisdiction and legally they cannot get involved.
Since I reported child sex molestation by the children’s father, apart from being horrendously attacked, I got the distinct impression that I am dealing with a country who secretly supports and condones the incestuous perverse sexualisation of children when the opportunity arises. I perceived a laxness and a dismissive and diversion attitude regarding child sex abuse, which cannot be laziness or ignorance.
1) The police’s attitude: They interviewed only the eldest 5-year-old child via an uncertified “translator” in a conference room. He denied any abuse apparently and abnormally with his foot in his mouth. Mr. Weiss refused to interview the 3-year-old while blocking my requests for this with, “Where is the hamster?” (My ex used the same tactic to block me when I tried to speak by repeating, “Where is the teaspoon?”- for an entire day at a time, after having claimed I had lost his teaspoon.) Later a Mr. Gildinger ridiculed me, telling me to investigate myself and refused to accept a report of my children having also told me their father takes them to a place where others behave the same. (Luxembourg has a well-known sex orgy culture.) He also told me no child sex media is produced in the country of Luxembourg since he works in this department.
2) The Social Services and their attitude of: “Where is the hamsters and where might the €1 goldfish go?” With unwitnessed gossip manipulatively written in a court report i.e. starting the gossip with the words “in fact…”.
3) A Luxembourgish “child welfare” doctor refusing to medically examine the 3-year-old boy for sodomy saying he will not force a child to be medically examined? A Luxembourgish child psychologist refusing to evaluate small children for sexualisation, saying “they” only asked her to see if the 3-year-old boy with his tantrums and aggressive behaviour is autistic.
4) Then the Family Court appointed an “expert” psychiatrist, not fluent in English, but appointed to test an English-speaking person? He eagerly and quickly diagnosing me as “mentally unstable for fearing for my children from peadophilia”.
5) Social service workers at a supervisory institution repeatedly saying, “We don’t have to listen to your worry and fear for the welfare of your children, you are mentally unstable. We fear…”
6) A social service worker, Mr. Roland Mueller, from Luxembourg’s “Office National de l’enfance” (ONE) shows up after I reported child sex media saying to me I must “remember that I am mentally unstable and that my opinion counts for nothing because in Luxembourg those pictures are normal development, which I must allow.” This guy also added that the court had already dismissed these naked sex pictures of my children ( taken at about ages 5-8 years old) “as nothing”.
6) In December 2016, I did in writing declare in Family Court that I had found the pictures. I described the emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and sexualisation of my children. They dismissed everything. Saying, the father’s human rights to see evidence used against him in a court is more important than anything else. When Family Court dealt with me, they handed in a French report into court on the Friday 4/5/2012 and used it in court against me on a Monday morning 7/5/2012 without me seeing or knowing anything in it. Then “human rights” are void.
In the confines of the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Authorities, a foreign and isolated Christian mother opposing the perverse sexualisation of her children is an easy target for oppression, torture, and destruction.
Luxembourg Authorities have used the following war strategies and tactics:
Feint manoeuvres: Point at and accuse the mother. Divert and draw attention away from incestuous child exploitation and children being sexually indoctrinated and exploited.
Denial: Just deny, minimise/downplay, and ignore everything the mother reports and asks in relation to child protective/investigative procedures. That will destroy and block her attempts and ability to protect her children.
Psychological torture: Use the mother’s children and her and her children’s relationship and time in each other’s lives, as a torture tool and weapon.
War of attrition: Make allowance for continuous court actions against the mother, continuously report her for inconsequential issues to the police, for example, for strawberries she placed outside her front door for her children.
Exhaustion: Prolonged actions and systematic alienation of her children from her will gradually destroy the children’s relationship with the mother and wear her out. Also, eventually using the worn out, Stockholm/brainwashed children to make trivial and false claims against their mother in a court to harm her emotionally and physically.
Gas-lighting /psychological warfare: “A process where the aim is to sow doubt in a targeted individual of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perceptions, and sanity.” Attune to the children’s father, the Family Court, the social service workers repeatedly telling me I am declared a “delusional psychotic” in their country. That I should not remember what I’ve heard and seen and that I should not think, feel or have an opinion in my life. They do oppress a person to a point of constant confusion, self-doubt, hopelessness and low self-esteem.
I have constructed a video with evidence and information. The intent with this is to depict Luxembourg Family Court’s supporting role in the incestuous sexualisation of my children while treating me, the opposing parent, like a trafficked animal at every opportunity they achieve or swindle. It can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noM5Sh-fbWc (The video is currently on a private setting and not available for public viewing.)
Currently, my children are severely confused, indoctrinated and “Stockholmed”, performing purely in survival approach, meaning they will do anything to please/protect their abuser. They, similar to their father and the Luxembourg Authorities, will criticise, twist everything and tell you what their mother do/had done “wrong,” even while she was pregnant with them. I have recordings of my children, in the early days, telling me how they were beaten, slapped, etc. – also for speaking to me at the premise we all lived. Their carers told them it is naughty of me and them to speak to each other hence the beatings. They have also told me how they “suck” on each other while in the bath saying no one taught them.
My children do not speak at the police or to anyone else. They once attempted to speak to a child psychologist of an organisation called “Famille Plus” and told her of being beaten; the court ignored this. Family Court and the police rejected/ignored the recordings. At this point in time, my children need to be hypnotised or have regression therapy to expose the truth.
I can say that given the opportunity these Luxembourg authorities will not stop children from being abused, incestuously sexualised and sexually exploited and even order and ordain children’s captivity and indoctrination into such an environment.
They place me, the opposing parent who fears for her children’s lives and reports child sex violations, constrained and restricted with supervised visitation with my children for 4 hours a month and no telephonic contact. I am judged “crazy” for not liking “prefer little boys” and “penis-buttocks” behaviour with children. Their actions, (diverting, feinting, character assassination, isolating, restricting, refusing investigations, etc.), are not happenstance but done with intent. The arrangements are in place because the Luxembourg Authorities promotes and normalises this sexualisation and indoctrination for children. They did, and are, camouflaging with excuses whatever might expose and stop the agenda of incestuous child sexualisation, to ensure this can take place without intervention or opposition by systematically “killing” me, the “narrow-minded religious” parent, off.
There are many victims of Western Society’s Family Courts:
In secrecy, Western Countries’ Family/Youth Courts have been raging psychological war for decades against religious and ethical parents who have attempted to protect their children from parental sexual exploitation and indoctrination. These parents severely affected by the psychological war and their lives destroyed. With them and/or their children suffering long term PTSD, developing depression or committing suicide. Their relationships with their children disrupted, harmed or destroyed, purely for them upholding their ethical values and responsibilities to protect their children.
Many outspoken opposing parents seek help by speaking up publicly; they are gagged and threatened in the secret Family Courts. The more an opposing parent speaks up, the more Family Court practices coercion and reduces their time with their children. Opposing parents are also jailed for continuing to speak; these parents are ‘supposed to be silent’. They treat opposing parents (without rational evidence or justifications) as if they are dangerous criminals for dropping off a Christmas present or winter boots at their child’s house or greeting their child at a petrol station. That will get the opposing parent jailed for longer than a pedophile who had sexually exploited a young child. Many of these religious and ethical parents have been completely parentally alienated from their children and their children indoctrinated against them.
It is not uncommon for authorities to offer these opposing parents agreements to withdraw the police reports or court procedures (removing it off the record) regarding the incestuous sexualisation of their children and to never mention or prevent it again, in exchange for more or normal contact with their children. Occasionally the Family Court would continue toying with the fearful opposing parent, who has withdrawn incestuous reports because of coercion, calling the parent a liar and still orders the threatened psychological torture.
Many Youth/Family Court judges place a child in full custody of the accused parental child sex exploiter. Regardless of whether they are verified violent, drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitute, certified mentally ill or registered child sex offenders. Whether the opposing parent has listened to their child disclose in private and reported to authorities; whether their children disclosed at authorities; whether date rape drugs are found in the child’s system; whether the child has a sexually transmitted disease; whether there is medical evidence of abnormalities showing sexual interference; whether there is a positive rape kit; whether the parental perpetrator is on a sex offender registry, whether they positively identify the child in child sex media, etc. this has no bearing on Western Society’s Family Court.
When Family Court perceives an opportunity to ensure the perverse sexualisation of the next generation, they persecute the religious and ethical parent opposing child sexualisation. Because of the vindictive persecution, psychological torture, and the vexatious life and family extermination, many of these parents have lost complete faith in the justice system. They become paranoid, distrustful and skeptical.
Basically, all this opposing parent has done is to believe their child when they disclosed the sexual exploitation, has sought help and has tried to protect their child.
For this, Western Society’s Family Court system “handles” religious and ethical parents in a, “you are unworthy to be a human and a legitimate parent” manner.